If permitted.....
The only claim I make about this Tar Baby of mine is that it performs just like the NERD device in all significant respects.
(RA has repeatedly denied that I am replicating her circuit. So fine... this Tar Baby is all mine, even though it is eerily similar to hers.)
Much discussion has proceeded elsewhere and I've made a few videos detailing my present work, and there will be more to come. This is the most recent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY)
I'll be happy to take constructive criticism and suggestions. Ranters and ad hominem abusers need not bother to post, because I am the master of BIPS.
A proposal for consideration:
I don't know if this will work and I don't have the components on hand to try it out. But I'm thinking that an optoisolator might work to isolate the FG's current path from the system, with minimum extra additions to the main circuit.
Here's what I'm thinking of, and I'd appreciate advice on whether or not it would even work, and also what effect it might have on oscillations.... and of course, inadvertent battery charging by the function generator. Well, at least it seems clear that it would eliminate that latter possibility.
Can anyone tell me the amp-hour capacity of a Raylite 669P 12 Volt silver-calcium battery? I can't figure it out in the units they are using on the manufacturer's web site -- such as it is -- , but the best outside source I've read so far puts it at 50 A-H. Other, less reliable information has it at 40 A-H. This is a significant difference, and I don't know which one, if any, is correct.
I'd really like to get the exact figure.
Mosfets.... how do _they_ work ? ? ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU)
(Be patient towards the end... it takes me a minute to coax them, but the oscillations do come out to play....)
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 05:11:53 PM
(snip) Ranters and ad hominem abusers need not bother to post, because I am the master of BIPS.
And nobody, out of over 100 page views already, deigns to comment at all? Are they _all_ ranters and abusers?
Ok... carrying on, then.
(Heh.. .just giving an example of an abusive rant. Pay no attention to the man... the very short man with the toothbrush moustaches---- behind the curtain. )
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 05:28:19 PM
A proposal for consideration:
I don't know if this will work and I don't have the components on hand to try it out. But I'm thinking that an optoisolator might work to isolate the FG's current path from the system, with minimum extra additions to the main circuit.
Here's what I'm thinking of, and I'd appreciate advice on whether or not it would even work, and also what effect it might have on oscillations.... and of course, inadvertent battery charging by the function generator. Well, at least it seems clear that it would eliminate that latter possibility.
I can't see one good reason why the opto-couplers wouldn't work. The only thing that might be a negative issue is dependent on the signal frequency. The rise time response of the opto couplers may be a little slow and introduce slur if your input signal is in the megahertz range. Other than that, I don't see any great issues.
If you want to retain the possibiltiy of parasitic oscillations arising, then the circuit as shown might still allow that to happen. If however you only want a faithful reproduction of the input signal to your mosfets, I'd be inclined to connect a resistor anywhere in the range value of 150 k to 1 meg between the gates of the Mosfets and ground. This will help to damp floating voltages, and help prevent stray capacitance from interfering with the operation of the Mosfets, and also from interfering with the true input signal.
Cheers
Thanks, hoptoad. I think you are realizing what I want to do. I am trying to remove the FG's current path and power source from the switched power circuit in the TarBaby device. Whatever method I eventually use it must preserve the oscillations in the full 5-mosfet design. As soon as the stores open tomorrow I'll pick up a few optocouplers, plain and triac kind, to see what happens next. The required switch rate is absurdly slow.
The subject matter of the previous video, mosfet switching, seems so basic to you and me that we don't even think about it. However some other people working with similar circuits...you know who I mean, probably.... missed out on so many basics that they _can't_ even think about it. Believe me, years ago I spent weeks trying to convince...err... on..... somebody else that mosfets switched like this.
And now it's deja vu all over again.
So.... as demonstrated, the oscillations in the mosfet switch demo circuit come out to 9 cycles in 9 major divisions of the scope's screen. The timebase is set to 0.2 microseconds PER major division. How do we determine the frequency from this data?
ANSWER: since frequency is measured in Cycles PER second, or Hertz.... and we have counted 9 Cycles PER 1.8 microseconds, what is the frequency?
We perform the operation 9 cycles DIVIDED BY 1.8 microseconds. Notice the units: the answer, whatever it is numerically, will have the "dimensions" or "units" of.... CYCLES PER SECOND. So let us calculate: 9 / 0.0000018 == 5 000 000 Cycles PER second, or 5 MegaHertz, to within rough reading accuracy. Actually it's a bit higher since there were a bit over 9 cycles in the 9 major divisions.
The version of the Tar Baby that I'm working with here uses IRF830a mosfets in all 5 positions. The circuit that the Tar Baby is modeled after, the NERD device, uses the IRFPG50 mosfet, and it seems to be the claim of the NERD RATS that this part is critical to the "effect" they are talking and talking and talking about demonstrating. So I thought it might be interesting to compare some electrical parameters of the two power Hexfet, avalanche-rated mosfets.
The first thing one notices is that the PG50 is in the TO-247 package, an awe-inspiring slab of black plastic with beefy leads. The 830a is in the standard TO-220 case which looks tiny by comparison, and its leads are smaller and have the standard 0.100 inch spacing, so they fit nicely into breadboards and dip sockets and headers.
The most critical parameters for most uses are listed at the top of the first page of the data sheets.
Further parameters of interest are the various capacitances and avalanche energies, transconductances, and so on.
I've attached the data sheets. To my eye, if one does not absolutely need the 1000 volt standoff capacity of the PG50, one might be better off simply using the 830a, since they are somewhat cheaper, smaller, and seem to perform similarly at low power settings. In fact the 830 has lower Rds and better transconductance and will dissipate less power at the mosfet itself at power levels within its range.
In other words, it should run cooler than the NERD mosfets at similar power.
Hi TK:
You had a question about the capacitor test with respect to the capacitor size.
When I originally crunched the numbers I think the power dissipation in the other circuit was quoted as being about 30 watts. I am now suspecting that was quite high. I played with the number crunching and quickly realized with a single 25,000 uF capacitor it would drain very quickly assuming 30 watts being dissipated in the load resistor. I also now realize that I wasn't even factoring in the fact that the total power dissipation would include the MOSFETs themselves and the 50-ohm resistor inside the function generator.
The bottom line is that I quadrupled the capacitance to 100,000 uF and crunched the numbers again and realized that they would still drain very quickly. This is a real concern because if you let the caps drain to zero volts then they will continue past that and start to reverse-voltage. Using polarized electrolytics this would be very very bad as you well know.
The simple crunching I did was to estimate the power dissipation. Then calculate the energy loss in the 100,000 uF cap from 12 volts to about 6 volts (I think). So then I could make an estimate how long that voltage drop would take based on the energy burn rate. You have to keep in mind that the energy burn rate is not going to slow down because you are really talking about a voltage drop from 60 volts to 54 volts. I had to base it on a 6-volt drop so the circuit could run for about 10 seconds. I would have preferred something like a one-volt drop only but then the time got too short. Again, assuming 30 watts power dissipation, you have to work around that if you only have a 100,000 uF cap.
So I would recommend that you make your biggest cap possible, and scope the voltage across the cap array when you switch on the circuit. If it drops like a stone then disconnect right away so that you don't reverse-voltage the cap array.
If the total dissipation is more like a few watts as opposed to 30 watts then you should see a gentle voltage decrease across the cap and still see the 'magic' oscillations. Then you can crunch the numbers and calculate the power dissipation in the circuit. If you can time say 20 seconds and then do 10 runs like that and average your measurements, you will have a very decent number for the total power dissipation in the circuit. You know the voltage so you know the average current flow. That means you can calculate the power dissipation in the 50-ohm resistor inside the fucntion generator, and the power dissipation in in inductive resistor. Look, you now get a very nice bonus, you can derive the power dissipation in the MOSFET array: The power dissipated in the MOSFET array is the total power dissipation minus the 50-ohm resistor dissipation minus the inductive resistor dissipation.
Now, if you had a means to control the magic oscillation frequency, perhaps with an opto-isolator arrangement or something else, you could expect to see a trend. The lower the oscillation frequency the less time the MOSFETs are in the linear region and dissipating power. So if you lowered the oscillation frequency and ran the capacitor test again, you should be able to derive less power proportionally dissipated in the MOSFET array.
Finally, I tried to keep in simple for Rosie and I didn't want to mention the potential for the capacitors to reverse-voltage right away. If anybody was going to go forward I was going to mention it.
MileHigh
A little side comment about the whole capacitor test was that I wanted to emulate only a single battery with a large cap in the middle of the array of batteries to "keep it battery-like" if that makes sense. This was to keep Rosemary happy, she would see exactly the same oscillations on her scope and the power source was still predominantly batteries so any imagined "battery effects" could still take place.
Anyway, I think that the test is an interesting and worthwhile exercise. One of the important concepts is that if you have five batteries in series, each battery will contribute 20% of the power required to run the circuit. Alternatively, if the bank is being recharged, each battery will take 20% of the recharging power.
So by "slipping a capacitor" into the battery array and replacing one of the batteries, whatever the capacitor is indicating will also be happening within each of the individual batteries.
And certainly the capacitor will go down in voltage as the circuit runs, even if your DSO is spitting out garbage data that says that the battery bank is being recharged. That's because the capacitor is more accurate than the DSO and can't be fooled.
Just one little tweak: Assuming 100,000 uF and 25-volt rated electrolytics, and assuming the batteries are actually 12.6 volts, then why not time how long it takes to go from 15.6 volts to 9.6 volts for high power dissipation. For low power dissipation, time how long it takes to go from 13.1 volts to 12.1 volts. That way you are quasi-centered around the true battery voltage and you get a slightly more accurate average power dissipation measurement for the circuit.
I also have a caveat: In thinking about the process in my head I am quite certain that as the cap discharges the rate of voltage drop will actually start to accelerate, not slow down. We are so conditioned to expect that the rate of the voltage drop on a cap will slow down as the cap voltage decreases. So it may seem counter-intuitive but indeed, as the voltage on the cap decreases, the rate of the voltage drop will increase. Kind of a fun brain twister. (** WRONG ** - I failed my own brain teaser. The rate of voltage drop will NOT increase, it will decrease but very slowly. Typically it will be so slow so that it will almost look like the voltage is dropping linearly. That was my Doh! moment.)
MileHigh
TK:
I went back and reread your posting. You have only 40,000 uF to work with. So I recommend that you scope the cap voltage like I said and watch very carefully. Do not use a digital multimeter with a 1/2 second display update. You might get squirted in the eye with some primordial ooze if you are not careful.
The fact that you are typically running with 30 volts instead of 60 volts may save you here because that's 1/4 the power dissipation rate as compared to 60 volts.
I have this gut feel that those 25,000 uF 25-volt "Coke can" electrolytic capacitors are relatively cheap. Waaaay back I used to go to these 'electronics depot' type places that had recycled and Grey market and who-knows-what parts. You may find some big caps in a place like that on the cheap.
MileHigh
Thanks, MH, I'm with you all the way. I've also got 16 x 4700 uF @ 40 v surge caps but that would be too much wiring for my liking. Unfortunately, I live in an intellectual "black hole" and there is only one electronic surplus place that will have big cap pulls from obsolete gear and they will be mixandmatch (but I'm going there today to take a look). The only decent "new" parts place is 100 miles away, the Fry's in Austin. Of course we have RS, if you need a battery or a common resistor or a cellphone... but for electronic components it's a weird wasteland. Not like TO where I could just walk down to the hardware store and browse thru their component section where they had _every_ Japanese 2sk transistor and _every_ 74 series logic chip IN STOCK to support the EE department at UofT, or go into one of three different surplus stores to get the "weird stuff". I even found a medical electroshock machine in Active Surplus there one time... nice bank of big caps in that one !!
But around here, electronics means car stereos and not much else, and the big caps they sell for those -- really impressive big caps -- are just too expensive for me to mess with. But sure, some of these car stereos around here will have FARADS of capacitance stuck into the trunk somewhere to pump that drumandbass into their blown speakers.
Meanwhile, I found this hour-long seminar on.... power measurements in AC circuits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=MHa18mC2ZLc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=MHa18mC2ZLc)
Your capacitor test will be a good easy one to do to test for battery charging vs. battery discharging by the circuit. But when I get down to actual power measurements, _assuming_ that the performance of the circuit can be derived from electrical parameters at all -- I'll be using the Clarke-Hess 2330 sampling V-A-W meter as a power analyzer. No scope traces to interpret, just digital readouts of nice red numbers. I'll measure the input for a while with the load at equilibrium temperature, then I'll swap leads quickly and measure the output for a while at the same equilibrium temperature, then re-charge lather rinse repeat.
Later on, I'll subject the Tar Baby to the fancy Tek scope with internal math and we'll see what kind of nice colored wiggly lines it will make. You don't want to skip ahead to the "money shot" already, do you ?
8)
--TK
(Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it.)
There are still a few points about the open-source, help-to-replicate NERD RAT device I would like to understand.
First there's the value of the inductive-resistive load. I've seen inductances cited that are all over the map. I've seen 1.5 HENRY posted somewhere as the inductance of the load. This seems implausible to me based on the waveforms I've seen and what I know about the construction of common water heater elements. Also I have little confidence in instrumental measurements, especially difficult ones like inductance, that have been reported concerning that device.
Then there's the question of the battery capacity of the batteries that team used. I can't figure it out from the company's website catalog listing of the battery they used. The most reliable outside source I could find (humbugger) has it at 50 A-H, but the "official" reports of the NERD RAT device have it listed as 40 A-H. If battery draw-down tests are being considered, one would normally like to know the actual rated battery capacity, just in case someone cared enough to wonder if a 25 percent difference in actual capacity could affect such a test at all.
( 40 plus (25 PER cent of 40) = 50 ).
How do we know the state of charge of a battery? It is not easily and directly related to the simple, no-load or lightlyloaded terminal voltage measurements that are so often cited as "evidence" for the battery's charge state. The battery's " discharge curve" must be considered, along with the load's demands. That's why drawdown tests or simple side-by-side tests like performance under a _heavy_ load are preferred to simple voltage measurements.
What do we expect to see, as a measurement of the terminal voltage of such a battery?
1) when it's being recharged by an automatic battery charger designed or approved for the battery type
2) immediately after it's been fully charged by the charger, still no-load
3) one hour after 2), unused, no load
4) when first hooked up to the operating circuit, under load
5) after running the circuit for long enough to "theoretically" (using conventional theory) to have transferred half of its stored capacity to the circuit and the load, tested both under load, and unloaded?
For my 12-volt, 5 A-H, sealed lead-acid batteries, I can answer some of the questions.
1) is about 14 volts. I am using an automotive "automatic" charger that charges at up to 2 amps and that goes into a "float" mode when it senses that the battery is full. How it knows, I dunno... but I am assuming it does and is consistent between batteries. (actually I do know, but it's not too important I hope)
2) is about 13.8 volts
3) is about 13.5 or 13.6 volts
4) is about 13.0 volts (so I get about 39 volts from my stack when first running the TarBaby circuit)
5) is still unknown
The most important point here is that simply citing "the battery is still over 12 volts" is NOT evidence that it is fully charged. In fact, if a large 12 volt silver-calcium-lead-acid battery IS fully charged, its terminal voltage should be something over THIRTEEN volts when measured under no or light load.
What does "percent" mean? Well, it's PER cent, where the "cent" part means "100".
So if we have a quantity, call it A, and we want another quantity that is, say, 25 percent of A, how do we get there by calculation?
Well, first we take quantity A and DIVIDE it by 100. (PER cent means "divide by 100"). So in strange math symbols, we do A/100. The answer is one percent of A. Then we multiply that by the 25 part to arrive at the total (25 percent OF A) where, strangely enough, the "OF" part indicates a multiplication operation is to be performed somewhere.
Multiplication and division are inverse processes, and usually a division problem can be re-written as a multiplication problem and vice-versa.
(I rly hope that will be enough for the basic maths. I think it's important to clear up misconceptions and misconstruals that should have been taken care of long ago (like in the eighth grade algebra class that somehow got skipped) so that people are at least speaking a common language when they discuss complex issues.... like multiplication and division.)
Significant digits, accuracy, and precision. Well.
In this age of digital everything, calculators that display twelve digits after a decimal point, DMMs that poke numbers at you as fast as you can read them off.... I often see people reporting calculations from instrumental readings that have TOO MANY digits to be realistic.
Accuracy means that the reading you get agrees with the "true" real-world state of affairs. Precision means how high-resolution a reading you actually get. Let's say I'm shooting at a target. All my shots fall into a tight group in the same place on the target. That's precision. But all my shots are three inches low and two to the left, even though I'm aiming at the bullseye in the sight. That's accuracy. They are different but interlinked.
Note that if a person claims that a particular value, call it "A", is equal to, say, 5.0789 volts.... the claim is that A is NOT equal to 5.0788 volts, nor to 5.0790 volts, nor any other value. But the true real-world value, under the claim, "could be" 5.07893, or 5.07896, or some other value in that finer range, and the claim would still be true.
Get the picture? In the first place, if my voltmeter reads 5.00 volts, and is accurate-- my precision is only good to three "significant digits". I don't know if the true value is 5.001 volts or 5.009 volts. So when I use that 5.00 volt figure in my calculations, I MUST ignore all extra digits of false precision that my calculator gives me. Citing them is the same as claiming I know the input data to equivalent precision... and I don't.
Now if I'm reading the values off the oscilloscope... I can only read the trace position value to within about half a "tick mark" accuracy, so that means any value I read will have only that level of precision, and if the scope's baseline or amplifier gain is incorrect, then all my readings will be inaccurate: not only "blurry" but also in the "wrong place". So my report of 5.00 volts, while "precise" in that all the figures do indicate real readings on an instrument... the true real-world value might be 4.00 volts, because I've set my baseline wrong or the scope's amplifier is out of calibration.
This is where the issue of "AC coupling" versus "DC coupling" on a scope trace could come into play. Where's the baseline that measurements are made from? Inquiring minds want to know.
So... when _I_ speak about energy, power, Joules and Watts and Amps and Volts and all that jazz, you aren't going to have to learn some new strange language where words mean whatever I want them to mean and can change with the wind direction and relative humidity. I will be using standard physics and electrical engineering terms and definitions, and if I go astray somewhere PLEASE somebody let me know.
If overunity device performance can't be tested, evaluated, or described using standard terminology and methodology -- yet they are to be built out of off-the-shelf simple components --, I am afraid we are sunk before we even get launched.
And no matter what my own personal weird theories are (I believe in pushing gravity, no dark matter, eleven dimensions, and a polarizable vacuum, for example, so there) you will not have to read about them, to understand how the Tar Baby performs.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 06:22:25 AM
There are still a few points about the open-source, help-to-replicate NERD RAT device I would like to understand.
First there's the value of the inductive-resistive load. I've seen inductances cited that are all over the map. I've seen 1.5 HENRY posted somewhere as the inductance of the load. This seems implausible to me based on the waveforms I've seen and what I know about the construction of common water heater elements. Also I have little confidence in instrumental measurements, especially difficult ones like inductance, that have been reported concerning that device.
Then there's the question of the battery capacity of the batteries that team used. I can't figure it out from the company's website catalog listing of the battery they used. The most reliable outside source I could find (humbugger) has it at 50 A-H, but the "official" reports of the NERD RAT device have it listed as 40 A-H. If battery draw-down tests are being considered, one would normally like to know the actual rated battery capacity, just in case someone cared enough to wonder if a 25 percent difference in actual capacity could affect such a test at all.
( 40 plus (25 PER cent of 40) = 50 ).
Hi TK, glad to see this claim is finally being rigorously tested as PER the scientific method!
About the batteries, we never did get a straight answer from Rosemary. Her donated set is the only set I have ever seen without a model number ?
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/821/
I'm delighted to see that everyone's answering TK's question. I'm not sure I'd dare. And IF that was a question by Glen Lettenmaier related to batteries - then here's the thing. We were donated those beautiful Raylites. But they have no ratings detailed on the battery itself. We've tried to determine this and were advised that they're 40 ampere hour AND subsequently - that they're 60 ampere hour. Don't know for sure and there's no way that we can find this out definitively.
We erred on the side of caution and have used the 60 AH rating for our paper. Here's the 'extract' from our paper.
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries’ rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis now, for over 18 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 12 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. Bearing in mind that the batteries’ rating is is not more than 60AH, there is evidence of out performance related to that rating. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This would require a detailed analysis of the supply’s electrolytic properties that is outside the scope of this presentation and expertise. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.
So TK - YOU do the math. And when you do this - factor in the continual use of 6 batteries only - as 2 were taken out of circulation some time back. Or better still - average it at 7 batteries. And then factor in that we've had possession of those batteries since late Jan early feb of 2010. Which means that its usage has been FAR more extensive than the conservatively assessed 18 months of continual use. The usage has NOW actually spanned closer to 26 months. And then try and explain why there is apparently absolutely NO LOSS OF VOLTAGE OVER ANY OF THE BATTERIES SINCE THE DAY WE TOOK POSSESSION.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
As you can see when they "erred on the side of caution and have used the 60 AH rating for our paper." they even got that wrong and went the wrong side of "caution".
See Rosemary's blog post #232, January 23 2012, for more information on her calculations and battery ratings. I would copy it over but it is too long. Please promise you will not fall off your chair from laughing if you read it... it is a literal goldmine of scientific delusion.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/
RM :)
To TK concerning the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA&index=1&feature=plcp (Electric OU: Supplement: MOSFETS... How do THEY work??):
TK, at the end of the video you are catching some oscillations (at minute 10:31). What do you want to say in relation to these oscillations? I am not getting your point (because my English is not good enough to dig insinuations and my knowledge in electronics is pretty shaky).
What do some people claim in relation to these oscillations? What are you claiming in relation to these oscillations?
(I am not criticizing, I jut want to understand.)
Greetings, Conrad
@evolvingape:
Thanks for your input! I didn't remember that she had claimed 60 A-H capacity... the latest that I read, in post #666 is the quote and calculation which mentioned 25.6 million Joules in the one test against a batterypack of 5 (or was it six) 40 A-H capacity at 12 volts each, which calculation she finally retracted BUT SHE HAS NOT RETRACTED THE CONCLUSION that she had used more than the battery capacity in that one test.
@Conradelektro:
A better demo of the oscillations that we are actually working with is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY)
The circuit that the Tar Baby is modelled upon is the Rosemary Ainslie NERD circuit, which she claims produces COP INFINITY. (She was using the > symbol in there for a while !!) On the basis of this claim she is applying for at least two monetary prizes, one officially offered by this forum and another that's individually offered elsewhere.
HER circuit is claimed to 1) heat a load to useful temperatures 2) recharge the batteries while doing so and 3) run on and on and on, never depleting the batteries AT ALL, forever or until the end of time, whichever comes last, and 4) heals the lame and cures the sick. No, I'm just kidding about that number 4 part. The history of the NERD circuit is very interesting, and you will quickly learn why I call my circuit the TAR BABY.
Even though I use the exact same... alleged.... circuit that she uses, EXCEPT for a few component substitutions, like the IRF830a instead of the magic IRFPG50 mosfet, and even though I achieve the SAME oscillations (parasitic feedback) caused by the SAME REASONS (stray inductance in the leads connecting the mosfets), and can achieve the SAME HEAT vs. time profiles in an inductive load, she affirms that my TAR BABY is not a replication of the NERD device. So that lets me off the hook totally and I can do whatever I like.
My claim about the Tar Baby is that it performs just like the NERD RAT device in all significant respects. If her device is overunity according to her calculations, since mine will produce the same data, then according to HER calculations.... well.... DO THE MATH (tm Rosemary Ainslie). Note that, in that case, since I am testing and publishing the results from MY TAR BABY..... I'll get priority in all disputes, since she released her design to "open source" yet refuses to show any tests of her own.... other than this one in this video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
So far the traces I've shown on my Tar Baby correspond to the Blue trace (gate input) and the bottom GREEN TRACE, the mosfet common drains, shown in the above video on the Tek scope and in the screenshot -- with my reference numbers -- that I've attached below.
Please note that it has been demonstrated -- and admitted, finally, by Ainslie -- that the circuit diagram shown in the video is NOT the diagram of the device shown in the video, and there are other errors and misrepresentations in the video as well.
As far as I can determine I am using the presently accepted "correct" circuit diagram in my Tar Baby --- and I should be receiving my Magic Mosfets in a day or two, and at that point, except for the clipleads and threaded rods and white pegboard.... it will be very hard to tell any difference between the two devices. But we have her word that mine isn't a NERD, so it must be a Tar Baby. I'm even using a 10-ohm water heater element, OR.... a stack of sand resistors that come out to 50 W, 10 Ohm.
(edited a typo or too)
(Please don't be offended by the "shouting" emphasis. I'm trying to make points that might be able to penetrate someone -- not you two ! -- who seems to be extremely hard of hearing and vision. That is also the reason for the remedial EE and math posts I might make once in a while.)
(I also "claim" that the oscillations are irrelevant and are caused by stray wire inductance, and that if her device was constructed using commonly accepted layout and methods her oscillations, like mine... would go away or become very hard to obtain. If she made a few circuit changes they would be completely eliminated, her load would heat better, and she'd still not see her batteries draw down using the methods she allegedly uses.)
Other than describing the "roots" of the Tar Baby, though... I really don't want to discuss the NERD RAT device. The time for that has passed for now... but will come again before too long. There's not much more that can be said that hasn't been covered in the last two months on her NERD thread in this forum (now locked, thanks Stefan) and also exactly a year ago on OUR, but with less noise.
Let me just point out one thing about that scopeshot, though. The purple or pink trace, item 3, is the battery voltage. Item 4 is this trace's "zero" baseline level. In item 8 you can see the amp settings for the channels, and see that the purple channel is set to 50.0 volts per major division. Looking at the scale divisions we see that the straight line of the purple trace is 1 major division plus one minor division above its baseline, for a value of about 60 volts, consistent with the DMM measurement in the video.
Now look at Item 9. This is the scope's "parameters" display where you can see what the scope's internal math is making of the traces. You can select various parameters for display here but the users have elected to display statistics like mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation here. Note that all you get for the purple trace in that box is its amplitude mean and a warning of "unstable histogram". This means that the trace is so noisy that the scope's math isn't coping with it reliably, and in fact even gets the amplitude wrong. The peaktopeak amplitude of the oscillation portion displayed can be estimated by looking at the number of minor scale ticks, representing 10 volts each, and simply counting them up. I get about 80 v p-p for these oscillations, which again is an inductive effect caused by wire length. (Of course the mean amplitude will be decreased by smaller oscillations inside that noise, so maybe the scope is right here after all. At this sample rate it is impossible to tell.)
The battery voltage certainly isn't actually doing this. (For channel 1, the CVR, they are apparently calculating the statistics on the mean of the trace... getting a "mean of a mean" of an oscillation, more apparent nonsense).
Yet this is the data that was -- supposedly -- dumped to their spreadsheet for "analysis" that results in the conclusions they have claimed.
Hi TK,
Yeah, I don't wanna talk about the NERD circuit either. I think pretty much everything that "could" be claimed, has been claimed, just depends on the "when" you look.
A suitable analogy is a Kaleidoscope hooked up to a dremel, forever. (cos its running on a RAT psu!)
I am enjoying your posts and I am learning a lot from them, so thankyou.
Once you have established the run time of the Tar Baby on 5 A/h (Amps PER hour) batteries, assuming the same C rate, the calculations can be substituted for both 40 A/h and 60 A/h to give a good indication of expected performance. Unless your Tar Baby is COP infinity of course in which case it will not matter.
RM :)
@evolvingape: that's an interesting quote from Ainslie. So she says the capacity is 60 Amp-Hours. And she says she's delivered 12 watts, five hours per day, every working day for 18 months. I usually figure 200 working days per year, so call it 300 working days. This is the input data, according to Ainslie.
Come, let us calculate together.
12 watts is 12 Joules per second. So, to calculate the energy transferred over the time interval, we multiply the Power in Watts by the Time in seconds. 12 Joules per second x (60 seconds per minute x 60 minutes per hour x 5 hours per day x 300 days) == 64 800 000 Joules. Call it 65 MegaJoules. (Note well, you NERD RATS, that before any math is even done, the UNIT DIMENSIONS of the input data and the result... agree. If you would only check this in your own "work"... or even understood it.... you would avoid much error in your calculations.)
That's not an unreasonable figure at all. And it's easy to see that if one allows for her proven tendency to...er... exaggerate or be a "tad out".... it's possible that perhaps not every working day was used, and that the device may have been inoperative for some stretches of time, and that the power level wasn't always 12 Watts and so on and so forth.
Now... if we only knew the actual capacity of her battery pack, we could make some interesting comparisons and further approximations. Note that the batteries won't drop below 12 volts until they are almost completely depleted, and it is the "over 12 volt" reading that she constantly cites as evidence that they are still "fully charged".
So, using 60 A-H as the battery capacity, what do we have? For an individual 12 volt battery, we can get 12 volts x 60 amps for one hour, or one amp for 60 hours, same thing mathematically. So 12 x 60 = 720 Watts of power, for (60 seconds per minute x 60 minutes per hour x 1 hour) or 3600 seconds. So the energy in there is 720 Joules per second x 3600 seconds == 2.6 megaJoules, about. And then she has the six batteries (or seven, now, she says), so 7 x 2.6 megaJoules = a bit over 18 megaJoules in the batteries that they can deliver at or above a "charge level" of 12 volts each.
And 64.8 divided by 18 is only 3.6.
Personally I think the conclusion is clear. Even according to her exact claimed data, she has only used less than 4 times the battery capacity in that 18 months. Since we know that the FG can recharge the batteries.... well.....
:-\
(If we figure 10 watts at the load, 200 working days, 4 hours per day.... we get only about 29 megaJoules, less than twice the rated capacity. If we go to a three-day week, like a University class schedule, with summer and spring and holiday breaks..... we can easily get right down to the ACTUAL RATED CAPACITY of the batteries using a much more realistic test schedule than she reports. And the batteries will still test at 12 volts or above until nearly depleted, and a trickle of charge now and then from the function generator will keep them boosted above 12 volts even without actually substantially contributing to their charge state.)
I picked up a 70 000 microFarad, 30 volt cap today at the surplus store. I'm not going to say how much I spent for it, it's embarrassing.
I also got a handful of H11D1 optocouplers and a bunch of sand and wirewound resistors to make loads and shunts with. I can even reproduce the 4+1 group of one-Ohm ten watt "shunts" or CVRs.
Ten Watts here? Four paralleled to give 40 Watts power handling in the CVR? OK, fine. I guess that is just in case they do run the mosfets fully on by mistake and manage to expose the 10 ohm load to the full 72 volts along a low-resistance pathway for more than a brief pulse. But if they are averaging only 12 Watts at the load, as claimed.... they aren't running fully on, or they are on for a very short duty cycle only, or both, and don't need a 40 Watt CVR. All of that is conjecture, of course, since we have no reliable data from the NERD RATS.
I also got 5 nice ceramic tube , wirewound, 50 Ohm 12 Watt resistors, Clarostat VPR12F50 kind. I will be parallelling these to make a nice load that will fit better into my insulated Fleaker system than the water heater load does. So I'll have a 10 ohm, 250 Watt equivalent load in there, which should be beefy enough to handle the anticipated maximum continuous current from the Tar Baby at 36 volts. Which is, neglecting the Rdss of the mosfets, by Ohm's law, I=V/R, so the current will be 3.6 amps, and by Power = I^2 x R, I get about 130 Watts dissipated by the stack at 36 volts and 3.6 amps ... so we be cool. Cooking with Hot Grease now, momma. With enough "oomph" if the mosfets do turn on to make tea or oxtail soup.
Now, if I could just find an old ox to chop the tail off of for my soup.....
ETA: Isn't anyone checking my math? OOPS..... five x 50 Ohm, 12 watt resistors gives us 10 Ohms all right, but only 60 Watts power handling capacity, not 250 like I figured above. So it's a good thing I've got them immersed in oil.... because I could exceed their power rating if I'm lucky.
Hi TK,
Yes it's an interesting quote.
There is the issue that there were originally 9 batteries, and no data logging on hours run on which battery under what conditions, so the number you calculated for total energy available has unknown energy input from an additional 2 batteries included in the total for the 7 batteries.
Then you have the issue of surface charge on the plates. As we all know even a completely discharged battery if left alone overnight may recover enough to show a Voltage reading above 12V across the terminals under no load. This is why when people try to start the car and the battery dies, if you leave it 10 - 15 minutes and try again sometimes it will have enough energy to turn the starter and off you go. Never trust a battery is the rule of thumb.
Then as you mentioned the function generator is run from the wall socket and is capable of providing a float charge to the battery, which would probably keep it above 12V for a very long time while under a relatively tiny load.
Then you have the issue of potential desulfation of the plates from the oscillations:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Battery-Desulfation.htm
Voltage spikes are the method of choice for reconditioning sulfated lead plates, restoring the charge holding capacity of the battery, not normally done while running a load at the same time though. The battery can even desulfate itself from it's own power if you hook the circuit up to the terminals, and recover charge storage capacity that way. You will still have to charge the battery though for a fully charged status of 13.2V, which is calculated as 2.2V PER cell, and 6 cells PER 12V battery, which equals 2.2V MULTIPLIED BY 6 cells = 13.2V fully charged.
RM :)
TK,
Regarding your proposed optocoupler setup... That would be fine if the MOSFETS were being switched on hard. But they are not.
Q1 may be switching on fairly hard (and only briefly as per the RA waveforms) but the Q2 "quad array" is being biased into a somewhat linear region. I believe .99 has touched on this. Even with the FG at -15 volts, the Q2 drain current at DC wll be limited to 300 ma or less due to the Vdrop across Rgen. More likely it is between 100-250 ma. Without knowing the FG open circuit voltage versus in circuit voltage, it is difficult to know the actual bias current used. The variability of the gate threshold voltage also presents an unknown.
For DC and at 300 ma. bias, the FG 50 ohm would dissipate 4.5 watts, the 10 ohm (?) load .9 watts and the Q2 ""array" would dissipate around 17 watts (assuming a 60 volt battery set). The parallel pair of 100 ohm output resistors in RA's FG (as per the schematic .99 posted) may not even be 100 ohms anymore, as 4.5 watts would be a bit much for them. Opening the FG and inspecting/measuring these resistors is in order. Possibly, if they have increased in value, the bias current is way less than one would expect from the Rgen of 50 ohms. If they are intact, the FG can only do just above -15 and Ibias would therefore be under 300 ma.
For AC current, the FG output is bypassed by the 12,500 pf (or more) of the total Q1 and Q2 gate to source capacitance, hence you better stick with the IRFPG50's, as all that capacitance sets the AC gain of the Q2 common gate amplifier and passes the AC current to the battery negative (via the CSR).
Picowatt
TK:
If you do the capacitor test then it would be worth it to measure the capacitance of your bank of capacitors. Many people reply on capacitance and inductance meters. I will go out on a limb and assume that 100,000 uF is to large a capacitance for a capacitance meter to measure. What do you do??? Plus you mentioned tolerance, an almost taboo term on the free energy forums. And the tolerance of big electrolytic caps is what, +/-10%? Perhaps +/-20%?
So you might get some oohs and aahs if you made a clip where you measured the capacitance via the RC time constant using your best multimeter.
Then you hope your your cap-based power measurement will be in agreement with the Clarke-Hess 2330 and with the Tek scope. Convergence! That's another important lesson for all. Hasn't a whole year's worth of discussion all hinged on a single measurement method that many people considered highly suspect?
You asked about the inductance of the the inductive resistor. The off-the-shelf RAT heating element had minuscule inductance. So small it might be too low for an inductance meter. That's a reasonable guess, I have never played with one. I am going to guess in the tens to hundreds of nano-Henries. Same thing for the heating element that you bought. I would guess that you can just take the rule of thumb for inductance per inch of wire and apply it to both of those commercial heater elements. I forget the rule of thumb, it' something like 10 nano-Henries per inch. In both cases it looks like the inductance in the interconnect wires would be comparable to the inductance of the heating element.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on March 26, 2012, 07:29:39 PM
TK,
Regarding your proposed optocoupler setup... That would be fine if the MOSFETS were being switched on hard. But they are not.
Q1 may be switching on fairly hard (and only briefly as per the RA waveforms) but the Q2 "quad array" is being biased into a somewhat linear region. I believe .99 has touched on this. Even with the FG at -15 volts, the Q2 drain current at DC wll be limited to 300 ma or less due to the Vdrop across Rgen. More likely it is between 100-250 ma. Without knowing the FG open circuit voltage versus in circuit voltage, it is difficult to know the actual bias current used. The variability of the gate threshold voltage also presents an unknown.
For DC and at 300 ma. bias, the FG 50 ohm would dissipate 4.5 watts, the 10 ohm (?) load .9 watts and the Q2 ""array" would dissipate around 17 watts (assuming a 60 volt battery set). The parallel pair of 100 ohm output resistors in RA's FG (as per the schematic .99 posted) may not even be 100 ohms anymore, as 4.5 watts would be a bit much for them. Opening the FG and inspecting/measuring these resistors is in order. Possibly, if they have increased in value, the bias current is way less than one would expect from the Rgen of 50 ohms. If they are intact, the FG can only do just above -15 and Ibias would therefore be under 300 ma.
For AC current, the FG output is bypassed by the 12,500 pf (or more) of the total Q1 and Q2 gate to source capacitance, hence you better stick with the IRFPG50's, as all that capacitance sets the AC gain of the Q2 common gate amplifier and passes the AC current to the battery negative (via the CSR).
Picowatt
Thanks for your analysis, I really appreciate it. Your knowledge appears to exceed mine somewhat in these matters, so I'll just say that your estimates of maximum drain current attainable agree with my measurements. In fact without really cranking up the output of my F43 FG, which is capable of 40 V p-p into 50 ohms, I mostly stay under 200 mA as long as I am using a strict negative going pulse so that only the Q2 "gang of four" is active. However, I can operate my circuit in a mode, by varying offset on the FG, so that both mosfet sets turn on, and the oscillations can be seen on both phases of the signal, and the current can go up to 3 amps or more, mostly going through Q1 I think, from comparing temperatures. I'm not properly heatsunk so I only operate at those levels briefly, but now that I have the better load setup with the wirewound resistors, giving more inductance than the water heater element, I'll be pushing it a bit more.
I don't think I'm willing to buy an Instek FG of the same model as theirs. They cost about 220 bucks and I'm not rich. Besides.... I feel that the Interstate F43 is doing just fine, so far. It's an oldie but a goodie, and I keep it in good condition. Still.... the Instek is available locally if I do need to get one.
I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning as to why I should stick to the PG50. Are you saying that the PG50 may be necessary for some kind of battery charging from the FG to occur, and it might not if I use the 830a? Anyway, I'll be switching to the PG50 as soon as they arrive, and I'll be doing side-by-side comparisons like I did those many moons ago with the 2sk1548 in her COP>17 circuit.
The damn RF from the thing messes with both my little digital thermometers... I've had to start using an old analog bimetal type to get a reliable reading, with loss of precision and accuracy.
And of course, since I'm exploring these other modes as well, I'll try the optocouplers anyway. As long as I don't kill the oscillations....
because without oscillations there is no way that certain people will think I'm really doing what I'm doing, really.
TK,
Why would you want any FG other than that beautiful Interstate. I'd love to have it. 40volts into 50R!! Nice...
How on earth are you switching on both Q1 and Q2 at the same time? To turn on, Q1 needs the FG to go positive, Q2 needs the FG to go negative. I can't get my picobrain around that... Does that Interstate also perform magic? (if so, it's the perfect FG for the current task)
The RA circuit appears to only switch Q1 on very briefly followed by a several second duration wherein Q2 is biased on.
Reasons for staying with the IRFPG50:
1. The much larger Ciss allows more AC current to pass when Q2 oscillates (Q2 is the "array", it is labeled as both Q1 and Q2 depending on which "paper" you read, I'll stick with Q2). Draw in the Ciss (gate to source capacitances) and you will see that the Q1 and Q2 combined Ciss of 12,500pf or more is the AC path for current when Q2 is oscillating at HF (as well as the FG's 50R).
2. The larger Ciss allows Q2 to have more AC gain
3. I thought you were going to attempt a replication
Think about tacking a wire onto your Interstate prior to its 50R output resistor so you can measure across the 50R to get bias current, and, prove that current can indeed pass through an FG..... Though I don't think much battery charging is going on...
PW
TK,
Reasons for staying with the IRFPG50:
4. They're magical??
PW
TK:
About the often repeated story about "18 months of continuous use." I posted once before that all of this is purely anecdotal "evidence" and Rosemary should never have even stated it. Then you have to ask yourself about what really happened and human nature. Do you really think that every single day the students (or whomever) would say, "Time to set up the RAT circuit and stare at it again!" What new insights could be learned by doing the same thing every day for months on end? It just doesn't add up at all. I would guess that the circuit was set up and running when Rosie was around and after the novelty wore off it collected dust when Rosie wasn't around. I don't get the impression that she was there every day for 18 months.
It's all junk anecdotal data not even worth discussing. I figure that she had somewhere between 10 and 20 megajoules to start with in her battery set, and when you average it out over 18 long months, the setup might have been on 10 to 15 hours per month. Also, she has no idea whatsoever what the power consumption of the setup was because she measured "energy being returned to the batteries while the setup ran." Without bothering to crunch the numbers, perhaps she burned off 5 or 6 megajoules during her testing. And of course, we can't forget that it makes absolutely no sense to talk about draw-down test if you believe that the batteries are always recharging, none!
Moving on to more interesting stuff, Picowatt made a lot of interesting comments and really appears to know his stuff indeed. I plumb forgot about an AC path at high frequency having less impedance back to the battery ground via the CSR as compared to the the path through 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator. That may have saved Rosie's function generator resistor from burning out. So indeed there are two paths for the power to return to ground, a mainly DC path through the function generator and an AC path through the various capacitances in the MOSFET array through the 0.25 ohm CSR.
It's a bit complicated and I acknowledge that when I talked about the "fake" voltage measured across the CSR possibly being from capacitive-inductive coupling, I honestly wasn't thinking about the capacitive coupling through the various MOSFET gate-source-drain AC paths (I plumb forgot - a dumb mistake). So there is very likely some real AC power flow there with real current, and not just a "fake induced tingle voltage" with no associated current.
I read somewhere that the various capacitances inside a MOSFET structure are also a function of bias voltage. The width of the gate channels change as the voltage changes. (I am outside the envelope of my direct experience here and can't even remember the proper terminology). However, putting that aside for a second, let me mention a test that may help you get a feel for this.
You could try to use a second signal generator and a inject high-frequency sine wave into the common MOSFET drain node. As you sweep the sine wave higher and higher in frequency, observe what's happening at the CSR. I think Picowatt is dead-on and above a certain frequency you should see a very strong sine wave at the CSR. Call it an "anecdotal" or "get a feel for it" experiment.
Anyways, don't let too many cooks spoil your soup and your fun. The good news is that you can measure the AC power across the CSR and that is just one component of the "power pie." As long as you know the total power the circuit is consuming, then the fun can be finding and measuring (or inferring) what all of the "power slices" are. Picowatt astutely reminded us that some of those power slices are of the AC-only variety.
MileHigh
@picowatt:
I'd like to use the 830a for several reasons. First, I can get them for $1.30 each locally, and the PG50 costs about 5 times as much. Second, I think it would really be nice if the 830a turned out to work "just like" the PG50 in TarBaby. But of course I'll be using the PG50s when they finally arrive.
The optoisolators work too well. They cause the mosfet(s) to switch cleanly and more precisely, if with a bit of slow turn-on. This allows a lot more power to get to the load; in oscillation mode my inline DMM reads about 170 -200 mA, but when I use the optoisolators and get a clean turnon on the drain signal the current goes up to 1.8 or 2.0 amps or more, and the load heats like crazy. This also happens when "tuning", trying to get the oscillations to appear, when a clean turnon is achieved. I am formulating a theory about the chain of events during a typical NERD test session, if there is such a thing.
Right now I'm powering the optoisolator output side with a 9v battery; the only connection to the DUT is by the gate drive leads coming off the isolator collectors. I'm using an LED and its resistor as a "pulldown" for the optoisolator's phototransistor stage, so I can also monitor the pulses visually when they are slow enough. Very nice switching. Next will be to hook up the optoisolator's power needs to the main board battery supply, to see if the oscillations will return.
The only time Q1 and Q2 are both on at the same time is when I really crank the FG's output to some stressful amplitudes and offsets. I can get them both to saturate and stay on and that lets 3 or 4 amps thru to the load. Or if I use a symmetrical pulse positive and negative, at very fast frequencies there is "shoot thru" when both are briefly on during the zerocrossing of the gate signal. But when I mentioned it earlier, I meant both could be turned on, but alternately, with a symmetrical gate drive signal. I think. It is also possible to get the oscillations in both phases of the drain signal and I think both sets of transistors are partially on during this time.
If I can't reliably get the oscillations with the FG isolated like this, then I'll have to look for some other control condition that will allow me to compare _with_ function generator current path and _without_ FG current path.
TK:
I did my last edit in the previous post I swear. There is a code freeze on that posting.
I just wanted to say congrats on the big fat capacitor. It can always be used as a low-pass filter in conjunction with your batteries to make a rock rock steady power consumption measurement for the entire circuit also. In that case of course you lose the "purity" of powering of the circuit by a set of batteries and it is instead powered by the batteries transferring current into the capacitor first. So in theory the circuit is being powered by the big fat capacitor. You will still see the identical magic oscillations though.
MileHigh
Oh, I want to make sure that it's clear that I'm not monitoring the CVR quantitatively yet; the current values I'm giving lately are just the rough figures from the cheapo DMM inline with the battery.
It's nice to have more than two channels sometimes. Sigh.
@MH:
It's late and I don't think I'm up for much more tonight. I'm going to have to think about this AC issue a bit more. Would one expect a LED to light up in both polarity orientations, if inserted where the CVR is? Or a back-to-back LED pair?
TK:
Go "dodo" and get a good rest.
For the LEDs, you want to try putting a back-to-back pair in series with the CSR. When you get the oscillations, both LEDs should light up.
MileHigh
TK,
Using the opto's would allow full turn on, and indeed slower turn off, so I can see how they could overlap, but, that deviates from the RA circuit operation.
Are you using the similarly short Q1 on time/very long Q2 biased on time?
Your alternate FET's should work, but for duplicating as close as possible the waveforms and Fosc of the RA circuit, the PG50 would be a closer replication. You should be able to swap them out with the 830's but the lower capacitances of those devices will flavor the results slightly.
If RA knew what the open circuit votage of the FG was during a test deemed "successful", (i.e., Q2's bias current) an appropriate battey supply equal to the FG open circuit voltage in series with a 50R replacing the FG would have performed similarly (as far as Q2 is concerned). Of course, the new bias battery would discharge at a rate equal to the bias current and possibly from any assymetrical AC not fully bypassed by the Ciss of Q1/Q2 (though if assymetrical the correct way, possibly the new bias battery would get a slight boost now and again).
I haven't heard if .99 is going to finish his duplication or not, it would be interesting if the two of you could do similar reps and acheive similar measurement results. But hey, its a lot of time and expense. More power to both of you.
To infinity and beyond.........
PW
Blah... I made a "tad bit" of a math error earlier. My new load resistor stack of 5 x 50 Ohm 12 Watt resistors in parallel is of course a 10 ohm (measured at 10.3 ohms on the Simpson) resistor capable of handling 60 Watts, not the 250 I somehow came up with earlier. It's immersed in mineral oil though, so hopefully it will be OK.
But I caught the error first..... or at least you lot are too polite to razz me about it..... :o
Anyhow, yes, and good night.
I'm uploading a video describing the optocoupler test so far, but it will be an hour before it's ready, probably.
The waveforms that Ainslie showed are symmetrical, 50 percent duty cycle square waveforms, with the gate drive signal going from 0 down to -5 volts or so. I don't know quite what you mean, PW, about "the similarly short Q1 on time/very long Q2 biased on time".
With only two channels on my scope I'm really only guessing, based on heating, which mosfets are on when. If I see high currents and the drain signal staying low without sign of pulsing, then I think that at least one mosfet is staying totally on. If I see the oscillations and partial drawdown in "both" phases of the drain signal, then I think that all the mosfets are at least partially turning on, Q1 and Q2 alternating. But I don't have the precision with this kit to be able easily to draw out a full timing diagram for the switching...yet. I have a Tek DPSO at the lab that I'll torture with the Tar Baby later this week and that will tell me a lot... a lot that you lot probably already know.
Musings engendered by me watching my latest video...
So you come into the lab and get set up. You still don't understand the reason for the oscillations but you know if you "tune" long enough they will eventually appear and if you don't touch anything they will stay.
So the load is in the water in the insulated teapot. You log the temperature. You turn on everything and begin tuning. As you tune for the oscillations, you will be going through periods of mosfets totally off with drain trace HIGH, periods of clean switching with drain trace in phase with gate signal from fully ON to fully OFF without oscillations, and periods of mosfet(s) constantly fully on, with drain trace at baseline and no sign of switching even though the gate signal indicates normally.
Then, suddenly, the oscillations appear. You cream your jeans, then you look over at the load temperature. It is amazingly high, like 80 degrees when ambient was 16. You log this, and back off to watch. Hmm.... the oscillations continue, with the drain trace oscillating around the _HIGH_ level as is normal for these oscs. The CVR trace indicates whatever weirdnesses. This is the data you log. Meanwhile, the temperature continues stable, no further rise. So you... retune,change freqs or something. First you lose the oscs, you fiddle around, there are periods of clean switching and continuous on. Then you reestablish the oscillations and notice that the temp is much higher now, maybe even boiling. Whoopee, the magic oscillations are doing their thing!!
But what you don't realize is that the heating happened during the TUNING, when periods of high current flowed from the battery to the load, and this data wasn't recorded, since you didn't have oscillations and your circuit isn't operating in the magic mode. The load warmed up while you were tuning, and the slight power transfer during the magic oscillations is enough to _overcome the insulation leakage_ and keep the load from cooling off.
Retune, lather rinse repeat. And you've fooled yourself into thinking that the oscillations contribute to the heating of the load, when the major part of the work was actually done during the unmonitored and unanalyzed tuning stage.
It's just a musing, just a guess, a conjecture.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 10:51:26 PM
snip..
The optoisolators work too well. They cause the mosfet(s) to switch cleanly and more precisely, if with a bit of slow turn-on.
...snip..
LOL - Damn those pesky things doing what they're designed to do, and doing it so well
!!.
Cheers
TK,
It is difficult to know which circuit/claim to test from all the ambiguities and versions.
Regarding the duty cycle I mentioned, I was indeed incorrect with regard to "seconds".
In an RA paper, RA states that "the offset of FG was set to its extremel negative limit". Also, "the duty cycle is also set to the limit of the FG's shortest on time within each switching period of 2.7 minutes". (Additional data like FG hi/lo open circuit voltage swing, duty cycle in absolutes, etc are not provided)
I believe this is the setup that RA and .99 were discussing regarding a test of COP=infinity and the scope shots I have seen discuused regarding same. I could, however, be wrong, as there is a lot of "noise" out there. Q1 is basically a small player (its Ciss does add to the AC current path during Q2 oscillations) and the Q2 array could have been just as easily biased on with a PWR supply through 50R.
I do not know the "minimum" ON time of RA's FG, but from her paper and at a 10% "on" time, that would be 16.2 seconds of Q1 "on" time alternated with and followed by 145.8 seconds of Q2 biased on time, ad infinitum.
Setting your FG to a long period and minimum duty cycle, output set to -15 volts open circuit during its lo period, and who knows what during the hi period (+5??) would likely produce similar results. Depending on RA's FG "hi" period voltage setting, Q1 may have never been turning on. RA states that no current flow was measured during the FG hi period, so possibly the FG output during that time was below the Q1 gate threshold voltage.
MH is correct about the variability of MOSFET capacitances with voltage, that complicates analysis/prediction a bit... As per some of the RA statements, the FG's offset/level was used to tweak the oscillation/power level. This would affect both the DC bias setting and vary capacitances a bit a well
At a DC bias setting below 300 ma, the pwr dissipated in the load resistor is minimal at DC, so I suspect the bulk of any greater power dissipated at the load would have been via AC curents from the oscillation.
Ever work on a 60-70's audio amp with a load connected and a dreaded AC oscillation screaming away? Things get very hot very fast (until one of the outputs hang and then "poof"). Ah... the early days of discrete, those were the days...
PW
I'm starting to get confused here. The Ainslie demonstration video shows their function generator set to produce a symmetrical square wave, negative going only, with a frequency of 10 Hz. This is confirmed by the shot of the Instek's panel, showing the figure "10" and some change and by the timebase of the scope shot (13) which is set to 40 ms/div, and the period of the FG's pulses is twelve minor divisions or 100 ms, as confirmed by the cursors (21, 20, 17). They claim in the video that this setting produces heating and battery recharging. Where did these LONG periods come from that PW is referring to?
I would much prefer to operate with the same parameters that they have actually _shown_. We know that their reports are unreliable, but scope traces do not lie. They may misdirect and provide cumulus-cloud-like material for projected imaginings, be rife with artefact and irrelevancies... but they do not lie. We know that much of what is "reported" by the NERD RATS is tainted in one way or another, by misobservation, improper interpretation of instrument indications, bad "calculation", math errors, anecdote and post hockery. This is why I tend to disregard everything (especially their "explanations") except what bits of raw reproducible data that can be gleaned from the dross.
Of course I _can_ operate at such weird duty cycles and long periods.... it's just a hassle with this analog scope I have here. And I don't want to generate miles of chart recorder paper like I did with Steorn's eOrbo farce.
Here, once again, is the scope shot from their demonstration, showing what they claim to be a fully operating NERD RAT device in oscillating, battery-recharging, load-heating mode.
Or will they now claim that this does NOT show an operating NERD device.... ??
TK,
The referenced RA paper is at the following:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766
PW
Quote from: hoptoad on March 27, 2012, 05:29:37 AM
LOL - Damn those pesky things doing what they're designed to do, and doing it so well !!.
Cheers
8)
I actually was able to get some oscillations while using the optoisolators. They are less consistent and make a more interesting (to me) pattern than the constant squeal of the certified Ainslie NERD oscillations, and are harder to "tune". I think that if I can figure out how to get the opto power and ground return from the main battery supply, this might help to reestablish the genuine NERD feedback. Also, of course the PG50s may behave differently.
Two scope shots showing the oscillations obtained _with_ the opto isolators:
Quote from: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 09:09:18 AM
TK,
The referenced RA paper is at the following:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766)
PW
Thank you, I have the paper in my files and I have read it several times. This "paper" is the one that was summarily rejected five times by the IEEE journals they submitted it to, isn't it? Am I going to have to read that word salad yet again? They even list an incorrect make and model for their FG in that paper.
And isn't the Instek FG that they used, one of these? Note the frequency range of the units.
http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8216A.html (http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8216A.html)
.99 pointed this out to Rosemary early on during the present incarnation of the zombie tarbaby.:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454)
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310470/#msg310470 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310470/#msg310470) ( with comparison photos)
The FG used by the NERD RATS in the video demostration is an Instek GFG8216A, with a minimum frequency of 0.3 Hz (or 0.1 Hz depending on where you look) according to its manual and data sheet. How then was it used to make the very slow frequencies that they have claimed? I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on some real evidence that these long cycles were achieved, if I am to make some special effort to operate in that regime. Meanwhile, the evidence that we do have indicates they used a 50 percent duty cycle at 10 Hz.
An internet search for "iso-tech 324 function generator" or "isotech 324 function generator" returns mostly hits for the INSTEK 8216A. I have not been able to find any discrete listing for a "iso-tech" or "isotech" 342 function generator. I'd love to see the data sheet for that unit.
http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html#tab4 (http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html#tab4)
Note the lowest frequency settings of these Iso-tech function generators. No model "324" is listed. Maybe it's obsolete... but I can't find one listed on the surplus/used market either.
It also looks to me like the front panel of the INSTEK unit is telling us that the "shield" or outer conductor of the FG's output terminals is grounded, not floating.
TK,
As to the rejection, well, I'll leave that alone... the point is, which waveform to use.
The one you describe in your posted scope shot is very similar, only the duty cycle/period is different. Does the hi level of the gate drive signal on the scope shot you posted exceed the zero line? If not, then Q2 is just being alternately turned off and biased on by the FG as its waveform toggles and Q1 is not being utilized in any active way, except for its intrinsic capacitances and body diode.
Your optocoplers are hard switching the gates, which is not the same as the bias being used on the RA common gate amplifier circuit to just barely turn on Q2 for somewhat linear operation. Q2 is configured as an amplifier, not a switch. There are other ways to bias Q2 into a similar region besides applying a negative voltage to its source via a resistor, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.
I suggest an FG setting at a convenient to scope period with an open circuit excursion between -15 and zero volts, unless more data is available regarding the FG max positive swing voltage. I believe your Interstate can be set to place the complete waveform at the zero volts level and below (I believe that's what I saw in one of your videos). In that setting, amplitude can be used to set the negative swing value instead of using the offset control (very cool FG). Just keep in mind that you only want to bias Q2 on slightly, 100-250ma., and not fully turn it on. Also, keep in mind that there will be a lot of dissiation in Q2 when biased that way... proper heat needed.
Hard switching Q2 would definitely be more efficient regarding less loss in Q2 and more power at the load, but the "magic" is supposed to be in the oscillations. Hard switching the MOSFETS and using a lower Rdson MOSFET would eliminate the need for a heat sink, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 10:04:33 AM
TK,
As to the rejection, well, I'll leave that alone... the point is, which waveform to use.
The one you describe in your posted scope shot is very similar, only the duty cycle/period is different. Does the hi level of the gate drive signal on the scope shot you posted exceed the zero line? If not, then Q2 is just being alternately turned off and biased on by the FG as its waveform toggles and Q1 is not being utilized in any active way, except for its intrinsic capacitances and body diode.
Your optocoplers are hard switching the gates, which is not the same as the bias being used on the RA common gate amplifier circuit to just barely turn on Q2 for somewhat linear operation. Q2 is configured as an amplifier, not a switch. There are other ways to bias Q2 into a similar region besides applying a negative voltage to its source via a resistor, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.
I suggest an FG setting at a convenient to scope period with an open circuit excursion between -15 and zero volts, unless more data is available regarding the FG max positive swing voltage. I believe your Interstate can be set to place the complete waveform at the zero volts level and below (I believe that's what I saw in one of your videos). In that setting, amplitude can be used to set the negative swing value instead of using the offset control (very cool FG). Just keep in mind that you only want to bias Q2 on slightly, 100-250ma., and not fully turn it on. Also, keep in mind that there will be a lot of dissiation in Q2 when biased that way... proper heat needed.
Hard switching Q2 would definitely be more efficient regarding less loss in Q2 and more power at the load, but the "magic" is supposed to be in the oscillations. Hard switching the MOSFETS and using a lower Rdson MOSFET would eliminate the need for a heat sink, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.
PW
Now I am beginning to think you either haven't watched all the videos or I am not explaining things very well. Using my FG to produce a strict negative-going pulse train, from 0 Volts to minus whatever, adjusted by varying the _amplitude_ control not the offset, I am making oscillations just as you say. When I turn the amplitude up from "idle" (which is a minimal voltage swing from about 0 to -0.5 volts) to "operating" you can see the mosfets turn on, and when the FG is directly connected not using the optoisolators the oscillations commence immediately when the signal is high enough for any response. I can put the amplitude all the way up (max negative excursion) but since there is a low impedance to the FG's output in the circuit, the voltage doesn't go way up, but the oscillations persist throughout the range of the FG's setting as long as the amplitude is enough to "tickle" the Q2 gates. In other words, I am operating just as you suggest in your second-to-last paragraph, as far as I can tell.
The purpose of the optoisolator trial is to try to figure out some way to operate the system without the FG's current path, while including the oscillations, since those are the only "magic" part of the behaviour of the NERD circuit (except how to get a 2 minute wave period from a FG that has a minimum frequency of 0.3 Hz). I don't think that the FG's path is absolutely required for feedback oscillations to happen; humbugger's excellent sims from last year showed that all you really have to do is "poke" the thing with a single short pulse and it will oscillate until the cows come home or the oxtail soup is done.
If it turns out that the FG's current path MUST be in the system, acting as a power source, for the _claimed_ Ainslie battery charging effect to occur.... what does that tell us?
18 months of continuous testing every working day for 18 months as she claimed (12 Watts dissipated in the load) could have only used less than 4 times her total battery capacity anyway...... even if she really did dissipate 12 Watts continuously for 5 hours per day for 300 days.
So I think that you are trying to hold me to some standard that the Ainslie team certainly hasn't met themselves. You want me to reproduce a claimed frequency and pulse duty cycle that is clearly not within the range of the equipment they say they used.
(Although it IS within the capability of my Interstate F43, which can go down to... let's see.... 0.004 Hz x 10 on the knobs for 0.04 Hz, then use the .01f setting, we get 0.0004 Hz. What is that in period, I wonder? 0.0004 cycles PER one second == ? seconds per cycle, so we invert and divide, to obtain a period of 2500 seconds... can that be right?)
Right now, based on the heating and other behaviours of the Tar Baby, I can say this: operating the TAR BABY in full oscillation mode where I reproduce the gate and drain traces that Ainslie has _actually_ shown, not just talked about... there is very little power in the load and it doesn't warm up much. However, during "tuning" one encounters states where the mosfet(s) are cleanly switching AND states where the mosfet(s) are fully 100 percent of the time ON, and the load is exposed to the full voltage of the battery pack through a low-resistance pathway... hence it draws several amps of real current and heats up quite well.
It would be very surprising to me to find that a "real" NERD RAT device would behave differently, even with the magic mosfets and the magic signal generator.
ETA: Also, the "efficiency" of the circuit as a heater is in question. When the circuit is operating in "oscillating" mode, how much of the power from the battery will be dissipated in the mosfet(s) and how much in the load? When the circuit is switched cleanly or is in "constant on" mode, how much of the power from the battery in _that_ case is dissipated in the mosfet(s) and how much in the load? This is a separate issue from the battery recharging issue... for which there is no _real_ evidence EVEN IN THE NERD RAT DATA as .99 and humbugger have extensively shown in their analyses.
I hope you don't mind, .99, if I attach your report here... maybe PicoWatt hasn't seen it.
Quote from: picowatt on March 26, 2012, 11:22:18 PM
Your alternate FET's should work, but for duplicating as close as possible the waveforms and Fosc of the RA circuit, the PG50 would be a closer replication. You should be able to swap them out with the 830's but the lower capacitances of those devices will flavor the results slightly.
careful... i tried telling tinsel-lokin the same thing years back... they all jumped on me and called me a troll. accused me of strawman. or maybe it was because i used the same tone with tinsel as he uses with others that got him so upset...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 27, 2012, 10:55:52 AM
careful... i tried telling tinsel-lokin the same thing years back... they all jumped on me and called me a troll. accused me of strawman. or maybe it was because i used the same tone with tinsel as he uses with others that got him so upset...
Ahh... I've been waiting for you to show up. I knew you would. This will be my last response to you and it consists of one question:
When will you show your Ainslie circuit replication charging up its batteries and boiling water?
Please don't return until you can answer my polite question above.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310476/#msg310476 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310476/#msg310476)
For the readers who may be interested, Wilby is referring to my prior work on Ains-lie's previous claim, the Quantum circuit and the claim of COP>17, with yet a Different circuit than is being examined here. For a short while, while my IRFPG50 mosfets were on order, I posted results from a 2sk1548 mosfet, and I stated that I would be surprised to find a significant difference between the two. Later when I actually DID have a PG50 for testing, I mounted the two transistors side-by-side on a huge triple-pole double throw slide switch so that I could switch them back and forth _live in the powered circuit_ for comparison purposes. I discovered that the 2sk1548 worked BETTER than the IRFPG50 in producing the high-voltage inductive spikes that Ainslie then was claiming were responsible for her alleged battery charging. I posted a note saying that I WAS surprised to find this difference..... but since I found no "overunity" behaviour from either mosfet, I didn't think it was a "significant" difference in the context. And I was right then and I am still right, but Wilby can't find anything else objectionable in my work so he's been stuck on that same single issue for YEARS.
(In that work I was the first to: identify the inverted duty cycle problem with her timer; show that using her timer AS PUBLISHED one could reproduce the time-temperature profiles she posted; boil water with the heat in the load; siphon off the "spike" using a fast diode and charge an external capacitor to hundreds of volts, running NE-2s and so forth on a 24 volt battery input; charge EXTERNAL batteries with a "fluffy charge", and many other of the reported effects of that circuit. And my batteries still measured 24 volts !! Lol. All this is documented and published in many videos on my YT channel. And all of it using BOTH the 1548 and the pg50 for comparison purposes.)
of course i would. i told you i'll be there a long time ago didn't i? don't you see tinselkoala/alsetalokin... my righteous indignation at what you did to me, what you implied and what you lied about is directly proportional to your self righteous indignation at rosemary for what you accuse her of.
i wouldn't even consider it until you offer up that mea culpa you owe me from our last go 'round... you remember... the go 'round where i told you the same thing picowatt did about substituting whatever you have on hand and expecting it to be a "replication". and recall what happened when you did actually get around to SCIENTIFICALLY testing the difference between the two transistors. you found they didn't behave the same... and recall where you cursed and ran away and said you were "done". you remember don't you? i do...
furthermore, i wasn't talking to you. i was talking to pico. so unless you have that mea culpa ready. don't speak to me.
for the readers that are interested: the record of what was said, which tinselkoala/alsetalokin doesn't want you to have the link to is here. http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg197621/#msg197621
Quote from: utilitarian on August 16, 2009, 09:59:44 PM
QuoteSimilarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?
that wasn't the conclusion being posited by tk. he had concluded (apparently before he started his hack of a 'replication') it was perfectly ok to substitute a mosfet based on data sheets. i called him on it. he didn't actually voice this conclusion until page 2.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 08:13:03 AM
QuoteOK, several points to address.
First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.
he then made an asinine hypothesis (see below for how that turned out) about the irfpg50 performance,
never once specifying 'over unity performance'. i called him on it. he then asked if i could show how it would perform any different on page 11.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 08:28:24 PM
QuoteThe answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.
Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?
If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.
If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.
(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)
please take note of these words...
My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily.here he is referring to his claim of no difference in mosfet performance, let alone OU, and her claim of over unity which he was calling erroneous due to the duty cycle issue.
and these words...
significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used.note no mention of over unity performance, just performance. why oh why do i have to hammer this in? oh yeah, the slow ones... and the liar.
they (tk and his merry band of sycophants) all jabbered for a while pretending how smart they are and then,
asymatrix quantified it once again as being non relative to over unity performance by saying this on page 24.
Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 12:12:43 AM
QuotePlease tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.
tk did not amend this to being specifically relative to OU performance. while they (tk and his merry band of sycophants again) continued to jabber about how smart they are and how little i know, etc. i waited for him to get around to actually testing this experimentally. when he finally did, on page 42 i might add. he found this out.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 06:50:12 PM
QuoteThe long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
take note of these words...
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that.he did however, try to claim he 'meant' over unity performance later. much later. page 108 actually.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 07:07:38 AM
Quote"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.
i called him on that too.
TK,
I am not trying to hold you to "any" standard. I merely thought replicating the circuit first and then modifying it would be a logical way to go. I meant no disrespect at all. And no, I have not watched all your videos, I'll try to find the time to catch up.
By applying the DC bias to the gate, the AC parameters change a bit. Also, do you have a 50R or any resistor other than the CSR in the Q2 source leg to the batt negative? Q2 will self-regulate its current based on the source resistor value used , the positive voltage applied to the gate (or negative voltage applied via the (50R) source resistor) and its threshold voltage (which varies with temp).
As I said, I doubt Q1 is being turned on at all. One could possibly place a 50R in the Q2 source leg to the CSR and apply 12 volts to the Q2 gate via a 100K to 1meg resistor connected to the first 12 volt battery tap up from ground. That will set the DC bias about right for Q2, but now the first battery is providing I bias as well as I load. Also, the drain of Q2 would now have 12 volts less swing (headroom) available. And again, AC conditions change a bit as the internal resistance and strays from the batt would now be in the DC and AC loop and I load will be inducing ripple in what would now be the bias source. The large gate resistor value will, in concert with Ciss, decouple the I load ripple somewhat, but in the end, it sounds like it would be another oscillator to me.... again, just a different flavor.
One could use a separate 12 volt battery and a 50R to apply the negative voltage to the Q2 source instead of the FG, but then the bias battery will eventually die. Properly sized, it would allow the main batts to be tested for a proper rundown test to see if the batts do indeed "recharge" or "maintain charge" during oscillation. Assuming a fair degree of feedback in the FG output amplifier, the AC impedance of the FG output stage is probably quite low, relative to the Rgen of 50R. Placing a cap across the new bias battery would reduce the batt's AC impedance to closer simulate the FG.
As far as the FG recharging the batteries in the RA circuit, I don't see how that is possible. Adding another battery in series with a 50R in its place will not charge the higher voltage batt bank either. As to the current state of the RA batteries, based on her observed swings to zero volts, I suspect their internal impedance is quite high at this time. Even without a load applied at all, they would have seen 18 months of self-discharge and subsequent loss of capacity (increased internal resistance). The batt's open circuit voltage could still measure just fine. It would be interesting to just hang a 10R across the batts and measure the drop in the battery voltage to determine their internal resistance.
Again, no disrepect intended... it's all good...
More coffee and then back to work for me...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 09:17:14 AM
Thank you, I have the paper in my files and I have read it several times. This "paper" is the one that was summarily rejected five times by the IEEE journals they submitted it to, isn't it?
Hi TK,
Actually the paper that was rejected five times in various versions was this one .....
Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating SystemsR.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner,
D Martin,
S. Windisch( 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf )
For the record ....
FTC
;)
Wilby,
Wow, you guys really need to bury the hatchet... life is too short.
You do have to give TK credit for being one of the first, if not the first, to identify the inverted duty cycle issue in the COP=17 circuit. And, oddly, how that inversion, if the calculations are also inverted, produced a similar COP result.
But yes, I would typically replicate first and then modify second. I am asked to improve on designs all the time, and I always start with what the customer is currently using to make baseline measurements to improve upon.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 11:47:25 AM
TK,
I am not trying to hold you to "any" standard. I merely thought replicating the circuit first and then modifying it would be a logical way to go. I meant no disrespect at all. And no, I have not watched all your videos, I'll try to find the time to catch up.
No problem, I know you mean nothing more than to have an honest vigorous and constructive discussion. And you clearly have a better understanding of these matters than I do. I'm a psychologist, after all, not an EE.
Would you rather that I wait until I have all of the exact components in the lab before I begin work at all-- and where do we draw the line? I mean, if I had started with the PG50 and pegboard and clipleads all over the place, and obtained oscs immediately.... would we have learned as much as we know now? I don't think so.
My style, as you might have perceived, is not to attempt to PROVE anything. On the other hand, if I can't DISPROVE something.... see what I mean? I am applying the scientific method, and you can rest assured that I WILL reproduce the exact circuit down to the pegboard and clipleads, Instek and "aluminium heatsinks" and all, if that is what is _truly_ needed to examine the NERD RAT claims for accuracy and truth.
And there's really no need to watch "all" of my videos... there are only about a dozen in the present Ainslie series and 40 or so in the previous 2009 work, out of nearly 200 videos of my scientific tinkering that I've uploaded.
Quote
By applying the DC bias to the gate, the AC parameters change a bit. Also, do you have a 50R or any resistor other than the CSR in the Q2 source leg to the batt negative? Q2 will self-regulate its current based on the source resistor value used , the positive voltage applied to the gate (or negative voltage applied via the (50R) source resistor) and its threshold voltage (which varies with temp).
I am using the exact circuit attached below, except that I am not yet monitoring across the CVR, I am using 0.1 ohms 5W "sand" resistor as the CVR, and I am using the 830a mosfet, as I still only have one PG50... which by the way oscillates fine in the "single mosfet" version of this circuit which is diagrammed-- but not shown-- in the Ainslie video demonstration.
Quote
As I said, I doubt Q1 is being turned on at all. One could possibly place a 50R in the Q2 source leg to the CSR and apply 12 volts to the Q2 gate via a 100K to 1meg resistor connected to the first 12 volt battery tap up from ground. That will set the DC bias about right for Q2, but now the first battery is providing I bias as well as I load. Also, the drain of Q2 would now have 12 volts less swing (headroom) available. And again, AC conditions change a bit as the internal resistance and strays from the batt would now be in the DC and AC loop and I load will be inducing ripple in what would now be the bias source. The large gate resistor value will, in concert with Ciss, decouple the I load ripple somewhat, but in the end, it sounds like it would be another oscillator to me.... again, just a different flavor.
I'm fairly sure I can get both Q1 and Q2 mosfets to turn on depending on the FG's settings. Usually alternately, occasionally simultaneously, mostly just one set during the negative gate drive mode. At least all the heatsinks can get warm ! I did manage to blow just two of the "gang of four" during an overheat event, and the single Q1 hs was quite hot at that time too.
Quote
One could use a separate 12 volt battery and a 50R to apply the negative voltage to the Q2 source instead of the FG, but then the bias battery will eventually die. Properly sized, it would allow the main batts to be tested for a proper rundown test to see if the batts do indeed "recharge" or "maintain charge" during oscillation. Assuming a fair degree of feedback in the FG output amplifier, the AC impedance of the FG output stage is probably quite low, relative to the Rgen of 50R. Placing a cap across the new bias battery would reduce the batt's AC impedance to closer simulate the FG.
A real problem here is that test results should be unambiguous enough and with transparent enough methodology that the "main suspects" can't hand-wave their way out of the conclusions, as they have so many times in the past. I've even, in the very first setup of this circuit that I did using 2n7000 mosfets--nice oscs there btw, see the video-- I coupled the FG to the circuit using a series cap--- which passed the gate signal fine, switched the mosfets "normally"... but killed the oscs completely.
Quote
As far as the FG recharging the batteries in the RA circuit, I don't see how that is possible. Adding another battery in series with a 50R in its place will not charge the higher voltage batt bank either. As to the current state of the RA batteries, based on her observed swings to zero volts, I suspect their internal impedance is quite high at this time. Even without a load applied at all, they would have seen 18 months of self-discharge and subsequent loss of capacity (increased internal resistance). The batt's open circuit voltage could still measure just fine. It would be interesting to just hang a 10R across the batts and measure the drop in the battery voltage to determine their internal resistance.
In one of the recent videos I show the FG charging a small battery a little bit, but definitely doing so. But I now realise that it doesn't have to... since there's no evidence of battery recharging in the NERD data when it's examined closely. I agree, a proper and simple load test on her batteries would be revealing but we both know we will never see that done -- on the NERD device at least. Also I'd like to know how two of them "caught fire" as she claims.
Quote
Again, no disrepect intended... it's all good...
More coffee and then back to work for me...
PW
And I never thought you were being disrespectful at all. You have constructive criticism and suggestions and you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm not afraid of looking stupid and I do take correction when the correction is correct. Trolls who make distorted comments about nothing at all pertinent, and who have never demonstrated possession of opposable thumbs much less technical prowess, on the other hand, I cannot abide at all.
ETA: oops, I forgot to attach the circuit. Sorry... here it is:
(I can also place in or out a series resistor of 0.3 ohms between the FG + and the gate, because a resistor was shown here in one of Ainslie's many diagrams of the demonstrated circuit.)
Quote from: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 12:10:18 PM
Wilby,
Wow, you guys really need to bury the hatchet... life is too short.
You do have to give TK credit for being one of the first, if not the first, to identify the inverted duty cycle issue in the COP=17 circuit. And, oddly, how that inversion, if the calculations are also inverted, produced a similar COP result.
But yes, I would typically replicate first and then modify second. I am asked to improve on designs all the time, and I always start with what the customer is currently using to make baseline measurements to improve upon.
PW
:) LOL yeah, there's really no hatchet for me. my righteous indignation at tk is more of me holding up a mirror to him... but he can't see it. or maybe he can and that's why he got so pissed off a year or so back and left 'till recently. i guess i can't blame him... i'm sure he realizes by now that it was even funnier that i made him do all the work to prove himself wrong after he and his sycophants tried so hard to get me to do it. harvey told him a long time ago that his type was easy to manipulate... i think it sailed right over tinselkoala/alsetalokin's head. :)
anyways, you're right, life is too short. i'm going fishing... you have fun here, you'll see soon enough.
TK,
As for frying one of your quads, that is what happens when MOSFETS (or bipolars for that matter) are paralleled withour individual source (or emitter) degeneration resistors. Likely the one that popped was the one that had the lowest turn on threshold and was doing most, if not all the work. Source degerneration helps compensate for the variations in the threshold voltage of the paralleled devices. It is very likely that in the RA circuit not all, or even only one, of the MOSFETS in the "quad array" is doing all the work, with the rest just providing capacitance for AC current. If turned on hard enough, the rest will eventually carry some load, but the lowest threshold device will continue to carry the most current.
Seriously, off to work now...
Wish I was going fishing...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 12:53:51 PM
TK,
As for frying one of your quads, that is what happens when MOSFETS (or bipolars for that matter) are paralleled withour individual source (or emitter) degeneration resistors. Likely the one that popped was the one that had the lowest turn on threshold and was doing most, if not all the work. Source degerneration helps compensate for the variations in the threshold voltage of the paralleled devices. It is very likely that in the RA circuit not all, or even only one, of the MOSFETS in the "quad array" is doing all the work, with the rest just providing capacitance for AC current. If turned on hard enough, the rest will eventually carry some load, but the lowest threshold device will continue to carry the most current.
Seriously, off to work now...
Wish I was going fishing...
PW
I know, I know something about parallelling mosfets. You are now pitching a bit under my level, but that's OK because I know we have people of all levels reading here. Did you see the paper below? I think Fuzzy first found this one. Odd that that Morris didn't notice the massive overunity performance of his five parallelled IRFPG50 mosfets. Of course ... he followed your suggestion as to the proper way to parallel mosfets, and... he didn't get four of them in backwards, like the NERDs did.
I even told them what to expect when their "gang of four" had to carry 10 or 12 amps, much less the 4200 Amps like was implied by the famous "25.6 megaJoules" test that started my entire objection and involvement.
You might also be interested in my TinselKoil. It uses an H-bridge of 4 power mosfets to switch rectified line current at 170 vdc (roughly) through a 4-turn primary winding of a 300 kHz solid state Tesla coil resonator. The mosfet gates are driven by phase transformer toroids that are in turn driven by a current amplifier H-bridge of silicon transistors, which in turn is driven by a PWM driver chip (TL494 IIRC). All developed by me, empirically and in public view, and all impossible to accomplish without protective circuitry and proper layout of the power stage to avoid stray inductances and achieve clean switching. Videos on my YT channel.
By the way... my Tar Baby oscillates just fine.... with the Q1 mosfet ENTIRELY REMOVED from the circuit. There is little difference in the scope trace and none in behavior except that it doesn't heat the load much that way. I'm pulling and testing all the mosfets now to see if there are any that are open... a shorted one shows up right away in-circuit but the opens are harder to detect.
More on removal of Q1:
With Q1 in place, if one uses a bipolar drive signal instead of strictly negative going, one still sees oscillations on only one phase--- at least I do, but my Q1 is mounted with short leads -- but an interesting thing happens. Something that might not be noticed by someone who thinks oscilloscopes are for drawing pretty colored lines with.
The first shot below is using a bipolar gate drive signal of +/- 5 volts, about. This shot is with the lone mosfet Q1 _ENTIRELY REMOVED_ from the circuit by pulling it out of its socket and laying it down on the bench about six inches away. (Of course you can't see the invisible wires, silly.)
The second scope shot below is exactly the same except with the Q1 mosfet back in its socket. See any difference in the oscillations?
What about NOT in the oscillations?
Now, silly old fumblefingers me, barely tall enough to reach the controls.... I sometimes make mistakes in my knob settings or hookups or whatever. But I try to assume FIRST that I have made some error when I see something strange, so I go back and check my work and try to correct what I've done and interpret correctly what I see, by experimenting all around in the problem space, NOT simply "trying to replicate exactly" somebody else's claim of an a-priori impossibility.
Is it possible that other people, perhaps even more naive than I am, could make mistakes, and perhaps not notice them at all?
TK,
Didn't mean to throw you a low ball, but, as you say, others may find that useful.
Yes, I have seen most of your HV videos, including your H-bridge driven coil. It really is a thing of beauty and quite the accomplishment. Fire up all those HV projects, turn off the lights... talk about mood enhancement...
Many (too many) years ago I built a VDG with a 3.5' foot upper terminal complete with cardioid shaped bottom section, 5" or 6" belt, dry nitrogen filled column and active corona spray. When it would discharge into its 24" discharge globe, well, let's just say you did not want to be around it. Always enjoyed a good HV display, DC or AC.
With Q1 out of circuit, you probably lose around 20% of the AC current path. If you monitor AC current at the CSR, that is likely where you will see the difference with/without Q1 in the circuit, i.e., a bit more AC current with Q1 in circuit. Even the 830's have what, 600-800 pf of Ciss (I know you posted the data sheet, it was something like that if I recall). I would think it would show up on a scope trace at the drain as a slight change in the osc amplitude (with Q1 in circuit).
Break over,
PW
Oh yeah there's nothing like a good VDG. Yours sounds like it's bordering on dangerous... a proton accelerator kind of thingy....
We tried to reproduce an antigravity claim once by making 2 opposite-charged VDGs with the same physical dimensions you describe, but without the N2-filled column; we regularly got 4-foot long discharges along the belts. We did use some active spray too but it really wasn't needed for our purposes. We tested the voltage by using _giant_ spheres in a calibrated gap arrangement suspended from the ceiling and were able to get 1.2 honest to goodness megavolts tension between the top terminals. The things would make every metal projection in the entire lab warehouse section start spraying corona. In the dark it was somewhere between awesome and really scary.
TK,
Based on my experience, I would vote "REALLY" scarey for your setup...
Only knocked myself out once... It could really reach out and grab you if the discharge term was set too far away...
Dry weather was awesome.
Sorry for the off topic...
PW
LEDs of Doom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8YQMHXR-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8YQMHXR-Q)
What is really interesting to me is that, doing nothing else other than using a bipolar pulse or a positive offset on the negative pulse, the Q1 mosfet turns fully and cleanly on during the NON_oscillating phase and heats up the load like an electric coffeepot with 1.5 Amps or more draw as indicated by my series DMM at the battery. When I use a strictly negative pulse so that only the Q2 transistors are doing anything, the oscillations pass only about 50 or 60 milliamps of current.... and with my nice insulated container, this seems to be enough to _keep the thing from cooling off_, until the next bout of "tuning" and turning some mosfets fully on while "tuning" and not recording data, and the load is carrying over an amp of current and heating up like an espresso pot.
And this happens during the part of the cycle where there are NO oscillations... the part where nobody is looking.
And of course as long as the oscillations themselves have sufficient amplitude they will light up the LEDs, both of them, regardless of whether the Q1 is switching cleanly or not.
Now I'm wondering if any of the NERD published data... by which I mean scope shots or actual spreadsheet dumps from the scope.... do any of their data show the characteristic drain behaviour that I have identified, that shows one or more mosfets turning fully on during the _non-oscillation_ phase of the waveform cycle?
That is, instead of the non-oscillation portion of the drain trace being at or close to battery voltage, it appears instead at or near the ground or zero volt reference level?
Hey TK:
Nice little clip on the LEDs of Doom. I am going to be a stick in the mud on you. Yes the LEDs showed AC current no doubt, but it would have been preferable to have wired then in series with the CSR. In series with the CSR they are a "sensor" for the series current flow, whereas in parallel they are sensing when the voltage across the CSR exceeds a certain threshold in either direction. Of course that clearly indicates AC current. In parallel they also "interfere" with the functioning of the CSR. Please don't mind me I am just being picky. The clip is still definitive and shows that there is AC going through the CSR. Plus when Q1 turns on like you said and if the LEDs are in series then you could blow an LED.
When you think about it, the MOSFET array when oscillating (No Q1 action) is a black box that is taking pulsing DC current in on the input side and generating an AC current signal on the output side. Inside the black box you have an oscillator, DC in, AC out.
My "LEDs of Doom" concept is to have back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery supply. Remember that Rosie Posie is excited about the notion that current is being returned to the battery while the Q2 array is oscillating.
So you can envision the following: The "Deluxe LEDs of Doom:" Back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery, and your back-to-back LEDs in parallel with the CSR. You power up and you see pulsing unidirectional current flow from the positive feed from the battery and bidirectional current flow through the CSR. That would be most interesting and thought provoking for some people out there.
Think about this: The RATs are looking at the CSR and seeing AC current through the CSR. Therefore the conclusion is that "current is being returned to the battery." But what's really happening is that inside the circuit there is a black box that takes pulsing DC current in and outputs AC current out. So it would appear that this engine inside the black box is throwing them off.
Disclaimer: This is all preliminary and food for thought. I am not on the bench and that always has to be factored in. I have clearly been tripped up in the past and there is a 100% chance that I will be tripped up in the future. I simply can't think about all angles all the time and sometimes I am simply wrong.
When you think about it though there is a certain elegance to this. It basically says that a CSR in series with the positive lead from the battery will NOT be in agreement with the CSR in the RAT circuit. We know that there is a fundamental flaw in the RAT circuit because there are two current return paths to the battery, through the existing CSR and through the function generator. I am assuming that Poynt's reverse-engineering of the RAT circuit in the RAT demo clip is the definitive description of the topology of the circuit. In addition, we know that there is an engine inside a black box in the RAT circuit that takes pulsing DC current in and then outputs AC current through the CSR.
So the Deluxe LEDs of Doom test, assuming it indicates what I think it will indicate, would tend to support this preliminary theory.
MileHigh
More data:
Following picowatt's suggestion of trying a DC gate stimulus "tickle" to try to get oscillations without the need for the FG.... I took a 50 ohm resistor and used a jumper to connect it to the board where the FG's leads were connected. Then I "tickled" the positive terminal of the battery at the negative end of my 3-stack.
First I "tickled" the place where the FG's positive lead connects. This turned on the Q1 mosfet hard and clean and it stayed on, essentially a direct short through the mosfet, even after I removed the positive connection (no pulldown) and stayed hard on until I either interrupted the battery connection or "tickled" the negative rail with the 50R on the jumper. I was unable to get oscillations here.
Then... I hooked the jumper to the place where the negative FG lead connects. When I "tickled" the positive battery terminal with the 50R, at first nothing happened... then by accident I heard a buzz from my COMPUTER speakers, checked the scope and the system had entered a wild oscillation state, and my inline DMMs freaked out and stopped indicating, and this oscillation continued, scaring me a bit since I couldn't monitor the current, so I killed it by disconnecting the battery.
It turns out that "tickle" is the key word... if I make a hard connection with the 50R to the batt positive, the Q2 either switches cleanly on and stays on or doesn't switch at all. Just that scratchy brief tickle, though, and you are off screaming like the zombies are after you.
Like I said I was worried about destroying my transistors so I only let it go on for a few seconds. I'll repeat it for a video later on this evening... stay tuned.
@MH:
I don't really see how the LEDs could survive in a series connection. Either the oscillations won't be present if I use an appropriate dropping resistor for the 36 volt positive supply, or the LEDs will pop and open the circuit.
But of course I'll try it... I've got plenty of LEDs and just I love the smell of that magic smoke.....
;)
ETA: Yup... as I thought... with the LED pair in series with a 1800 ohm resistor, right at the +36 volt terminal... only one LED lights and the oscillations are gone and can't be tuned back, so far. The Q2 mosfets are switching cleanly, all 20mA or so of current.
So now what-- reduce the value of the series resistor until the magic smoke _does_ appear?
ETA2: STOP THE PRESSES !! See the latest TKProduction, Tar Baby and the Semi-Deluxe LEDs of Doom... coming to a YT channel near you as soon as it's done uploading.
TK:
Didn't you say that your multimeter is showing 200 mA battery draw when the circuit is in oscillation? To me that sounds like all that you need is two LEDs back-to-back - no series resistor. 200 mA through a vanilla LED won't fry it, correct? I thought that the typical current through an LED was 100 mA.
If you want to be safe perhaps 2+2 LEDs back-to-back will do it for you. In theory the LEDs like this are benign, and just stealing 0.7 volts from the battery and otherwise not affecting the circuit.
You can't have any series resistor because that will choke off the whole shebang.
Note that the higher the frequency of the oscillation the lower current consumption of the circuit. The impedance due to the inductance everywhere increases the higher the frequency.
MileHigh
Typical led's are 30ma.
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on March 27, 2012, 10:12:16 PM
TK:
Didn't you say that your multimeter is showing 200 mA battery draw when the circuit is in oscillation? To me that sounds like all that you need is two LEDs back-to-back - no series resistor. 200 mA through a vanilla LED won't fry it, correct? I thought that the typical current through an LED was 100 mA.
um...er... I usually calculate for 20 mA for the standard LED. Some will glow very brightly on quite a bit less.
Quote
If you want to be safe perhaps 2+2 LEDs back-to-back will do it for you. In theory the LEDs like this are benign, and just stealing 0.7 volts from the battery and otherwise not affecting the circuit.
Each series LED will drop the voltage. Once they turn on they are just like one-directional resistors, and the voltage drop depends on the current you limit by the dropping series resistor. Sure, if there's enough resistance in the rest of the circuit to limit the current to 200 mA at 36 volts, then ten LEDs in series might light brightly. One... would light bery bery brightly for a very short time.
Quote
You can't have any series resistor because that will choke off the whole shebang.
Note that the higher the frequency of the oscillation the lower current consumption of the circuit. The impedance due to the inductance everywhere increases the higher the frequency.
MileHigh
Ah... yes. OK.... you owe me one green LED. With oscillations indicated, 110 mA showing on the inline meter, I put the green LED in series with no dropping resistor. The current went down to 90 mA indicated and the green LED glowed brilliant orange. It lasted 92 seconds before the light went to dim red ember and the magic white smoke all leaked out.
But the oscillations persisted throughout, until the LED went open totally !!
TK,
Regarding the alternate bias using the first batt tap (+12v), you will have to either remove Q1 or tie its gate to it's source and Q2's gate will have to be isolated from the rest of the circuit. I.e., pull Q1 out and then hook up the 12V via 100K or better to the Q2 gate. The 50R can go across the current FG terminals (between Q2 source and the CSR). That should give you similar DC bias conditions for Q2, but as I said, at AC things get a bit muddied.
Do you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc? I am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense. Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.
What happens to the LED's if you touch them with your fingers while the circuit is oscillating?
Have you looked at the CSR with a scope channel during the osc? Does it give you any clues as to the actual voltage/current happening there?
PW
Tar Baby and the Semi-Deluxe LEDs of Doom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEmNZtt3zZ8
TK,
Congratulations, your green LED, after 92 seconds of electron loading into its crystal lattice, has finally acheived a Can't OPerate factor (COP) of infinity.
PW
TK:
Thanks to you and Mags on the reminder about the typical current through a vanilla LED. It's been a long time for me. The last time I wired up a vanilla LED like that was probably 30 years ago. Yikes!
Realistically, a 20 or 30 mA LED may be able to withstand 100 mA. The trick is to check how hot they are getting with your finger and thumb.
Okay I have a Rev 2 for you. For starters I meant two LEDs in parallel back-to-back with two LEDs in parallel. That might still be pushing it so if you have a small breadboard handy, if you did 4 LEDs in parallel back to back with 4 LEDs in parallel you will probably be fine. No series resistor!
MileHigh
P.S.: I remember putting 5 volts through a vanilla LED with no series resistor. It made a cracking sound like a firecracker and split in two after about five seconds. Not as much fun as over-voltageing a small DC motor hanging by it's wires and hearing it scream and spin itself into a spiral of death. Screw them people for the ethical treatment of motors.
PW:
QuoteDo you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc? I am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense. Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.
You are really good and I am losing my touch/getting lazy. Would it be due to an effective capacitance associated with the PN junctions? I think the frequency is in the low megaherttz range but TK will confirm.
MileHigh
P.S.: TK, just watched the latest clip. I would think that you are in the MHz range because of both LEDs partially lighting when you shorted them out. That's a pain in the butt in a way, that very high frequency. It complicates everything and puts things in "magical Dr. Stiffler" territory. I was thinking the other day about the sampling rate issues for the DSO and all that, something that Poynt and I touched on last year. Running at high frequencies like that makes things that much more complicated and certainly way out of the realm of competence of the RAT team. Now the placement of the wires is that much more critical and so on. However, it should still not throw off the Rev 2 Deluxe LEDs of Doom test.
Quote from: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
TK,
Regarding the alternate bias using the first batt tap (+12v), you will have to either remove Q1 or tie its gate to it's source and Q2's gate will have to be isolated from the rest of the circuit. I.e., pull Q1 out and then hook up the 12V via 100K or better to the Q2 gate. The 50R can go across the current FG terminals (between Q2 source and the CSR). That should give you similar DC bias conditions for Q2, but as I said, at AC things get a bit muddied.
OK that makes sense, and I'll try it that way after dinner.
Quote
Do you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc?
A rough idea, yes. The scope says that there are nine full cycles PER 2 microseconds. Doing the math (tm RA), we find 9/0.000002 is equal to 4.5 MHz and the unit dimensions agree. (sorry, I couldn't resist). But the Philips PM6676 counter reports a period of 254 nanoseconds or a frequency of 3923 kHz, give or take. Maybe my scope's timebase is a bit off at that freq, although it checks out with its own calibrator at 10 kHz. It's a miracle that it can resolve the fast oscs at all. I'm using the delayed trigger function to get them displayed stably. I trust the Philips implicitly.
QuoteI am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense. Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.
What happens to the LED's if you touch them with your fingers while the circuit is oscillating?
Touching it pretty much anywhere, or waving hands around, affects the oscs and can kill or start them. No oscs, no bidirectional current flow in the LEDs.
Quote
Have you looked at the CSR with a scope channel during the osc? Does it give you any clues as to the actual voltage/current happening there?
PW
Yes, and it's about what you'd expect to see on a HP180 scope at a gain of .5 v/div trying to get information from a 9 (or 4.5) mHz signal. I'd hate to have to interpret it in a court of law.
But never fear, the Clarke-Hess power analyzer is near.
Wait till you see what 18 inches of wire inductance can do, in the latest video.
TK:
I knew it was high in frequency and I made a P.S. in my last posting about that. I assume the RAT test was comparable in frequency. It's not like you are in waveguide territory bit it's still quite high just the same - and not trivial.
Not easy stuff to deal with at all in terms of a serious analysis of an energy audit trail. Like I already said, you have to assume way beyond the competencies of the RAT team.
You have probably looked at your share of "Dr. Stiffler" related clips and they are all just "playing" clips with people making neon lights light up and "sniffing around."
MileHigh
I agree that when pulsed, an led can take quite a bit more than continuous on current.
Remember the conversation we had a bit ago? There is an initial high output flash if you overdrive them. Say we put 10a through a laser diode that continuously wont handle as much, but for a very short amount of time. There will be an amount of time that it can take it. After the flash dies, and current still flows, the led/laser diode begins to really die. err fry.
Just like diodes have peek amp/time ratings and continuous.
I have to find the laser circuit with the explanation. I was able to get leds to do it also. Not 10a though. ;]
If I can get it going again, with the led chip image on white paper, Ill make a vid.
Its pretty cool to see the 4 sides of the chip flash brighter 1 at a time as the current is increased till they are all brighter.
If this circuit is 1mhz or more, this could very well be a condition that the led will pass more current safely.
Instead of leds, what about shunted analog current meters with diodes on each. If the freq are very high,and rectified, the needle movement shouldnt have any visible vibration. Some meters are quicker and less damped. But if mhz, it should just show the average.
The meter that shows the most current, determines which direction more current is flowing.
Mags
I think the NERD oscs in the demo video were supposed to be at 1.2 MHz if I recall the presenter's narration correctly. Of course, I trust that figure absolutely. Don't you?
But it does seem plausible considering the larger capacitances involved with the PG50. I have a single one I can stick in in 2 different places, either as Q1 or as one of the "gang of four", and I predict that will lower the oscillation frequency but of course not all the way down to 1.2 MHz. We shall see. Tomorrow I may get the other PG50s I've ordered.
By the way, the whine heard on my stereo during the "just right oscs" is the "modulation frequency", that is, the FG's pulse freq or a harmonic of it, while the 4.5 MHz seems to be the "carrier".
@Mags: You know I'd be using my old analog Simpson for current monitoring if I could. Unfortunately it's in another undisclosed location right now and I can't get to it. Nor a lot of my other gear either.
I do have a current sensing transformer of the Rogowski coil type that I can try, running several turns of the supply lead through it to increase its sensitivity. It will only respond to the AC component of the current and will indicate the magnitude of the current by the voltage trace of its output, and it's only connected magnetically to the circuit under test. But the one I have might not be very good at 4.5 MHz... we shall see.
OK... I put the single PG50 that I have into one of the Q2 locations. The only change in circuit behaviour that I can detect on short inspection is that the frequency of the oscillations went down to ... er, hum..... at 1 microsecond per division, using the delayed trigger function and as much of the screen as I can see, I count 23 full cycles PER seven divisions or seven microseconds. Doing the math (tm RA), I do the division operation 23/0.000007 and find the answer, by pressing the "division" key on my calculator (sorry, I just cannot seem to help myself, this is more fun than shooting fish in a barrel) I find just under 3.3 MHz, a pretty good drop from what it was before. The Philips says 3186 kHz, in good agreement with the scoposcopy.
Here's a screenshot of the HP180's delayed trigger function. The main trace is displayed at 0.2 milliseconds per division, then the expanded delayed trigger trace is shown at 1 microsecond per division. Two timebases on a single screen, with a single beam oscilloscope !! Analog RULES !!
A note on "replication" and what I'm doing here:
First, as I said in the first post of the thread, RA disavows any notion that the Tar Baby is a replication of her NERD circuit. Even though it uses the same circuit diagram, the same component values except for the mosfets, is driven in the same way at the same frequencies and amplitudes and produces the same waveforms, the Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT replication. Got that? This gives me considerable freedom to experiment, as well as the liberty to apply for the various prizes she has applied for, should I be able to demonstrate battery charging and overunity performance in the Tar Baby device, which is NOT an Ainslie replication.
Second, fiddling around and turning knobs and poking fingers into things, learning about the circuit and its variations and vagaries, I've managed to destroy 3 of my IRF 830a mosfets. (I have a bunch of them). My local supplier has these in stock for $1.30 each. The IRFPG50, however, costs around 6.50 each and are harder to get, and would also have been destroyed in the same events that got my 830s. Dare I say it..... do the math. That's the cost of a six pack of good beer around here, and I'm not kidding.
Tar Baby and the LEDs Strike Back....:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84)
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 03:48:38 AM
Tar Baby and the LEDs Strike Back....:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84)
Interesting... KneeDeep
Quote from: georgecanon33 on March 28, 2012, 04:30:19 AM
Hey the video at the start was awesome the information was great.
green tea pills weight loss (http://greenteapillsweightloss.com)"A high metabolic rate means more fat expenditure and a bigger calorie deficit which is essential to the process of weight loss. A study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that green tea does have an effect on metabolism.
Really George? And what does a spambot know about Tar Babies and inductance and claims of overunity? I must say, I'm not too impressed with your sales ability so far. Here's a thought: why don't you just take your green tea pills and..... take them yourself. All of them. At once. Please report their effect on your metabolism.
Quote from: hoptoad on March 28, 2012, 05:17:44 AM
Interesting... KneeDeep
Yes, I thought so too.
I'm wondering... has there been any progress towards testing the NERD device? I haven't been looking at other threads here and I'm wondering if the NERD RATs have dropped their application or decided not to pursue the matter further.
Because I think we've identified some very easy little tests and trials that might reveal a lot about that device's performance, if somebody would only do them. If the NERD RAT device still exists somewhere, and is the revolutionary COP > Infinity device it has been claimed to be..... wouldn't you think at least _somebody_ would be willing to stay up late, in a room full of electronic test equipment and a computer and a camera or two, testing and reporting until everybody understood what a miracle it is and just how well it worked.
I know I would be, if I believed, really deep down, that I actually had such a device. Heck, I am anyway, and I doubt very severely that I will be able to get anywhere near COP > Infinity with the Tar Baby.
Heck, I'd be happy if it just did half that.
TK:
Well, those look like the LEDs of Salvation! World saved! Civilization powered by RAT pulsing inductors everywhere! lol
A few thoughts for you. Goodbye cruel world... Actually you notice that your 3-4 MHz waveform is actually a repeating "vertical spike" and not a sinusoidal-ish wave. So there are actually harmonics galore, 8, 12, 16 MHz, etc. You are really in "spacial energy" (sic) territory.
What makes voltage of the oscillation on the drain go quite high above the battery voltage? I am guessing when the Q2 MOSFETs turn on that the small wire inductance is energized. Then when Q2 switches off that stored energy discharges and charges up the stray capacitance in the wire. Note that when you touch the wire and add capacitance the amplitude of the oscillations goes down.
So I am going to guess that the charged stray wire capacitance discharges back into the battery and that makes the "return" LED light up. So it's the same old business where the whole setup is "buzzing" relative to a qasi virtual ground plane consisting of your desk, the floor, bla bla bla. Spatial energy is everywhere dude...
So, two LEDs light up with a 4 MHz "spike." The new mad theory is that 100 units of energy flow out of the battery, and then 99 units of energy flow back into the battery at 4 MHz. There is a net outflow of energy that powers the circuit.
So, will the LEDs of Salvation be trumped by the Can't-be-Fooled Capacitor? That ls the question...
MileHigh
@MH: I wouldn't put too much interpretation on the shape of that waveform within the oscillations. At the frequencies concerned, probes and scope internals have a large effect on subtle things like details within an individual period. if the waveform is regular at all you can rely on the frequency to be precise (if not too accurate) on the scope readout, but the exact shape could be influenced even by how you've got the probe wire strung along the bench. And these probes are "compensated" to give a good waveshape at a certain frequency, and so at other freqs they will distort the shape a bit.
I just checked .99's analysis doc, but it doesn't look like he included any sim traces from the common drain point, he was just concerned about the battery voltage and the CVR indications. Still, the oscillations at the battery in his sim look a lot like the individual cycles I see within the blur. I don't think there is really anything "clicking" or turning on and off hard in the circuit during the oscillations, and I think that they are really classical feedback, very sinusoidal, with some distortion caused by artefact and stray inductances.
But maybe you are right..... otherwise I probably wouldn't be able to pick it up on my FM radio at 88.1 MHz.
ETA: The bandwidth of the old 180 is a factor too. In a few days I'll have results from a more modern, 1 GHz scope and that will let us see what is really happening within those individual osc cycles. Pretty colored lines, too !
@MH:
You said
QuoteSo, two LEDs light up with a 4 MHz "spike." The new mad theory is that 100 units of energy flow out of the battery, and then 99 units of energy flow back into the battery at 4 MHz. There is a net outflow of energy that powers the circuit.
I forgot to show it but the LEDs across the CVR don't light when I have the LEDs-BrownInductor combo in series with the battery.
I can get the green one to glow very dimly but I think the red one stays dark. The red LEDs on the battery must be sucking up the excess TarBalls (not zipons) in the AC oscillation and converting them to red light, so they can't light up the other ones or even make it into the battery unless they sneak through the inductor.... Wait... we've discovered TarBall Tunneling !! It's the only possible explanation for why my batteries are still above 12 volts each, even though I've been running them for 5 hours a day every working day for the past day or two.
Sorry, I forgot myself for a moment. Seriously now....
We have a couple tests pending on the Tar Baby, like my simple "dark bulb" test (with matched Zeners if allowed), the MH capacitor test, and the Ultimate Reality Trial that .99 has proposed for the NERD RAT test. I don't need no stinking academics, I'll be happy to accept the test parameters and conditions that he was proposing to the NERD RATS as a fair test of their claims.
Now, I'm only claiming that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in these tests (or others), allowing for its lower power levels and smaller battery capacity. I'm NOT claiming ..... yet ...... to have achieved OU performance (I haven't yet tested for this, obviously). Since my claim depends on the NERD device itself actually being tested _competently_ by whatever personnel and protocol..... let's get with the program, there, NERDs. Or are you trying to suppress my technology by delaying my progress?
Hey TK:
More thoughts with standard disclaimers....
Not sure what the bandwidth of your scope is but I think the 4 MHz "spikes" (spears?) are probably pretty accurate. Usually if a signal gets mushed up it becomes a sine wave. It's highly unlikely that a mushed up signal will change into something with a lot of high frequency components. Also, a lot of Poynt's simulations had very similar looking spear waveforms.
Note that because you basically have a MOSFET array screaming in the RF band that everything becomes very touchy and sensitive and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is in play. Perhaps you put the inductor in parallel with the two LEDs to allow some DC current to pass through the inductor and thus reduce the chance of popping an LED? Something happened and your LEDs across the CSR changed in behaviour. It's possible (but I am starting to feel like I am shooting blanks) that my proposed 4 + 4 back-to-back LEDs in series with the battery positive is still viable. It's possible that the "outbound" LEDs pointing towards the circuit will glow more brightly than the "inbound" LEDs because of the fact that the current flow is DC with AC superimposed on top of it. Perhaps more importantly, they may not disturb the circuit too much such that both LEDs across the CSR will still glow evenly. Your addition of an inductor in series with the battery positive may have been too much of a disturbance.
The "hard core" analysis that the RAT team never even discussed is the oscillation itself and it's mechanism. My gut feel is that it's just a variation on the theme where a microphone + amplified speakers cause high-pitched feedback in a PA system. It's arguable that understanding that oscillation is the key but I am not asking you to go there.
In the world of modelling electronic circuits with amplification you can do some fancy footwork with simplified differential equations that can characterize the amplifier as a "filter" that is described by it's "S" parameters. If I recall correctly, "If there is a "pole" or poles in the right half of the complex "S plane" then the filter can spontaneously oscillate at one of the poles. Different poles correspond to different frequencies. I am sure that you have played with a circuit that might be oscillating at say 1 KHz and then you touch it and it "jumps" and starts oscillating at 3 KHz. There you go.... The S plane in action.
MileHigh
TK:
About your FM radio squealing at 88 MHz. That's very interesting because FM radio was specifically designed to be immune to static and noise sources like kitchen appliances, etc. Frequency modulation vs. amplitude modulation, a very important difference. It's very rare that you hear interference from an electrical device on the FM radio band when you are tuned into a station.
I suppose that it's possible that the Tar Baby is pelting the radio with tar balls and it's one of those very rare cases that you are overcoming the inherent FM noise immunity. However, there is another distinct possibility. The other possibility is that your Tar Baby is so damn noisy that it's disturbing the radio _after_ the FM demodulation is done in the radio. So the Tar Baby is injecting noise into the circuit board of the FM radio itself. That's one noisy baby.
Just imagine the nightmare of living in a world full of pulsing inductors everywhere with collapsing magnetic fields. We would all have to wear radiological exposure badges and sleep in Faraday cages lest we all fry our DNA.
MileHigh
TK,
If you will:
With the circuit oscillating, and while observing the drain signal, what happens if you place a cap across the points where your FG is connected to the circuit? Try using a cap with decent HF characteristics and at least a .1uF of capacitance. A larger value is better if it has good HF properties. A voltage rating of 15V or better should be used. A ceramic or tantalum would be preferrable.
Just briefly touch the cap across those points (at the end of the FG cable) and let us know what happens regarding the oscillation.
PW
P.S., FM IF is 10.7MHz if I recall...
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 08:39:04 AM
Yes, I thought so too.
I'm wondering... has there been any progress towards testing the NERD device? I haven't been looking at other threads here and I'm wondering if the NERD RATs have dropped their application or decided not to pursue the matter further.
Because I think we've identified some very easy little tests and trials that might reveal a lot about that device's performance, if somebody would only do them. If the NERD RAT device still exists somewhere, and is the revolutionary COP > Infinity device it has been claimed to be..... wouldn't you think at least _somebody_ would be willing to stay up late, in a room full of electronic test equipment and a computer and a camera or two, testing and reporting until everybody understood what a miracle it is and just how well it worked.
I know I would be, if I believed, really deep down, that I actually had such a device. Heck, I am anyway, and I doubt very severely that I will be able to get anywhere near COP > Infinity with the Tar Baby.
Heck, I'd be happy if it just did half that.
Hey TK,
Your right about the NERD RAT testing, you would think that any of the authors that appear on the papers that were submitted for publication in a accredited journal or magazine would be all over the proof or verification of the
COP>INFINITY claim. Especially Donovan Martin whom owns Donix Embedded Systems http://www.donixes.co.za/ specializing in "electronic circuits" and his name appears in all four (4) papers over the years Rosemary was a part of. You would think Donovan would be around right now backing up the claims in the
COP>INFINITY papers and posts at OU Rosemary made .... but so far a no show ever. :o
FTC
;)
Quote from: picowatt on March 28, 2012, 01:28:15 PM
TK,
If you will:
With the circuit oscillating, and while observing the drain signal, what happens if you place a cap across the points where your FG is connected to the circuit? Try using a cap with decent HF characteristics and at least a .1uF of capacitance. A larger value is better if it has good HF properties. A voltage rating of 15V or better should be used. A ceramic or tantalum would be preferrable.
Just briefly touch the cap across those points (at the end of the FG cable) and let us know what happens regarding the oscillation.
PW
P.S., FM IF is 10.7MHz if I recall...
Well, all the tantalums I have in stock are in the multi uF range. I have some good ceramic caps, Y5U dielectric, marked 500M 15kV. Depending on the FG amplitude setting, this either increases the magnitude of the oscs or has no effect. Other caps I tried either diminish or kill the amplitude of the oscs. I didn't look at high resolution, though.
I'm running a temperature profile test right now, bipolar pulses so both Q1 ( one 830a) and the Q2s are active, with the one PG50 in a Q2 slot seemingly taking most of the load on that side of the phase. Load is heating like an overworked espresso machine, DC inline ammeter indicating 1.45 amps. I'm running with the back-to-back LEDs with parallel inductor in series with the battery; both LEDs glowing brightly.
The rest of my PG50s have still not arrived.
I'd like to know if any of the published scope shots or spreadsheet dumps from the NERD RATs show signs of a bipolar gate drive pulse from the FG, or, equivalently, a positive offset of more than 2 volts in the base level of their negative-going pulse drive.
In the case of the earlier Quantum COP>17 device, which was claimed to produce load heating at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent ON... and whose performance was analyzed on that basis by the claimants at that time..... I found, and others after me found, that the published 555 timer in that case actually produced an inverted duty cycle at the load, in other words the load was ON 96.5 percent of the time. So the load heating wasn't anomalous at all, as I was also able to show, using their timer circuit and duty cycle. Their claims of battery recharging at that time depended on another ad-hoc numerical attempt at integration of a spiky power waveform, by people who didn't understand numerical methods, integration, power, or waveforms. In other words, it was another comedy of errors, misinterpretations, and distortions of data.
In the present case I am able, once again, to get close to some heating profiles they have mentioned. And... an extremely simple set of maladjustments and buttonpresses and scoposcopy allows one to do this. It even happens " inadvertently " during the "tuning" process. I imagine the device needs to be re 'tuned' anytime anything is moved on the workbench or somebody else comes into the room. Each time it's being "tuned" it dissipates power in the load, but isn't being monitored. When it's finally "tuned" and the data collection begins, the load is already hot and the oscillations don't need to pass any substantial power.
But my batteries don't seem to be recharging themselves. Darn.
@MH.... When I do the capacitor test, do you think my batteries should be fully charged, or partly depleted as they are now? They are just beginning to drop below 12 volts no-load, after several days of fooling around.
TK:
I don't think that it's super critical but if I was in your shoes I would recharge the batteries or do Plan B stated below. That way you are are certain that none of the batteries are sticking out like a sore thumb where one of them has a higher output impedance than the others. I would find that annoying.
Since I am here I will mention another thing that I would do. Rosie has never really known the health or state of charge of her batteries. If I was managing five or six batteries I would keep a trusty 5-watt or 10-watt resistor handy of a certain value. I would use the resistor to spot-check the batteries for their voltage drop under load - i.e.; a way of spot checking their output impedance.
So, if you don't want the hassle of recharging your batteries, you can just take that trusty resistor out of your Koala utility pouch and spot check the batteries before the cap test.
Knowledge is Power, and why not an intentional pun.
MileHigh
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 28, 2012, 01:43:10 PM
Hey TK,
Your right about the NERD RAT testing, you would think that any of the authors that appear on the papers that were submitted for publication in a accredited journal or magazine would be all over the proof or verification of the COP>INFINITY claim. Especially Donovan Martin whom owns Donix Embedded Systems http://www.donixes.co.za/ (http://www.donixes.co.za/) specializing in "electronic circuits" and his name appears in all four (4) papers over the years Rosemary was a part of. You would think Donovan would be around right now backing up the claims in the COP>INFINITY papers and posts at OU Rosemary made .... but so far a no show ever. :o
FTC
;)
I'd like to speak with Mr. Martin myself. There are one or two points I'd like him to clear up.
I like the idea of the simple load test. A hefty resistor of 10 ohms or so, hook up, take a reading at ten seconds. Thanks...
And I bought another battery today, so I have 4 the same, even if three have already been touched by the Tar Baby.
Does anyone think that the Ainslie Effect could happen at 24 volts? That's all she claimed were needed for the earlier COP>17 device, IIRC.
And.... I cannot seem to get significant load heating when only the Q2 mosfets are oscillating from a strictly negative-going gate drive signal. And certainly my batteries aren't recharging, in spite of the nice AC stuff happening. (Oh... maybe the LEDs are preventing this. I'll remove them for further testing since we know what they show by now.)
Is anyone prepared to try to convince me, before I try them, that the IRFPG50 will give results that are significantly different?
TK,
When checking the batteries with an external resistor such as the 10R, make sure you note the open circuit voltage as well as the loaded voltage. You'll need both Vopen and Vload to determine the Rinternal.
Apologies in advance if this is another low pitch...
PW
TK,
Maybe MH has an easier way, but I typically use the following:
Vopen-Vloaded=Vdrop
Vloaded/Rload=Iloaded
Vdrop/Iloaded=Rinternal
Hopefully this is not a grounder...
PW
No, I got it fine, thanks!
Only which way do I hook up that resistor? One way and it's a 10R, the other way and it's a R01. Oh, wait.....I can just check it with an ammeter and see how many watts of temperature it leads out.
it's a drag being color blind.
(Just kidding around. I'm getting bored. I do appreciate the suggestions and clarifications. If everything is made painfully clear to me and to the silent audience... maybe we'll get somewhere, eventually.)
TK:
This might give you some inspiration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej_BHc1UaDA
Applying concepts of modular dynamicism to recreate, unfold, and resequence the tar ball paradigm may be the key.
When in doubt, just blast it through.
MileHigh
OK... for the simple "dim bulb" battery comparison test.
I now have 4 batteries, one a bit newer than the other three. 12 V, 5 A-H, Toyo-Usp 6FMH4 model. I'll charge them all equally using the automatic charger, then I'll randomly set one aside and run Tar Baby in the "preferred oscillation mode" (if we can figure out what it is) on the other three. I'll run for a suitable time, TBA, and then separate the pack and hook up all 4 batteries individually to their own car brake light bulbs. #1157, IIRC, or similar. Time-lapse webcam, all that jazz. If the Tar Baby is recharging its batteries more than it's using them, then the TB batteries/bulbs should NOT dim sooner than the unused battery/bulb. OTOH, if Tar Baby is drawing power from the batteries during its run, the batteries should be depleted and their bulbs should dim first.
I'll run the test several times to be sure, with a fresh charge and re-randomized selection each time.
Now here's the question: Does it make sense to use series Zener diodes with the bulb test to set a "cutoff" point, say 11.5 volts, so I don't flatten the batts if I fall asleep or something?
TK,
In my book, R01=.01 ohms
I believe they make a special meter for passing current through a resistor and measuring the Vdrop acrossed it. It then calculates the ohms for you... its called an ohmometer or something like that...
PW
MH... Re the vid: I used to have hair and a beard like that, I was often referred to as looking like "an explosion in a steel wool factory". Wish I still had the hair!!
TK,
Have you scoped across the battery during the osc? Just wondering if you are seeing the osc there. You may have to remove your chokes/LED's to check for it. If the osc is at Vbatt, does its amplitude look symmetrical about Vbatt or does the amplitude appear to peak a bit more above or below Vbatt?
PW
TK:
I would want to burn off 50% of the energy in the three batteries before I did the light bulb test. I know that you are ostensibly testing if the batteries are being recharged by the circuit but still. If you know the power dissipation then run as long as needed to burn off half of the energy and then do the test.
I think that it would be very prudent to cut off the load when the voltage drops below your threshold voltage. I can still step into the Way-Back machine and design a breadboard circuit in my head to do that easily. Do you have your own method? I can't envision Zener diodes helping you here unless you use a very low ohm resistor in series with the Zener diode and the battery source. I would find that really inelegant though. Do you want some ideas? Do you have opamps and flip-flops?
PW:
I stumbled upon that guy tonight and he is great and the big hair and beard is great!
MileHigh
TK,
I wonder if a good viscous damped compass over the wire from Vbatt would be sensitive enough to act as an inductive ammeter for current in/out measurements. I do believe I have seen you using some nice compasses in your vids. You could try charging the batts from a bench supply to get an idea of the sensitivity and polarity versus current fed from the supply, and then do load tests at various R values to check its discharge polarity and sensitivity. The damping might act like an integrator and give you some idea as to current flow direction. You might have to mount the compass level and to solid block/board with the wire running under it...
Just a thought..
PW
PW:
That's a really innovative thought. But if I may tweak your thought since the oscillations are so high in frequency then just an ordinary compass should do the trick. I am assuming a "DC" output from the function generator where the output is low for 10 or 20 seconds so the needle stabilizes.
Assuming that the current flow is in the tens of mA I assume that you will see the needle deflect. You could then just run pure DC through the same wire and match the deflection angle and get your approximate current consumption and direction.
The beauty of your test is that it's a 'pure' test that does not modify the battery supply to the circuit in any way. So if that old RAT magic needs to have undisturbed batteries the test will do that. Very cool.
The bottom line is that it will establish which way the RAT current flows definitively, an issue that has been a bone of contention for years.
MileHigh
MH,
To damp or not to damp, either would probably work. Damped would be less prone to "moving about". I think I recall TK using a compass in a video some time ago. He might have been doing ths exact same thing. TK, correct me if it wasn't you.
I can't remember all that well, I had to forget a bunch of stuff to make room for more.
PW
TK&MH,
What do you think, wire under compass perpendicular to magnetic north? That way Earth's pull would would put the needle perpendicular to the wire and E-W would be Idirection. Earth can be the return to null "spring".
Also, if necessary, a few turns of sufficiently sized for the current magnet wire over and under the face of the compass for more sensitivity?
TK, you would have to empty your pockets of all those magnets you carry around. Possibly a low iron diet as well?
PW
You do realise that I have a Clarke-Hess 2330 power analyzer sitting here on the shelf, right? I'm really not sure what a compass needle will tell me that the 2330 won't. It will tell me the power in and out, and it won't be fooled by complex stuff like HF AC sitting on top of DC. At least I don't think it will.
Besides, all those "nice compasses" are two thousand miles away from where I am right now, and I'm at the limit of my expenditures for this little time-waster. I think I have one or two good navigational compasses here, but except for the visual effect I can't see them being any different than a moving coil meter and they'd be less sensitive too. I'm not rejecting the idea, I'm just not sure what the payoff might be. I mean, we have several good instrumental measures of what's happening, and when I scope the CVR with a proper connection to a fast DSO, that will show what's happening well enough, won't it?
I am even getting PMs from True Believers telling me, over and over, that I am wasting my time doing this, and that I should be doing Real Research (tm), like looking at the Steven Marks hoaxes or Bedini motors or real stuff like gravity wheels and such like that.
Regardless, the LEDs have told us what we were looking for, have given us a point of comparison and have scared the knickers off the RATS. But perhaps they interfere in the battery charging effect, because my batteries certainly do run down at this point. So I've removed all the LEDs, and I've also removed my "internal load" on the board, since it's no longer in use either. So the only "extra" component is the 0.33 ohm resistor that I can use, or not use, in series with the gate signal, as was shown on one or the other of the diagrams she's claimed to use. And instead of 4 x 1 ohm resistors parallelled as the CVR with one extra mystery resistor, I am using 2 x 0.51 ohm in parallel. Other than that, and using sockets instead of clipleads and threaded rods for my IRF830a mosfets... and the mosfets themselves.... it's getting hard to tell the difference between Tar Baby and the Nerd Rat device.
Of course, I'm still not using white pegboard either..... which proves that I'm not doing an exact replication, so of course none of my results can be applied to the analysis of the NERD RAT device.
My idea about using the Zeners for the DimBulb test was simple and naive... won't it work? At 11.5 volts, the batteries will be nearly depleted. I don't have the exact discharge curve available but these are standard sealed lead-acid. So I thought simply to put a reverse-biased 11.5 volt, 5 Watt zener in series with the bulb. I don't care about the absolute brightness of the bulb, all I care about is which battery reaches the Zener voltage cutoff first. I've never tried this and I don't know if I'll get a clean cutoff with just a simple series zener or not, in fact I doubt it, but would it be suitable for the test to do it that way? One could certainly design a slightly more complex circuit and have a zener switch a transistor or something like that....
Or I can just monitor the voltage with an Arduino and have an alarm wake me up when it approaches a threshold, I suppose.
PG50s are supposed to be in yesterday, but weren't. Maybe today....
And I do have on hand some op amps, 741s and TL082s and some others, and I have a bunch of 4000 and 74 series chips stashed in metal cans in anticipation of the Great EMP Event, and I know there are some flipflops, inverters, and Schmitt triggers in there.
Oh yes... operating mode.
It seems that I will either be able to heat the load strongly, OR have a unipolar driving pulse with only Q2 active at all and minimal load heating. Both modes produce the oscillations, of course, with the only apparent difference being where the baseline is of the drain signal during the NON_oscillating phase of the signal. And of course the DC current draw is different, which reads about 100 - 150 mA with negative gate drive only, or 1.5 amps or more during bipolar driving with Q1 carrying most or all of the heavier load.
With the 1.5 amp drain, heating the load strongly, a four-hour run time should pretty much flatten my 5 A-H batts, right? But with only 100 mA drain, I'd have to go a day and a half or two days for the same charge depletion, right?
Seriously, I'm asking what would be the expected runtime on the TarBaby, letting it charge or discharge as it will, to prepare the batteries for the DimBulb test, in the two operating modes.
I'd really really like to see some _good evidence_ that the NERD RAT device can produce substantial load heating from a negative-going gate drive pulse and oscillatory waveforms and low load currents as shown in their scope shot. Did they talk about load heating at all in the video(s) or present evidence that the load was hot during the demos?
(I sure don't remember any dramatic moments when a cup of steaming boiling hot tea is poured out of the load chamber, live on camera. Either they have no sense of theater, or they had no hot water.)
I mean, when my load heats up I can at least show it doing so on a thermometer reading on a video, and I can illustrate the circuit electrical parameters when it is doing so. And I am so short I can barely reach my tools !
(It might be interesting to put the DC ammeter DMM in series with the Function Generator, and set it for very slow pulses so the DMM can get a decent sample.)
A brief summary of results so far:
With the tight layout on the perfboard, using 2n7000 mosfets and a heavier inductive load at low voltage, the oscillations were easy to make all over the place, but not very informative. This testing did show that I at least didn't screw up the wiring and allowed me to get some idea of orientation of the circuit and its dynamics. Here I showed that using a series capacitor would still switch the mosfets but killed the oscillations. I smoked 2 ea. 2n7000s during this phase.
With the tight layout and IRF830a mosfets I couldn't make the "real" oscillations consistently at full amplitude and fully across the cycle. I thought I had identified some feedback oscs in there but I wasn't seeing the massive noise that seem to be the genuine article. I could switch the mosfets fairly cleanly and get lots of load heating even with the heavy inductive load. Some nice spikes, but evidently those aren't needed now. I managed to blow one mosfet from stupidity (wire confusion on the bench) and two more in an overheat runaway event.
Then I read the humbugger work on the other forum. This, plus looking at the NERD video again, made me realize that it was the layout, not the mosfets themselves, that was likely responsible for the oscs.... so I cut random wires and soldered them onto my mosfets, and placed them on some larger heatsinks, not so much for heat transfer but for capacitance. Bingo et voila! Massive Robust Feedback caused by inductance and capacitive coupling in the leads. Sensitive to motion and exact placement.
I tried a simple optoisolator arrangement to get the FG out of the current path, which worked very well as far as switching goes but damped the oscillations. I still think a modification of this idea might work. I fried 2 ea. H11D1 optoisolators during these experiments, one by blowing its input LED and the other by somehow blowing the phototransistor.
Lots of scoposcopy determined the correlation between which mosfets were on and what the waveform looks like; the presence of the AC component; the frequency of the oscillations; the effect of replacing one 830 with a PG50 as either Q1 or one of the Q2 stack; the effect of varying offset and bipolar pulsing on mosfet switching, current and load heating; the LEDs of Doom test... Let the smoke out of one green LED just for fun to rattle MH's cage....
(But also I hope I was able to illustrate a little bit about the quantitative use of an oscilloscope, for the Watchers from Beyond..)
Load heating using the water heater load was inefficient in my setup because of all the metal that wasn't submerged; the 10.3 ohm, 60-watt parallel wirewound ceramic resistor load can be totally submerged in the mineral oil and therefore works much better as a heater at the same power levels in my system than the commercial product does. The little inductive transformer choke also worked well as a heater until one winding went open when it got too hot, but it was lousy for oscs. I wondered why then.... (but not any more....) since at one time I thought I recalled the NERDs specifying a 1.5 Henry inductance. (A meter reading without sanity checking, I think that might have been.)
Load heating worked just fine using a bipolar pulse to turn on at least one mosfet fully during the pulse cycle, during the antiphase from the oscillations. By overdriving the gate I could produce oscillations in both phases but this reduced the current, as the oscillating mosfets do not turn on fully. With unipolar drive pulses going strictly negative with no positive baseline offset, very little load heating happens and the device current is low, since Q1 is off (and can even be removed entirely) and the Q2 mosfets are only oscillating, not switching.
During the testing, my batteries have discharged. I have no control comparison so I can't tell if they discharged faster or more slowly than "normal" for the kinds of drains I have been putting on them, and during these pilot experiments I haven't been monitoring their state of charge, other than by looking occasionally at their no-load voltage. When they dropped below 11.5 volts yesterday evening I stopped testing and started recharging, so they will all be nice and fresh when they meet Mr. Clarke-Hess for luncheon.
Still pending while I've still got the 830s in place are the Capacitor Battery test, in and out power measurements with the Clarke-Hess, some explorations with compasses, and one or two other things that I want to try like the DMM inline with the FG. Then, assuming my other PG50s haven't been confiscated by the Forces of Suppression, aka the MIB mob, I'll repeat everything with them in the slots. I'm not going to do any drawdown or Dim Bulb tests until I have the PG50s and have run with them for a while, though.
So the score is: 2 minimosfets, 3 little brother mosfets, one choke winding, two optoisolators and a green LED. Not bad for a week's work !
@ TinselKoala:
Your careful experiments demonstrate how difficult it is to understand what a weird circuit is doing, not to speak of making meaningful measurements. (That explains the many misconceptions put forward by overunity experimenters.)
Question: From the discussion just above this post I gather that you try to measure tiny deviations from the expected energy output or input of your big batteries (a tiny little bit less flows into the batteries than comes out to run the circuit)? But the claim of the "inventors" of this weird circuit is that the effect is massive. So, even a crude measurement should proof or refute it?
Assumption 1: You want to show that the weird circuit consumes a tiny bit more than it feeds back to the batteries (as common theory would suggest)? Which is difficult, because the power consumtion of the circuit is very small in comparison to the huge capacity of the batteries?
Assumption 2: You want to show that the transistors are not even switching and that only some low power high frequency AC current (in fact a malfunction or misoperation of the circuit) is flowing through the circuit in an unexpected way?
Assumption 3: You want to show that only during a neglected and short adjustment phase (when the transistors are indeed switching) some really strong current is flowing through the circuit doing the claimed heating?
Sorry for the stupid questions, for a layman it is easy to loose track of your objectives. The subject matter is rather complicated (and you are doing a good job to dissect it in order to show the real issues at hand.)
Conrad
TK:
Just a few quick comments and I will try to post more tonight.
I checked your watt meter:
QuoteThe Model 2330 Sampling Watt Meter is a precision, high accuracy, auto-ranging watt meter which simultaneously measures and displays true rms Voltage, true rms Current and true mean Power over a frequency range from dc to more than 600kHz.
So the signal is above the bandwidth of your meter.
For the battery automatic cut-off: You low-pass filter the battery positive signal and feed it into an opamp configured as a comparitor. You use a trim-pot to set the comparitor threshold. The output of the opamp resets a flip-flop. The oputput of the flip-flop drives an NPN transistor that keeps your relay energized until the low-voltage trigger event happens. You want to make the capacitor in the low-pass filter big enough to filter out glitches so that you don't prematurely trigger. You have to be sure that your low-pass filter does not disturb the oscillations on the battery positive lead. I can explain more this evening if you want.
PW:
I would run the wire in line with the magnetic North-South underneath the compass. That way you are applying torque about the vertical axis when there is current flow. Adjust the distance between the compass and the wire for varying the sensitivity. If the wire is perpendicular to North-South then in theory there is zero torque about the vertical axis when you have initial current flow.
I really doubt that you would need multiple turns of wire and that's adding more inductance.
All in all, I really like the idea. It would have been perfect for the original RAT circuit and I think it would be fair to call it the "Compass of Doom." lol
MileHigh
Quote from: conradelektro on March 29, 2012, 07:52:44 AM
@ TinselKoala:
Your careful experiments demonstrate how difficult it is to understand what a weird circuit is doing, not to speak of making meaningful measurements. (That explains the many misconceptions put forward by overunity experimenters.)
Question: From the discussion just above this post I gather that you try to measure tiny deviations from the expected energy output or input of your big batteries (a tiny little bit less flows into the batteries than comes out to run the circuit)? But the claim of the "inventors" of this weird circuit is that the effect is massive. So, even a crude measurement should proof or refute it?
Yes, you are right. But the claim of the "inventors" is actually already refuted by the data that they themselves have posted, when it's correctly analyzed. Anyway, anything that I measure on this circuit will be denied by them, even if I produce self-charging batteries. Much of my current purpose consists in a hopeful attempt to spur them along, to test their circuit rationally and purposefully, and post their results in a clear and coherent manner. I hope I am providing an example of one way to do this.
Quote
Assumption 1: You want to show that the weird circuit consumes a tiny bit more than it feeds back to the batteries (as common theory would suggest)? Which is difficult, because the power consumtion of the circuit is very small in comparison to the huge capacity of the batteries?
Assumption 2: You want to show that the transistors are not even switching and that only some low power high frequency AC current (in fact a malfunction or misoperation of the circuit) is flowing through the circuit in an unexpected way?
Assumption 3: You want to show that only during a neglected and short adjustment phase (when the transistors are indeed switching) some really strong current is flowing through the circuit doing the claimed heating?
What I hope to show is that "my" circuit performs the same as theirs. So far, I've shown the things you state are indeed true for my circuit, operating with the IRF830a mosfets, and I believe that they will also be true for the IRFPG50, but this is yet to be determined. If we could only get them to perform real tests like I show, we would know more about their circuit's performance. Your Assumption 3.... the only way we can know this about _their_ circuit is by careful examination of their data where it could be revealed, or by very simple tests. I have even shown live on camera that my temperature actually climbs, and the waveforms that are associated with that. Have we seen anything like this level of detail from the NERDs, even though they are claiming "opensource" and "public domain" and COP Infinity? No, we have not. But we would like to, certainly.
Quote
Sorry for the stupid questions, for a layman it is easy to loose track of your objectives. The subject matter is rather complicated (and you are doing a good job to dissect it in order to show the real issues at hand.)
Conrad
No apology is necessary. There is a real difference between "stupid" questions and good questions. A "stupid" question might concern my height or my appearance or my moustaches or how many Watts are there in a Joule. All your questions seem to be good questions to me, not stupid at all.
And you are also right: it is indeed important to focus on real issues..... COP INFINITY and an attempt to gain a monetary prize with that claim.
Regardless of how the battery charging claim plays out, I am getting more concerned about this load heating issue right now. I would really really like to see some solid evidence that their load actually heats significantly when the oscillations are present and a strict negative-going pulse is used.
Stll, the NERDs only seem to be claiming 12 Watts of power dissipated in the load. Since P=I^2R and R is around 10 ohms, this means I = sqrt 1.2 or about 1.1 amps. Still seems implausible based on my maximum current during oscillations only of around 200 mA with a strict negative pulse, but certainly reachable with overdrive on the gate or with a tad bit of positive offset or a bipolar pulse with oscillations.
Quote from: MileHigh on March 29, 2012, 10:13:12 AM
TK:
Just a few quick comments and I will try to post more tonight.
I checked your watt meter:
So the signal is above the bandwidth of your meter.
Yes... the oscillation frequency is above the stated bandwidth of the meter. Is it the oscillation that is supposed to be recharging the battery? I guess it is.... the power that is lighting up the LEDs, sitting on top of the DC signal, is the only thing in the circuit that has been shown to have the power to do so.
But then why isn't it charging my batteries?
I understand your concern, though, and why you might not accept Clarke-Hess data on the output side of the Tar Baby. But what about the input side? The batteries themselves should act as a low pass filter, and as humbugger and 0.99 have shown in sims, the battery voltage really isn't rippling hardly at all when measured correctly.
Quote
For the battery automatic cut-off: You low-pass filter the battery positive signal and feed it into an opamp configured as a comparitor. You use a trim-pot to set the comparitor threshold. The output of the opamp resets a flip-flop. The oputput of the flip-flop drives an NPN transistor that keeps your relay energized until the low-voltage trigger event happens. You want to make the capacitor in the low-pass filter big enough to filter out glitches so that you don't prematurely trigger. You have to be sure that your low-pass filter does not disturb the oscillations on the battery positive lead. I can explain more this evening if you want.
No, I got it, and I have all the parts on hand. I'm just not sure I want to go to the trouble at this point. I need to see proof of load heating under their strict negative going pulse, or produce it myself, before I'll believe that they even have their knobs and buttons set right.
Quote
PW:
I would run the wire in line with the magnetic North-South underneath the compass. That way you are applying torque about the vertical axis when there is current flow. Adjust the distance between the compass and the wire for varying the sensitivity. If the wire is perpendicular to North-South then in theory there is zero torque about the vertical axis when you have initial current flow.
I really doubt that you would need multiple turns of wire and that's adding more inductance.
All in all, I really like the idea. It would have been perfect for the original RAT circuit and I think it would be fair to call it the "Compass of Doom." lol
MileHigh
OK... but I don't think that the needles will respond very well to 4 MHz ac, and we already know the direction of the DC current flow, don't we? Still, I'll try it if I can arrange my bench well enough. Later though-- I have to go to work today.
@pw:
Yes, I used some compasses in earlier videos, but I don't think it was to indicate current in a wire. Eddy currents and magnet polarities, something like that, IIRC.
I remember old Prof. Oersted and the difficulties he had with compasses and currents. It took him a while before he got that one right, and all of us in his class got a big laugh out of it at the time.
Of course I'll try it but I don't want to magnetize my good map compass so I'll try to find some little toy ones.
(Or I could use that ballistic galvanometer sitting over there on the shelf....)
8)
TK,
Actually, of all the proposed tests, the idea you had regarding "light bulbs", or a variation thereof made the most sense.
Two sets of fully charged batteries, a quick check of Rint on both, one set runs the "black box" for a perod of time, disconnect the "black box" and then apply an equal load to both sets of batts and run them down to a predetermined voltage, recheck Rint, recharge and swap. A bit time consuming, but I think it was a very good suggestion.
Have you scoped across Vbatt? In one of the RA tests in particular, I see an assymetrical amplitude of the osc about the Vbatt line that I find interesting. I was just wondering what you see there. I believe the RA scope shot I am talking about was in test 3 in the first "rossi" paper.
PW
TK:
I believe a RAT conclusion is that here is a net reverse current flow back into the battery. Certainly they allege that there is a net power flow back into the battery. That is also synonymous with "COP infinity." So that's why it's interesting.
Keep those delicious lip-smacking oscillations coming!
MileHigh
With the current measurements and the led's and light bulbs, are we trying to see if current is going back to the battery?
If so, it got me thinking. If we had 2 very large caps, one in series with a diode in forward direction, and the other with a series diode in the opposite direction. The see which cap fills first. Or at least which is taking charge faster.
Then a simple thought came to mind. Not related.
If we have a 12v battery with + connected to the cap, the other end of the cap connected to a light bulb, and then the bulb to the - of the batt.
The light will light and gradually get dim then no light as the cap is charged. Then when the cap is fully charged, we can use that "once used" energy again to light the bulb for another cycle without the battery.
Some of the energy used , then reused, is a bit useless in light output, but the energy was still being used and reused to make light and heat.
Could it heat water for near half the input?
So if we have a converter or a JT( may need to be expanded upon) we might just might be able to have a 2 for 1 sale for powering other items ;]
Mags
Ok, here is a very simple example.
The switch at the top right is held on til the cap fully charges through the load and then open the switch.
Now we close the switch in the middle of the circuit to discharge the cap into the load, without the battery. When the cap is fully discharged, the cycle repeats.
The scope shots show the source on the left and the load on the right.
We can recycle energy. Use it more than once.
Did we gain anything? :o ;)
Mags
IRFPG50s are in hand, 5 each.
I also have some pegboard and some white paint. Those clipleads with the black tabs on the alligator clips though... those have been hard to find. I might have to use bare clips. That will obviously invalidate my reeeee search.
But just in case it doesn't....
@Mags: When you have current flowing through the resistor, power is dissipated as heat. When you have current flowing into the capacitor, power is dissipated as heat. When you have current flowing out of a battery, power is dissipated as heat.
But you already knew I would say that.
@MileHigh....yesss..... As I recall RA made some pretty strong statements about the state of LEDs in her circuit. SO at minimum, I think my results contradict her statements... but probably not the actual performance of her circuit. Can you really imagine them actually testing as I did? No, I cannot. She's just making stuff up out of her head.
If she's not.... a dollar's worth of parts and ten minutes with a borrowed video camera could prove it.
@PW: sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your question about scoping the batt. Yes, I did do this, and at first inspection it looks like her batt trace, but of course at lesser amplitude.
But I have the PG50s in hand, and later on after I've come down from the drive home, I'll stick them in and repeat some of the baseline testing I've already done with the 830s.
I also scored some real, NOS, non-Chinese made, #1157 light bulbs, two filaments each.
@Mags: Can you have your sim integrate those two sets of traces? Integrate over the time the negative waveform on the left, and compare that to the total integration of the two positive waveforms on the right.
Ah... the wonders of modern computing. If I want to integrate a waveform on the HP180, I have to trace it on paper, cut out the tracing, and weigh it on an analytical balance.
Yes i can. I see why now also. The source trace is longer.
Also with the cap in series with the load, we have a voltage division of the source.
Sooo, with a 5v source, as the cap charges, the source -cap=vr
So the load only gets half of what the source lost, and the cap gets the other. Then the caps "half" delivers the other half to the load.
Yup. Looked good in the brain. ;]
Soo is that why we seem to lose 50% of energy when we discharge a cap into another cap till they even out. Voltage division. Not a loss in heat. No? :o
Mags
TK:
Are we permitted a little diversion while the tar is brewing?
Scenario 1: So, you have a 1 kg mass sliding happily along on a magic frictionless plane at 1 m/s.
Scenario 2: The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 1 kg. When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.
Scenario 3: The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 0.5 kg. When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.
So the question is, what are the energies in scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3?
MileHigh
Here is one more using the same to charge the cap through the load, but instead of just discharging the cap to the load, we put the source and cap in series(switches).
The first one we see half of the source dissipated into the load and the other half into the cap.
But when we add the cap in series with the source, we have source+cap=vr. The energy from the source is equal to the load overall in the series switch mode.
But we still lost during the charging of the cap.
Just fiddling
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 29, 2012, 10:45:52 PM
Yes i can. I see why now also. The source trace is longer.
Also with the cap in series with the load, we have a voltage division of the source.
Sooo, with a 5v source, as the cap charges, the source -cap=vr
So the load only gets half of what the source lost, and the cap gets the other. Then the caps "half" delivers the other half to the load.
Yup. Looked good in the brain. ;]
Soo is that why we seem to lose 50% of energy when we discharge a cap into another cap till they even out. Voltage division. Not a loss in heat. No? :o
Mags
No, I don't think so. The losses will always wind up as heat, or maybe RF radiation, which is the same thing just lower frequency. The cap has an "ESR" or equivalent series resistance which is dissipative, and also it does take work to stretch lattices and move electrolytes around and jiggle ions and stuff like that there. But that's not what's causing the voltage drop equalization.
The Energy in Joules on a capacitor goes as the square of the voltage and linearly with the capacitance: E = (C)(V^2)/2. If the caps were perfectly lossless you wouldn't lose energy by the voltage division, just voltage. Energy is the conserved quantity. So you have a cap with known capacitance in Farads and you charge it to a certain Voltage. This gives you a certain amount of Energy in the cap. Then you discharge into another uncharged cap. The voltage will equalize. Now you have apportioned the original energy between the two, in ratio determined by the ratio of the capacitances, at the new equilibrium voltage. Minus some losses from heating and RF and such. If you know the second capacitance you can calculate the equilibrium voltage, and vice versa.
The hot trick, for me, is to charge caps at high voltage in series, then discharge them at lower voltage in parallel. This is how to extract energy from the Earth's electric field and "down-convert" it to useful power.
Quote from: MileHigh on March 29, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
TK:
Are we permitted a little diversion while the tar is brewing?
Scenario 1: So, you have a 1 kg mass sliding happily along on a magic frictionless plane at 1 m/s.
Scenario 2: The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 1 kg. When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.
Scenario 3: The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 0.5 kg. When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.
So the question is, what are the energies in scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3?
MileHigh
The energy is of course conserved, if you have a frictionless plane and so on. And the Kinetic energy of a moving mass, not accelerating, is given by E=(m)(v^2)/2, a formula with a familiar form. This is what you start with in all three cases, and this is what you wind up with in all three cases. But the energy is apportioned into the sliders according to their masses. Momentum is conserved too, and momentum is just mv. So you know you must have E initial = E final, and also you must have mv initial = mv final. Velocity is a vector quantity, so it has direction (or sign) as well as magnitude.
So to calculate the resultant velocity after the collision you just substitute in the masses and Einit=Efinal; you know the masses and v init, so it's easy to solve for v final, and get the apportioned energies which go as the square of the velocity.
If all you need is the final velocity just use CofM. Mv init = (M+m)v final.
Unit dimensions are important here. Energy can be in Joules, Dynes, Ergs, even Electron Volts. Mass can be in grams, kilograms, bushels and pecks, and velocity is of course measured in miles per hour or kiloparsecs per generation. This is the SR (systeme Rosemarique).
But it might be simpler to use cgs or SI units like kilograms, meters, and seconds.
(Was this a trick question?)
((Choice of reference frame is important too. Since motion is relative, so is kinetic energy.))
Well...
In scenario 1 the energy is 0.5 Joules but in scenario 2 the energy is 0.25 Joules. What gives?
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 07:11:25 AM
snip...
Then I read the humbugger work on the other forum. This, plus looking at the NERD video again, made me realize that it was the layout, not the mosfets themselves, that was likely responsible for the oscs.... so I cut random wires and soldered them onto my mosfets, and placed them on some larger heatsinks, not so much for heat transfer but for capacitance. Bingo et voila! Massive Robust Feedback caused by inductance and capacitive coupling in the leads. Sensitive to motion and exact placement.
snip...
LOL - So it may be bird droppings you're looking for after all, since you had to build a birds nest for best results!! :P
Cheers
Quote from: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 02:24:29 AM
Well...
In scenario 1 the energy is 0.5 Joules but in scenario 2 the energy is 0.25 Joules. What gives?
How do you figure that?
Mv initial = mv final. (CofM).
Scenario 1: 1 kg moving at 1 m/s = 1 kg-meter/second. Energy = 1/2 (mv^2) or 0.5 Joules.
Scenario 2: 1 kg mass moving at 1 m/s = 2 kg mass moving at x meters per second. (CofM) Solving for x, we have x = 0.5 m/s.
Solving for energy, we have E = 1/2 (mv^2) or 1/2 (2 x 0.5 x 0.5) = 0.25 Joules... therefore aliens.
But.... you've made a trick. The simple Energy Conservation law applies to _elastic_ collisions. The part about the two weights sticking together and moving off together in the same direction means that your collision is inelastic. Conservation of momentum still applies simply. But the CofE part now needs to take into account the energy lost to sticking together, deformation, heat and so on. The fact that energy does NOT appear to be conserved in the easy naive calculation is the indication that the collision you are looking at is inelastic, and energy is lost to the moving system. If you could account for all the losses (by enclosing the whole shebang in a perfect calorimeter, for example) you would see that energy is still conserved.
This is sort of like all the little resistances and radiations that will suck the energy out of the batt-cap-switch system. A perfect inductor is sometimes easier to understand because we have "touchy feely" experience with storage of energy in a magnetic field and its conservative return, using permanent magnets. We don't have this same fingers-on experience with the electric field energy storage that happens in capacitors, so they seem especially mysterious. It's just another kind of spring, that's all, with its own set of losses that suck energy out of the spring's motion until eventually it's all gone, lost as heat.
Awesome TK, you got it!
The moral of the story is that when you short one charged capacitor to a discharged capacitor and lose one-half of your energy it's identical to an inelastic collision between a moving mass and a stationary mass.
In both cases you produce heat and that accounts for the 'missing' energy.
MileHigh
But how do the systems know to lose exactly half their energies to heat, and keep half in KE or capacitance?
Quote from: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 09:36:30 AM
Awesome TK, you got it!
The moral of the story is that when you short one charged capacitor to a discharged capacitor and lose one-half of your energy it's identical to an inelastic collision between a moving mass and a stationary mass.
In both cases you produce heat and that accounts for the 'missing' energy.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
How much energy do we loose when we charge a capacitor from a coil?
(The capacitor is a part of the coil, speaking about the LC nature of a coil here.)
First we apply a voltage (and current) over the coil. We remove the voltage
and the voltage over the coil goes to zero while the ampere in the coil goes to infinite.
This happen because the C part of the coil is fully discharged. Then the voltage
polarity flips and the current goes to zero while the voltage goes to infinite.
(Speaking about an no loss ideal coil here.)
In real life we have some resitive losses in a coil so we get a dampened oscillation.
So the question is, how much energy do we loose at each capacitor charge and discharge
for each cycle of dampened oscillation? And what causes the dampening? The coil resistance
or the capacitor charge or discharge losses? Do we loose half of the energy at each capacitor charge
at each cycle?
GL.
TK:
QuoteBut how do the systems know to lose exactly half their energies to heat, and keep half in KE or capacitance?
You mentioned conservation of momentum. And when we look at a the cap version we know that there is a conservation of charge. Lo and behold, charge is equivalent to momentum.
Mass akin to Capacitance, M same as C
Momentum (Mass x Velocity) akin to Charge, MV same as Q
Velocity akin to Voltage, V same as V
C = Q/V, so Q = CV
Same as M = MV/V, so MV = MV
Conservation of charge or conservation of momentum dictates that 1/2 of the energy must be lost as heat for energy to be conserved.
MileHigh
Right.. !! And thanks for forcing the clarification. It's been a long time since I've thought about the very basics, and it's always good to review and check one's work and understanding of it.
NOW....
Early tests with the 5 x IRFPG50 in place indicate no major differences from the 830s so far.... except as predicted the frequency of the oscillations has decreased significantly.... significantly in TWO ways -- and in the ability to partially turn on the Q1 transistor.
The first way of course is the magnitude of the decrease, which is as predicted knowing the difference in the mosfet's various capacitances, especially the gate. The second is what it reveals about the NERD team's device.
The delayed timebase of the HP180 is telling me that there are just under 17 periods PER 7 microseconds. Doing the math we get just a tad over 2.4 MHz. Which is exactly twice the 1.2 MHz mentioned on the NERD RATs video.
ETA: Philips says 2156 kHz.
Coincidence? Bizarre unaccounted for exact doubling of the frequency due to more random wire lengths? OR..... another MISTAKE in instrument interpretation by the NERDS?
I don't recall ever seeing an expansion of their oscillation trace so that one could actually determine anything about it.
One more difference I've noticed: It is easier to get the Q1 mosfet to turn on partially by mismanaged offset or frank bipolar pulsing.
So.... Again, I would really like to see _evidence_ in the form of analyzable data, that show the NERDs getting substantial load heating or drain current when the oscillations are occurring and a strict negative-going gate drive pulse is used.
Right now it appears that I can either get realistic load heating by allowing mosfets to turn fully or partially on during the antiphase from the oscillations, OR I can use a strict, non-offset unipolar negative going pulse to insure that only Q2 mosfets are involved and oscillating.
So.... for me to go further I need to know in which mode to operate. The heating mode draws over 1.5 amps on my inline ammeter, the purely oscs mode draws less than 200 mA depending on gate drive amplitude but usually less than 100 mA.
I'm going back over the actual data from the NERDs (scope traces, what dumps I can find) to see if there is real evidence that they are heating their load _without_ drain current flow indicated by a drain trace voltage drop. Any help here would be very much appreciated.
ETA: Heh... when I first stuck all the 5 mosfets in there and turned it on, at first it looked "normal", just like what I'd seen before, until I tried the bipolar pulsing and IT DIDN'T WORK to turn Q1 on !! Frantic scrambles, checking everything... sure enough, I had put Q1 in it socket adapter "backwards" -- so that it in fact WAS in strict parallel with the other four. Insert facepalm here, with lulz.
::)
Scoping across the battery.
Upper A trace is the common mosfet drains, at 100 V/div, baseline indicated.
Lower B trace is across the battery terminals, at 20 V/div, baseline indicated.
Main timebase is 0.2 milliseconds / division , delayed expanded timebase 1 microsecond / division.
Inline DMMs indicate 37.8 V on the battery, 100 mA draw. (Batteries were freshly charged overnight; present no-load voltage 37.9, load temperature (from previous tuning !!) at 110 F.)
Groundloop:
The amount of energy you lose per cycle of oscillation is dependent on the resistance in the wires. Beyond that, you have a lot of misconceptions about inductors.
I suggest that you read the thread linked below about how coils work when they discharge their stored energy. I urge you to try to understand it completely. People on the free energy forums experiment with coils for years without actually understanding how they work. That should change and the more people that understand the more peer pressure there will be on others to understand.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 02:19:53 PM
Groundloop:
The amount of energy you lose per cycle of oscillation is dependent on the resistance in the wires. Beyond that, you have a lot of misconceptions about inductors.
I suggest that you read the thread linked below about how coils work when they discharge their stored energy. I urge you to try to understand it completely. People on the free energy forums experiment with coils for years without actually understanding how they work. That should change and the more people that understand the more peer pressure there will be on others to understand.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0)
MileHigh
Don't forget radiation. The LC circuit will also lose power to radiation, like a radio transmitter.
The most common mistake I see on "the free energy forums" is mistakenly thinking that each cycle of an inductive - capacitive ringdown is somehow new or different energy. If you look at the waveform made of the instantaneous multiplication of the current and voltage during an inductive ringdown you'll see a similar waveshape, but the area under the positive loops wrt the baseline represents the "positive" energy flowing during that time period, and the area above the negative loops wrt the baseline the "negative" energy. But it's the same energy ! And it's all contained in the _FIRST_ cycle's time integral. The first negative going excursion will be a little smaller in area as the energy sloshes back, because some of it is lost to resistance and radiation. The second positive cycle's time integral will be a bit smaller still, ditto. Lather rinse and repeat until the oscillation is damped out totally back to baseline and all that energy _in the first cycle_ is finally dissipated as losses.
Some people close to our hearts have made this mistake (adding up all the energies in successive cycles of a ringdown), and for all I know are still making it.
At 0:09 of the NERD RATs video we encounter the following tossed salad using all English words:
"Heat dissipated at the resistor element relates to +- five watts."
Does this mean "Power dissipated at the resistor element equalled more or less 5 Watts"? Or "...... positive and negative five Watts"?
See the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
If "more or less" what is the same symbol meaning in the part saying " On this test the battery supply voltage was at +- 60 volts. "
Here if the supply was at "less than" 60 volts... well, that means one or more of the batteries must have been below 12 volts. Or if the supply was "positive and negative" 60 volts... that's acceptable, barely. But what then of the +- five watts? Negative five watts?
OK... so if the "heat related to five watts, more or less".... just how was this determined? Normally one would simply calculate I = V/R to determine the current, and P = I^2 x R to determine the power dissipated in the resistor, regardless of how hot it got (because THAT variable is influenced by a lot more factors than just the Joule heating caused by the current.)
Accepting the five watts figure, and working backwards, we find that with a load resistance of 10 ohms, typical of water heater elements, we get I^2 = P/R, or I^2 = 5/10 or 0.5. Taking the square root of both sides, we find I = just over 700 milliAmps is required to dissipate 5 Watts in a 10 Ohm load. Since V=IR, we then find that a DC potential of only 7 volts is actually required to do this, so there must be other things happening in the circuit to prevent the load from "seeing" the 60 volt supply for 100 percent of the time at full strength. Mosfet manufacturers and circuit designers use what is called "PWM" or pulse width modulation circuitry to limit the power throughput of the mosfets in just this manner. Using pulses that only allow the mosfet to turn partially on (as here) or fully on (in a commercial PWM) for short periods of time, the _average_ power, that does the work in a motor for example, is limited and controlled.
Anyway, an average DC current of 700 mA will match their power dissipation figure given. And a fully charged battery pack of 6, 12 volt 60 or 50 or 40 Amp-Hour batteries will be able to provide that for a _long_ time before going below 12 volts each. 5 Watts is 5 Joules PER second. There are (12 x 40 x 60 x 60) or 1 728 000 Joules per battery, times 5 batteries, for a total of 8 640 000 Joules in the 60 volt supply. Dividing by 5 Joules PER second, we find 1 728 000 seconds, or 28800 minutes, or 480 hours, or, at 5 hours per working day, 96 working days, or, at three typical school working days per week, 32 weeks, or, at 18 weeks per semester, almost full time for two semesters, before the batteries need go below 12 volts each.
Quote from: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 02:19:53 PM
Groundloop:
The amount of energy you lose per cycle of oscillation is dependent on the resistance in the wires. Beyond that, you have a lot of misconceptions about inductors.
I suggest that you read the thread linked below about how coils work when they discharge their stored energy. I urge you to try to understand it completely. People on the free energy forums experiment with coils for years without actually understanding how they work. That should change and the more people that understand the more peer pressure there will be on others to understand.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0)
MileHigh
MH,
Actually, I do understand how coil works. But you avoided to answer my questions because that would have
shown the readers here that the 50% loss of charging a capacitor does not hold water when you charge
the capacitor from a coil. And I'm NOT talking about a capacitor soldered to a coil. I'm talking about the
capacitance you get by making a coil, many wires in close proximity to each other. And where are my misconceptions?
In a coil of wire you get a LC circuit. The only way that LC circuit can oscillate is by transfer of energy between the
inductive part of the coil and the capacitive part of the coil and back again.
Here is a snip that explains what I tried say:
"If a charged capacitor is connected across an inductor, charge will start to flow through the inductor, building up a magnetic field around it, and reducing the voltage on the capacitor. Eventually all the charge on the capacitor will be gone and the voltage across it will reach zero. However, the current will continue, because inductors resist changes in current, and energy to keep it flowing is extracted from the magnetic field, which will begin to decline. The current will begin to charge the capacitor with a voltage of opposite polarity to its original charge. When the magnetic field is completely dissipated the current will stop and the charge will again be stored in the capacitor, with the opposite polarity as before. Then the cycle will begin again, with the current flowing in the opposite direction through the inductor."
Maybe my English was not good enough but that was what I tried to say. :-)
So a simple LC circuit shows that the 50% loss in charging a capacitor is not true in all cases.
GL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 02:52:40 PM
Don't forget radiation. The LC circuit will also lose power to radiation, like a radio transmitter.
The most common mistake I see on "the free energy forums" is mistakenly thinking that each cycle of an inductive - capacitive ringdown is somehow new or different energy. If you look at the waveform made of the instantaneous multiplication of the current and voltage during an inductive ringdown you'll see a similar waveshape, but the area under the positive loops wrt the baseline represents the "positive" energy flowing during that time period, and the area above the negative loops wrt the baseline the "negative" energy. But it's the same energy ! And it's all contained in the _FIRST_ cycle's time integral. The first negative going excursion will be a little smaller in area as the energy sloshes back, because some of it is lost to resistance and radiation. The second positive cycle's time integral will be a bit smaller still, ditto. Lather rinse and repeat until the oscillation is damped out totally back to baseline and all that energy _in the first cycle_ is finally dissipated as losses.
Some people close to our hearts have made this mistake (adding up all the energies in successive cycles of a ringdown), and for all I know are still making it.
TK,
I'm aware of the fact that all the energy comes from the first initial charge of the coil.
But that was not my question. See post above.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on March 30, 2012, 03:39:47 PM
TK,
I'm aware of the fact that all the energy comes from the first initial charge of the coil.
But that was not my question. See post above.
GL.
You asked your question of MH, so I didn't answer it.
My post doesn't say that "all the energy comes from the first initial charge of the coil" although that is true and I'm glad you realize it.
It says that all this energy sloshes back and forth between the coil and the capacitor, that the amount of energy can be calculated by integrating the FIRST positive-going waveform of the instantaneous power trace, and that subsequent integrals of waveform areas will reflect losses (or gains if they increase) that accumulate until all the energy, if not replaced somehow, is lost. I also said that some people will try to add up all the positive going areas and claim that this represents some kind of "energy" figure that makes sense. Actually what must be added up is the _incremental loss_ in area for each period. The sum of these incremental losses is.... well, isn't it obvious?
All I can find in the first video about heating the Ainslie load is the statement of "6 or 5 Watts" and the apparent citation of a load equilibrium temperature of 51 degrees or so. Without knowing the intimate details of the load's environment this is of course meaningless and useless.
When I tell you that Tar Baby's load is immersed in 250 ml of mineral oil, and I give a time-temperature curve while it's handling current, and a decreasing time-temperature curve when it's not, then you may calculate away and tell precisely how much power Tar Baby's load is dissipating from the equilibrium temperature reached. And you have some chance of being able to repeat the conditions and the measurements for yourselves.
If somebody shows you a coffee pot with a water heater element dangling into it, and a meter that reads 51.1 degrees.... all you know OR CAN KNOW is that the meter reads 51.1 degrees. Other than that, they might as well be making oxtail soup.
Presumably, allegedly, the heat load was calibrated by fiddling around with a DC power supply somehow and heating up the water under the same conditions with DC power, and then the figure of 6 or 5 watts was calculated. I am afraid I have no confidence in the ability of the NERDs to carry out such a complex and "fraught" calibration procedure. But nevertheless I am willing to accept their 6 watts figure... as it supports my case entirely.
Notice the common OU effect: when the effect is first announced it is so powerful that it will boil water, melt lead, vaporise solder, make oxtail soup for an army of RATs.... but when measurements become more precise and harder to ignore, the power levels inevitably decrease, just like a battery running out of ju
OK, now let's look at this.
I've been running since early this morning on the IRFPG50 mosfets, making the oscillations, no LEDs anywhere in the circuit. So it would take a Chief Inspector Clouseau to determine just where the NERD RATs device is different than mine... but I am assured by the NERDs that Tar Baby is NOT an Ainslie replication.
(Probably for the same reason my Mylow replication wasn't a Mylow replication: it didn't supply free energy. But that's neither here nor there.)
My load is still sitting at 110 F, my inline ammeter indicating 100 mA, my batteries indicating 37.6 volts under the load of driving the circuit. Even with 5 A-H batteries and no recharging this could go on for a while.
If their load was dissipating 5 watts, and that means a current of 700 mA, then if I set TarBaby to produce a drain of 700 mA on the inline meter, and monitor load temperature, what will happen?
And what will it mean? Tar Baby's load is pretty well insulated, unlike hers, and we are also using mineral oil, which has a specific heat of 1.67 as contrasted with water's 4.18. Will Tar Baby be able to reach the lofty equilibrium temperature of 51.1 degrees C? Will Tar Baby melt into a puddle of asphalt, tar, plastic and blackened mosfet bits? Stay tuned to this channel, we'll be back after Your Local News and Weather Together, with traffic reports from outer space.
My load's now at over 140 F and still climbing, mosfet temps have finally stabilized so I don't have to keep tweaking the drive to keep drain current from going over 800 mA... right now it's at 670 mA....
I mean, if they can get all excited about mere load temperatures, they should really be worried, right about now. My batteries are still at over 12 volts eeeee -ach!
(Q1 runs hot under this condition, so, because I don't have any spare PG50s, I decided to put a small fan directed at its heatsink to try to keep it cool. Probably not necessary but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of Fuhrer, er, fellow.)
Here's another thing I don't quite understand (although I have my "theories".)
The NERD RATs device has massive heatsinks on all the Q2 mosfets and the Q1 mosfet isn't heat sunk at all, really. And the circuit and the analyses and the sims and my experience live on camera have all indicated that the Q2 mosfets are the only ones oscillating, usually, not really switching, and the Q1 mosfet isn't working at all, and as I have shown it may even be removed entirely without affecting the "known" parameters of the measurements. And when I set Tar Baby to a current of 700 mA, this is done by allowing Q1 to turn on, and it gets hot.
So why the evidence for hot Q2 mosfets in the NERD device? My Q2s hardly get warm at all , unless I force them to turn on fully and carry a lot of current. And at the same time make Q1 stay off or maybe just oscillating.... hmmmmmmmmm........ exceedingly strange.
(ETA: Load temp at 160 F and slowly rising, drain current 700 mA, batt voltage 36.7, Q1 hot and fan-cooled, Q2s barely warm.)
Groundloop:
Your first statement in your last posing is correct. Your quote is correct. But most of what you stated in your previous posting was incorrect. Feel free to start a thread about that if you want, TK is back in replication mode.
My final comment would be connecting two caps together compared to an LC circuit is like comparing apples and oranges. So naturally there will be differences. The intention for me was to explain how the energy "disappears" when you connect two capacitors together. It's an "inelastic collision" between two capacitors "moving" at different voltages.
Back to that old RAT magic....
MileHigh
Figure 1: Overview, 5 each IRFPG50s on cute little heatsinks of aluminium, anodized..... fan blowing on Q1 mosfet, load heating at +-700 mA. Load is the 10.3 ohm 60 Watt resistor stack in 250 mL mineral oil.
Figure 2: Inline cheapo DMM readings at battery.
Figure 3: Typical scope trace at 700 mA. Top is common drains at 100 V/div, bottom is battery at 20 V/div, normal timebase 0.2 ms/div, expanded TB 1 us/div. Osc frequency about 2.4 Mhz, FG at 1 kHz, gate drive (not shown) offset and amplitude fiddled with to obtain 700 mA on DMM.
Figure 4: Last recorded time and temp... temp still rising, batt voltage still over 36 volts.
TK:
If I may make a few back to basics comments. I can't remember if in the last NERD report there was a definitive thermal profiling of the heating element so that they could then extrapolate how much wattage negative oscillation mode was dissipating in the element. This of course implies the same ambient thermal environment for both the negative oscillation mode and the thermal profiling tests.
If the thermal profiling was done, then the RAT team could say something like, "We measured battery power consumption indicating that 2.5 watts of power was being returned to the battery while our thermal profiling showed that 4.5 watts of real power was being dissipated in the load resistor." (Hence COP infinity because of the returned power.) I somehow doubt it because it seems to me that every report that I ever read from Rosemary and her various RAT teams never showed a simple table with (negative) power in vs. power out.
Anyway, unless some kind of thermal profiling is done then just quoting an absolute temperature for a heating element doesn't say too much. i.e.; the same output power could give you 50, 60, 70 degrees. The variable in play is the thermal resistance to the outside world vis-a-vis the power being dissipated.
I know that you are also heating up mineral oil in a thermally isolated container. That's a different way of doing it with a different set of procedures.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
TK:
If I may make a few back to basics comments. I can't remember if in the last NERD report there was a definitive thermal profiling of the heating element so that they could then extrapolate how much wattage negative oscillation mode was dissipating in the element. This of course implies the same ambient thermal environment for both the negative oscillation mode and the thermal profiling tests.
If the thermal profiling was done, then the RAT team could say something like, "We measured battery power consumption indicating that 2.5 watts of power was being returned to the battery while our thermal profiling showed that 4.5 watts of real power was being dissipated in the load resistor." (Hence COP infinity because of the returned power.) I somehow doubt it because it seems to me that every report that I ever read from Rosemary and her various RAT teams never showed a simple table with (negative) power in vs. power out.
Anyway, unless some kind of thermal profiling is done then just quoting an absolute temperature for a heating element doesn't say too much. i.e.; the same output power could give you 50, 60, 70 degrees. The variable in play is the thermal resistance to the outside world vis-a-vis the power being dissipated.
I know that you are also heating up mineral oil in a thermally isolated container. That's a different way of doing it with a different set of procedures.
MileHigh
They claim to have heated water, at a specific rate of heating which allows for no leakage or extra heat: 4.18 Joules per gram per degree C, the specific heat of water. My insulated container is heating mineral oil which requires 1.67 Joules per gram per degree, and it's insulated so it might not take much more than that in actuality.
You are right, though... doing it properly is different from doing it shoddily, and with a different set of procedures.
Meanwhile, in the second part of the video linked above, here is the proof that they are in fact turning on the Q1 mosfet STRONGLY and WITHOUT OSCILLATIONS to produce the higher heating in the second temperature demonstration. AND they are plainly measuring the temperature of a bare element. Those 190 degrees are Celsius degrees, down there !
Note the FG offset. They have ingeniously put the TOP of the trace right on the scope's center graticle scale, and the oscillations on the gate trace below the center, just like all the other gate signal traces they have shown. But look where the offset and the trace zero level marker is (little blue symbol on the left.) They are using a POSITIVE GOING PULSE in this part of the demonstration, and the Q1 mosfet is carrying the load, if they still have the same hookup happening. No wonder they removed one battery. Without cooling, that mosfet at 60 volts and whatever current it's now carrying, it wouldn't last long. So to reduce the current they pulled one battery, without explanation.
Everything to this point could have been an error, a misinterpretation. But THIS is the real smoking gun. Displaying the trace like this, even though the narrator says "positive offst", borders on deliberate conscious deception. And where is the tell-tale mosfet common drain trace? It reveals TOO MUCH so cannot be shown. These people are consciously lying through their oscilloscopes, and MH is worried about my mineral oil load cell.
ETA: In the second shot, of the LeCroy, I think the drain trace is the green trace, #4. Note the nice saaag in the phase NOT oscillating.. it sags towards the baseline. This indicates the Q1 mosfet is at least partially turning on during the NOT oscillating phase.
TK:
Thanks for the pictures, really appreciated to see the setup.
The AC superimposed on the battery voltage is interesting. Interesting because I think the NERDs always took it literally and used it in their DSO calculations.
Poynt believed that Rosemary had her battery probe in the wrong place and the AC would not be manifested if your probe was right on the battery terminal itself. Now I am not so convinced of that in looking at your scope traces because I am assuming that you are measuring the battery voltage properly. Have you tried a direct connection with your scope probe to the negative terminal of bat 1 and a direct connection to the positive terminal of bat 3?
I would not be surprised if you would see the oscillations like that. What is likely happening is that the Q2 MOSFET array, acting like an RF waveform generator, is simply superimposing AC on everything. The batteries probably appear like just another load (not sure of the impedance) to the AC source coming from the Q2 array. I am pretty sure that the RAT team was completely faked out by that superimposed AC and interpreted it as the literal battery voltage for the DSO crunching.
It's pretty obvious that a big fat battery, kind of like a slow electronic sloth, is not going to react to the buzzing fly of the high frequency AC that is superimposed on it's output.
So the moral of the story is the suggestion that if indeed there is high frequency AC literally on the terminal posts of the batteries, that is a fake-out, and you would have to divine the true battery voltage for purposes of DSO number crunching by filtering it out. It's garbage data that needs to be filtered out.
MileHigh
MH asked, "Have you tried a direct connection with your scope probe to the negative terminal of bat 1 and a direct connection to the positive terminal of bat 3?"
Yes, that is exactly how those battery traces were obtained, with another compensated P6047 10x atten. probe. The FG is not connected to the scope any more, except for the FG's "synch" output to the scope's external trigger input.
The rest, I agree with too. The RF/AC/Whatever is _feedback noise_, takes a tiny bit of energy to sustain, is actually _turned off_ by the FG (this is the main role of the FG it seems) and their large heating comes from the same place TarBaby's does: current through an on-state mosfet during the NON oscillating phase. Garbage in, garbage out. And yet, if those scopes had been used properly, one could indeed have resolved the power issues.
ETA: Wait, are we counting the batteries the same way? I assumed you meant from the most negative pole, to the most positive pole, of the whole stack. That's where I have the probe, across the whole 36 nominal volts.
QuoteETA: Wait, are we counting the batteries the same way? I assumed you meant from the most negative pole, to the most positive pole, of the whole stack. That's where I have the probe, across the whole 36 nominal volts.
Yes indeed, that's what I mean.
Put it this way: There is an analogy with being faked out by superimposed AC on the batteries and when someone runs a pulse motor and sees that the battery voltage is creeping up because of a warming up of the electrolyte or whatever. That MIB response team must endure scenes just like firemen and false alarms. Eventually the inner thighs get chapped from all of that riding down the MIB pole.
If I had just a measly $0.05 for every time somebody got excited by seeing a rise in battery voltage I would be in piggy bank heaven.
Oh, this burns me up.
My recent findings are these:
1. Even accepting the "related as +- 5 Watts" as meaning 5 watts of power dissipated at the load resistor, I've calculated that their batteries would last a _long time_, months maybe, before dropping below 12 volts, providing that measly level of power.
2. TarBaby can't heat a load substantially unless some of the mosfets are turning at least partially ON during the oscillations and/or the antiphase non-oscillating periods. When I apply sufficient current to match their "5 Watt" value, I get beaucoup load heating.. but my mosfets are partially on, some of them, and fully on, others.
3. For the "massive" load heating of their resistor to far above the boiling point of water.... their own scope traces and data show that they TOO are turning mosfets fully on during this part of their demonstration, during the antiphase, non-oscillation portion of the waveform cycle.
4. Argentina was boring, although the weather was nice there in the late 40s and early 50s. But America is the Land of Opportunity, and there are still a few good German restaurants in South Texas if you know where to look. And Shiner Bock .... Sieg p'suffa !!
Time is 1824, Load is at 235 F and still climbing. I'm trying to maintain that 700 mA level on the DMM; it requires tweaking the FG amplitude once in a while, mostly due to the temperature of Q1, I think.
Batt voltage under the circuit load is 35.1 volts. Looks like I'm not recharging.
MH said, "Poynt believed that Rosemary had her battery probe in the wrong place and the AC would not be manifested if your probe was right on the battery terminal itself. "
Actually I think that's probably correct. If I get rid of all stray wiring and use as short as possible ground lead on the probe itself, I can cut the apparent amplitude of the oscs on the battery trace by about 2/3. In the ideal world of circuit sims, I'm sure they would go away completely, and in reality too, if you could put your scope and probe inside the battery case.
However.... there are those pesky LED/inductor combos, right at the battery terminal, showing us something... at the very least they are showing us that there is enough power in the AC oscs, not being metered, to light up a few LEDs.
Ok... so what am I doing wrong? Why aren't my batteries recharging? Tar Baby has the same type and number of mosfets, has the same value (within tolerance) shunt CVR, has the same gate drive settings IN BOTH MODES, oscillating small heat and big load heating modes both, has the same scope traces at the same points, has the same oscillation frequency or exactly twice that frequency.... has the AC component with power in it.... everything except battery recharging.
And the evidence that the NERD RATs have presented to indicate battery recharging is, first, the no-load voltage "alleged" to be at or over 12 volts on the batteries after much use, and second, the spreadsheet numerical integrations and comparisons of scope values from improperly adjusted and employed oscilloscopes. And this by someone who thinks that a Joule is a Watt per Second and that you can put 25.6 million Joules into a liter of water in a hundred minutes without having to call the Fire Brigade.
Why aren't my batteries recharging? I don't think anyone, at this point, can claim that there are significant differences between Tar Baby and NERD. If there are, please describe them and I will be happy to correct them if I can.
Damn... I knew I should have bought that white pegboard.
Quote from: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 06:30:09 PM
TK:
Thanks for the pictures, really appreciated to see the setup.
The AC superimposed on the battery voltage is interesting. Interesting because I think the NERDs always took it literally and used it in their DSO calculations.
Poynt believed that Rosemary had her battery probe in the wrong place and the AC would not be manifested if your probe was right on the battery terminal itself. Now I am not so convinced of that in looking at your scope traces because I am assuming that you are measuring the battery voltage properly. Have you tried a direct connection with your scope probe to the negative terminal of bat 1 and a direct connection to the positive terminal of bat 3?
I would not be surprised if you would see the oscillations like that. What is likely happening is that the Q2 MOSFET array, acting like an RF waveform generator, is simply superimposing AC on everything. The batteries probably appear like just another load (not sure of the impedance) to the AC source coming from the Q2 array. I am pretty sure that the RAT team was completely faked out by that superimposed AC and interpreted it as the literal battery voltage for the DSO crunching.
It's pretty obvious that a big fat battery, kind of like a slow electronic sloth, is not going to react to the buzzing fly of the high frequency AC that is superimposed on it's output.
So the moral of the story is the suggestion that if indeed there is high frequency AC literally on the terminal posts of the batteries, that is a fake-out, and you would have to divine the true battery voltage for purposes of DSO number crunching by filtering it out. It's garbage data that needs to be filtered out.
MileHigh
It appears that the AC oscillation you have discovered over the battery is the entire argument for the "second part" of the 2 part paper.
Here is an "interesting quote" post #232 from the blog:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/
"
This may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection. The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain. Which is standard convention. Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls. And it SERIOUSLY falls. It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5. Given a 6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts. At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage. And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative. WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING. In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT. Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating. We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle. But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.
Now. If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second. And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery. For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second - during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS. IN A MOMENT? That's hardly likely. And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours? As are ours? And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time. DO THE MATH. It beggars belief. In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.
NOW. You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage. Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS. Well. It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this. And in a way he's right. There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO? What gives? Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse. His own simulation software measures it. Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH.
But science is science. And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere. So. How to explain it? How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V? Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope - that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply. Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail +0.5V. Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material. WHICH IS REASONABLE. Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.
OR DOES IT? If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load. Over time. In fact over the duration. It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating. It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER. Not even under fully discharged conditions. So? Again. WHAT GIVES? Clearly something else is coming into the equation. Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all. And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY. Well within their capabilities.
SO. BACK TO THE QUESTION? WHAT GIVES? We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply. BUT. By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches. It's at the Drain rail. And its ground is on the negative or Source rail. And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground. Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING? UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit? Unless the switch is CLOSED. IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED? In which case? Would it not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit? IF so. Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit. It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED. It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit? In which case? We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP. What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components. Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source.
It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you. Sorry this took so long. It needs all those words to explain this. The worst of it is that there's more to come. Kindest regards as ever,
Rosemary"
Facepalm.
Evolve... you do realise what a word salad that post from RA is, I hope.
(But first, I didn't "discover" this RF oscillation, I merely have demonstrated it unambiguously for what it is. It is feedback caused by a little bit of energy ringing back and forth between all those crazy wires and the capacitances of the mosfet and wiring. Circuit designers know this oscillation well and take pains to avoid and eliminate it. In fact if I just put those mosfets up close on TarBaby's board they would probably go away.)
And of course her whole argument about the battery "discharging its whole potential in an instant" in bold and caps is bogusity of the first magnitude.
Come, let us reason together.
The drain trace drops to or near zero in the oscillations because the mosfet is turning on briefly then.
I have demonstrated what happens to the drain trace when a mosfet turns on.
The current is limited by the circuit's resistance.
The Drain voltage drops to zero when the battery is seeing the minimum resistance in the circuit, which is the mosfet's Rdss of 2 ohms plus the CVR of 0.25 ohms plus the 11.11 ohms of the load. Call it 14 ohms, or 15 to be conservative and allow for cliplead crimps and such.
(Actually since it is the Q2 stack that is oscillating the resultant Rdss for the four mosfets in parallel is only 0.5 Ohm. Like that makes a big difference. Well, so instead of 15 ohms use 13.5 ohms in the following calculation.)
Ohm's Law tells us that V=IR, so I = V/R and so a 60 volt battery will push 4 amps of current through a 15 ohm load, dissipating power at the load of P=I^2R, or 240 Watts continuous power if it was on 100 percent of the time. (Here the "load" of course means the entire circuit including the warm mosfets.)
But it's not.
In the single oscillation period, modelling it as a square wave at 1.2 MHz, the pulse is On for less than a half of a microsecond, but call it 500 nanoseconds per pulse.
So the energy in each pulse of the oscillation is actually (less than, because it's not a rectangular pulse) 0.0000005 second x 240 Joules per second, or about 0.00012 Joule, or a bit less than the battery's "whole potential" of over 10 MegaJoules or so. Ten orders of magnitude ! And she thinks her math might sometimes be a "tad out".
And, as we may have determined earlier in the thread, much of this energy is "recycled" into the next period. Only the radiation and Joule heating losses need to be made up by the battery's power to sustain this oscillation.
Here, Rosemary and the NERD RATs: These ladies might be just what you need, to come up to speed on your circuit math skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUwdvAYEb3Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUwdvAYEb3Q)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ees3b0R4rJ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ees3b0R4rJ8)
Tk
Back in Roses thread, the vid of removing the battery from the circuit. When you removed the battery, there was still oscillation? What Im getting at is, if you remove everything from the circuit other than the mosfets(the mosfets in Roses schematic sown in the vid, just imagine the transistors as a block with the sig gen and the 2 circuit leads, 1 going up to the inductor and the other lead going down to the shunt), when you power up the sig gen, you still get the oscillations?
If so, then the source battery is not even necessary to get the transistor block to oscillate. So, is it possible that the transistor block is only allowing the source to conduct through the circuit during half of the block oscillation, like the block is just a fast on and off switch?
If so, then are we only getting pulsed DC through the heater from the source?
Or, from your experience, is there actually any current flowing back to the battery, or just out flow period?
MH
We have talked on this cap transfer issue, heat losses, inductors, before. ;]
I can fully understand that if we have a 12v batt connected to a 12v motor with a resistor/resistance(conductors) in series with the motor, that not all the energy being released from the battery is being dissipated by the motor.
Yes, I agree. To have resistance in the conductors or adding a resistance in series in the circuit but wishing that all the source energy were being supplied to the motor, then these resistances are unwanted losses. But Im not sure that heat is the loss in general. You know I have been thinking on this for a while now. ;] Well, still thinking.
If we take a case of where heat is the desired output, are we still losing anything from input to output? Even if we collect the heat from the heater, the battery and the circuits connections?
Here is where Im stuck on losses...
If we have a super conductive battery(all theoretical), and a super conductive buss bar, and we short the battery with the buss bar, we are losing energy even though we ended up with no heat. We could say that we lost it all in the incredible EMP. But I see it as we discharged the super battery by leveling out the charge/potential difference at the 2 terminals of the battery, and thats all. And, that heat and magnetic fluctuations are byproducts. I know there are other things to consider, but Im just giving my example.
Like TK said about the caps esr. What if we had(theoretical) super conducting resistor(current limiter). Its purpose is just for loss less current limiting.
If we insert this loss less current limiter in series with the motor and battery, this is where I have my issue.
If the motor and battery connected alone pulls say 10A, and if we add the SC current limiter inline, we now only have 5A going through the motor, did we lose anything? Did any energy taken from the battery not get to the motor, even if the motor had a desired output at 5A?
Now, we have the batt and motor alone at 10A running. We add a resistor(real) in the loop, one with a value that would bring the current down to 5A. Well, the motor is only going to put out 5A of work. AND, the battery is draining only half as fast as the battery/motor alone at 10A.
Sooo. Why would we say we are losing anything? By adding the resistor in series, to limit the current through the motor, we are not still pulling 10A from the battery and only getting 5A through the motor. Can ya feel where Im coming from?
So, if we have 2 superconducting caps, 1 charged to 10v and the other empty, I can see that if we were to discharge the charged cap into the empty, that they might oscillate forever. Well what if we rectified the discharge? Would all of the charge from the charged cap end up in the empty one?
Or if we added our superconducting current limiter in the discharge loop. Would we end up with still 5V in each cap? The same as regular caps? Without losses? Thats my drift.
Ok, Ill let that cook for a bit. then I will expand on it a bit if these posts are welcome. Been thinkin on this for a while.
Mags
@Mags:
With these mosfets, no, I see no oscillations at any gate drive settings with the main battery disconnected.
I don't see any trace of current flowing "back to the battery" either. The power that can light up the LEDs of Doom is bouncing off the inductor and would bounce off the battery too if the inductor wasn't there.
(I am running without these LEDs for the present test, though.)
ETA: My oil is at 250 F at least (the thermometer has gone all the way around and is past zero again....) and batt voltage is 32.3 at 2007 hours. I'm going to switch back to the low-current osc mode using strict negative gate drive, only the Q2 mosfets now, providing 100 mA drain current.
(Scope parameters as before.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 08:40:44 PM
Facepalm.
Evolve... you do realise what a word salad that post from RA is, I hope.
(But first, I didn't "discover" this RF oscillation, I merely have demonstrated it unambiguously for what it is. It is feedback caused by a little bit of energy ringing back and forth between all those crazy wires and the capacitances of the mosfet and wiring. Circuit designers know this oscillation well and take pains to avoid and eliminate it. In fact if I just put those mosfets up close on TarBaby's board they would probably go away.)
And of course her whole argument about the battery "discharging its whole potential in an instant" in bold and caps is bogusity of the first magnitude.
Come, let us reason together.
The drain trace drops to or near zero in the oscillations because the mosfet is turning on briefly then.
I have demonstrated what happens to the drain trace when a mosfet turns on.
The current is limited by the circuit's resistance.
The Drain voltage drops to zero when the battery is seeing the minimum resistance in the circuit, which is the mosfet's Rdss of 2 ohms plus the CVR of 0.25 ohms plus the 11.11 ohms of the load. Call it 14 ohms, or 15 to be conservative and allow for cliplead crimps and such.
(Actually since it is the Q2 stack that is oscillating the resultant Rdss for the four mosfets in parallel is only 0.5 Ohm. Like that makes a big difference. Well, so instead of 15 ohms use 13.5 ohms in the following calculation.)
Ohm's Law tells us that V=IR, so I = V/R and so a 60 volt battery will push 4 amps of current through a 15 ohm load, dissipating power at the load of P=I^2R, or 240 Watts continuous power if it was on 100 percent of the time. (Here the "load" of course means the entire circuit including the warm mosfets.)
But it's not.
In the single oscillation period, modelling it as a square wave at 1.2 MHz, the pulse is On for less than a half of a microsecond, but call it 500 nanoseconds per pulse.
So the energy in each pulse of the oscillation is actually (less than, because it's not a rectangular pulse) 0.0000005 second x 240 Joules per second, or about 0.00012 Joule, or a bit less than the battery's "whole potential" of over 10 MegaJoules or so. Ten orders of magnitude ! And she thinks her math might sometimes be a "tad out".
And, as we may have determined earlier in the thread, much of this energy is "recycled" into the next period. Only the radiation and Joule heating losses need to be made up by the battery's power to sustain this oscillation.
TK,
Sure I realise.
A battery would never survive total discharge in such a manner and remain serviceable, and neither would the circuit, which should be the first indicator that it is not happening. Your approach of systematically working through each variable and building a data set to understand what is occurring is the correct one. You are allowing the data to build the complete picture and using your knowledge and experience to interpret it, as opposed to starting from a preconceived conclusion and manipulating the data to fit.
I am really pleased that you are taking the time to demonstrate and explain what is actually going on with this circuit. Thanks.
RM :)
You're welcome.
Somebody told me what my time and effort might be worth as a hired consultant in these matters, but I'm embarrassed to say just how much it was. Me, I'm just taking a busman's holiday, although it has cost me a couple hundred bux in hardware and running around.
More data:
Using a sensitive moving-coil milliammeter, I have found that there is from zero to about 65 mA of current flowing through the Function Generator in TarBaby's circuit, depending on the amplitude setting and the bipolar/unipolar pulsing. If bipolar pulsing is used the current averaged by the meter is just slightly in the "negative" direction wrt the FG's usual polarity. If unipolar pulsing is used the current direction is in whatever sense the pulse is going.
I don't know if the FG is "sourcing" this current or sinking it or just passing it through. I'd guess that it is acting as a current, and hence power, source, since the output voltage of the FG is drawn down by the circuit's loading.
Battery voltage continues to fall, down to 34.0 volts with 100 mA on the drain current DMM. This is with strict unipolar negative pulsing, and the load temp also continues to drop, down to 168 F at 2201.
When the battery gets down to 33 volts, I'll stop the test, unplug everything and let them sit until I wake up from my naptime. Then I'll do the DimBulb test, comparing these 3 batteries with the fully-charged one I set aside yesterday.
Oh, what's the point. If they measure below 12 volts they haven't recharged, even conjecturally. And the fully-charged one measures 13.15 volts right now anyway.
I've looked at the oscillations now with the base FG pulsing set to 100 Hz, 1 kHz, 10 kHz and 100 kHz. At the highest freq there is only time for 10 or 12 so cycles per pulse but the frequency is still that same 2.25-2.4 MHz that it is at 100 Hz pulsation.
Ok, then, the only difference in performance that I can see (besides youknowwhat) is that they cited , if I recall the narration correctly, a frequency of 1.2 MHz for the oscs and I am finding approximately exactly double that. Yes I know that's an oxymoron, but so is yer brudda.
Is there any data, meaning scope traces or dumps, that support their frequency figure for the oscs?
(ETA: In .99's detailed analysis his sim shows an osc frequency of around 1.125 MHz or so, as best as I can tell, which is much more in line with the Ainslie report. He modeled the inductances right down to the wires connecting the batteries. Why is my osc frequency so high? Do my batteries make the difference?)
ETA2: OK, by adding one through six of those little brown inductors in series at the battery positive terminal I brought the frequency down to 1.5 MHz in steps, so I'm satisfied that it's total inductance that is determining the oscillation frequency.
Will my batteries charge at the 1.5 MHz oscillations, I wonder? One more inductor should bring it down to the "Ainslie Range"... do I dare?
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 11:35:34 PM
(ETA: In .99's detailed analysis his sim shows an osc frequency of around 1.125 MHz or so, as best as I can tell, which is much more in line with the Ainslie report. He modeled the inductances right down to the wires connecting the batteries. Why is my osc frequency so high? Do my batteries make the difference?)
Would the batteries act as a form of capacitance in the circuit, that might affect the freq of operation? But then how did Poynt get that detail worked out in sim.
Would the freq change if you changed the inductor value? Would it change if you had more or less transistors in parallel thus a change in capacitance?
Or, does the input voltage have an affect on the freq of the oscillations?
Are any of these things different in your circuit in comparison?
Mags
See ETA2 above.
8)
Tk
In this vid....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA&index=15&feature=plcp
The one we were discussing in Roses thread, at 3:58 or so, you show that the circuit has oscillations "with the battery out". That is why I asked you about it.
Is the circuit you are using now any different that it wont oscillate with the battery disconnected?
Mags
You mean, any different besides the 2n7000 mosfets, the 3-volt battery supply and the FG drive at the same level, and the inductor? No, no different. :P
That is, the oscillations are caused by the same things, but in the 2n7000 case there is enough leakage and AC coupling through the capacitances that the circuit is actually powered by the FG, probably.
The IRFPG50 eats 2n7000s for breakfast, nobody is disputing that. You can't blame the big fellow if he's a bit less sensitive to tickling.
Im not trying to beat ya down over this. Im just trying to understand it from your perspective. It was just my understanding from that vid of your version of Roses circuit that the circuit still oscillates with the loop of the main circuit broken by removing the battery. In doing so, that means that the inductor is out of the circuit, and so is the shunt, the load also. So now, being that you say that adding more inductors changes the freq of the oscillations, can we say that we could have oscillations without the inductor, but adding it in just alters the freq? or....
I suppose if you had the scope across where the the battery was could complete the loop in some fashion. But that would mean that the gen IS powering the oscillations, being that the battery is out of the loop. No? ;)
Either way, that was my understanding, But if this beefier setup dont, then we have to assume that there are differences in the circuits, even though we might consider them the same. So any alterations to the original circuit could alter the outcome also. Yes? ;)
Mags ;D
Hi guys,
This is getting juicy by the second .... what will it be COP<0 ..... COP>0 ..... COP>10 ..... COP>100 ..... COP>1,000 ..... COP>10,000 ..... COP>100,000 ..... COP>1,000,000 ..... COP>1,000,000,000 ..... COP>INFINITY ?? ???
Golly .... I can't wait !!
FTC
;)
@Mags: Yes,this circuit is sensitive to layout. But not as sensitive to component changes as you might think. The 2n7000 is pretty radical, but there is nearly no difference between the 830 and the PG50 in TarBaby's performance.
If you are trying to tell me that I'm not getting battery charging because I'm not holding my mouth right, or that her mosfets are numbered 1,2,3,4,5 and mine are numbered 4,3,2,1 and 5...... I don't buy it. One learns about a system by perturbing it and watching the result. You change some values or layout in an FM radio and it might not pick up the same station at the same knob settings, but it will still be something like an FM radio in its behaviour.
Now, every circuit Ainslie throws together produces overunity heating and battery charging--- EVEN THE MISTAKES..... but when I build the exact same circuit along with _many variations thereof_ I detect no OU behaviour, and yet I generate the same data. And when even Ainslie's own data is properly analyzed, her OU behaviour either vanishes entirely or turns out not to be so OU at all.
So are you still trying to figure out some feature of the 2n7000 circuit that wasn't close enough to Ainslie's kludges for you to see the point, or are you going to try to tell me that my PRESENT circuit here isn't working because.... because..... because my osc frequency doesn't match hers and my total wire length isn't the same as hers?
OK, I would accept that if we were building ham transmitters or something like that, especially if the design we were copying ACTUALLY WORKED.
But there is no evidence that it actually does, and we are uncovering more and more evidence all the time that it DOESN'T work.
QuoteSo any alterations to the original circuit could alter the outcome also. Yes? (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../Smileys/default/wink.gif (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../Smileys/default/wink.gif))
You mean like putting in 4 mosfets backwards for your demo, and finding that you _still_ get the crazy numbers from your spreadsheet? NO. As long as you are putting garbage in to your calculations, you are still going to get garbage out, no matter whether the garbage is GREEN or blue.
Did you miss these two pix?
They are the "smoking gun", the "BUSTED" pictures that show, from their own video demonstration, that they are NOT using a strict negative pulse when they are generating their large heat. They are using a POSITIVE OFFSET that turns on the Q1 mosfet during the NON_oscillating phase of the pulsing, and they have tried to hide this fact "in plain sight" by removing the Drain trace from the display on the Tek and displaying the gate trace the way they do, hiding the fact that it is a positive going pulse by putting the trace entirely at or below center screen.
Mags said,
QuoteSo now, being that you say that adding more inductors changes the freq of the oscillations, can we say that we could have oscillations without the inductor, but adding it in just alters the freq? or....
The oscillations are feedback parasitic oscillations caused by stray inductances (wire lengths, placement near other wires) and capacitances (wire lengths and placement, component characteristics). Change any inductance or capacitance in the circuit... like by moving wires or even just waving hands around... and the behaviour/performance changes.
It is impossible to build real circuitry without inductances. "I say" that adding more inductors changes the frequency of the oscs. But in contrast to "Rosemary says", what "I say" is often backed up with facts, references and demonstrations. "I say" that adding inductance changes the frequency, and I can demonstrate that it does, if you don't believe me.
Certainly one "can" have oscillations without added extra inductance as the circuit stands. I've demonstrated this over and over. One "can" also eliminate the oscillations by reducing the stray wire inductance and laying the physical circuit out differently. The NERD RATs magic "oscillations" depend on their cliplead kludgy layout which no rational circuit builder would use.
So we appear to have hit upon another requirement or characteristic of Free Energy devices: their layout must be crazy, because if they are laid out rationally, the magic noise that causes the numbers to indicate Overunity performance..... goes away.
Look... maybe it is only one special batch of mosfets from International Rectifier Corp that have the secret characteristic that causes them to make free energy. A production run was contaminated by Bismuth and Magnesium and they had to stop the assembly line and purge the day's output. But a small batch somehow got through Quality Assurance testing and made it out into the wild. The NERD RATS just happened to get the entire stock of these special mosfets, and no other IRFPG50 that you might get from a vendor will be from this special batch. So no matter HOW they assemble a circuit, it will be overunity when they analyse the spreadsheet numbers.
But the rest of us are screwed from the outset because our PG50s are not from that one special batch.
It's like what makes the difference between an extremely valuable stamp and one that's just pretty paper. If you don't have that tiny little misprint or off-color marking, you are simply out of luck.
(See the logical fallacy called "Special Pleading" for more information.)
Hey Fuzzy
I wonder what Mr. Donovan Martin would have to say about Tar Baby.
Can anyone tell me why one battery was removed from the 60 volt stack, leaving 48 volts, for the second part of the NERD RATs video demonstration?
If I recall correctly RA and .99 decided that a 36 volt battery with lower amp-hour capacity would be fine for testing the NERD device. Well... it's pretty clearly not fine for Tar Baby, since we see no evidence of battery recharging.
Of course we haven't yet looked "under the rug" of digital scope dumps to spreadsheets for analysis of improperly obtained data for that evidence. We can only go by the actual state of charge as determined by draw-down tests of one kind or another.
I've disconnected the battery from the circuit, and scoped across the power _input_ leads to the Tar Baby.
So this is the same probe location for battery monitoring, except with the battery completely gone and the scope set to 2 volts/division instead of 20 or 50 or even 100 v/div as the NERDs have shown.
And then I turn on the FG. Guess what.... the FG's voltage appears at the power input leads, which means -- I think -- that the battery will be seeing the FG as a power supply.
For strictly negative going gate pulses, the FG voltage appearing at the power input leads has a funny shape and not much amplitude. But when the gate pulse goes positive at all, whether from bipolar pulsing and/or a positive offset for the negative pulsing.... this full voltage of the FG's output appears at the power input leads.
I repeated the Function Generator Battery Charging experiment, except I used one of the 12 Volt, 5 A-H batteries of the Tar Baby. I hooked up the negative lead from the FG to the negative battery terminal. I hooked the positive lead from the FG to the _anode_ of a 1n4009 rectifier diode. I hooked the _cathode_ end of the diode to the positive input of the inline DMM ammeter, and I completed the circuit by hooking the negative side of the DMM ammeter to the positive terminal of the battery.
I turned on the FG and set it for a positive pulse only, 13 volts amplitude, then increased the duty cycle to about 70 percent, which gave me +120 mA indicated on the meter. The FG is charging the battery !! When I started, the battery was at 11.4 volts. Now, after a few minutes, it is at 11.6 volts and slowly very slowly climbing.
TK:
I think that you built the NERD circuit using the topology in the uploaded diagram below. You can see if the function generator output goes positive that you get a good conduction path through the internal diodes of the Q2 array so your scope voltage reading makes sense.
If the function generator output goes negative then you have quasi turned on the Q2 array but the drain is open-circuit except for the internal impedance of your scope probe of about 1 Mohm. So that means that the low source voltage from the function generator on the Q2 source pin is "imaged" on the drain pin. But to see any "action" in theory you have to have a good conduction path on the drain side, which you don't. (more below)
If you ever try it again you should try the same setup but also see what your scope reads if you also put a 100k, 10k, or 1K resistor in parallel with the scope probe. You can assume that when the function generator output is high or low that you will see the fg voltage across the resistor load.
For the fg output going high, it's due to the diode in the Q2 array.
For the fg output going low, the fg now actually powers the Q2 MOSFET switch. Just "move the fg counter-clockwise around the loop" in your mind and you can see that the ground of the fg is at the high potential, pumping current through the added resistor, through the switched-on Q2 array and the back to the signal lead of the fg, which is at the lower potential. Call it the "new ground."
Going back to normal 36-volt operation, the fg cannot recharge the batteries. If the fg output is high, it obviously doesn't have the EMF required to power the battery stack. If the fg output is low, it acts like one more battery in series with the battery stack. That can't recharge the battery stack, it can only contribute to the power output of the battery stack.
Magluvin:
Sorry but I could not make head or tail of 95% of your posting about the motors and stuff, and it would be better on another thread.
MileHigh
You can certainly see how the circuit that TK built is functionally equivalent to the NERD RAT circuit. The first small build that TK did with the 3-volt battery pack was kind of a "proof of concept" circuit to show how easily MOSFETs will oscillate. At least that's how I see it.
It's been stated before and it's worth stating again that MOSFET circuits are highly prone to oscillation. A circuit designed to be an amplifier and a circuit designed to be an oscillator are very similar. So when you use MOSFETs in some kind of switching application that has inherent amplification, it's not in the least bit surprising that the circuit will start to oscillate.
What frequency the circuit oscillates at is mostly academic. The core of the design will oscillate. Sometimes all that it takes is a bit of thermal noise, which is everywhere in circuits, to tickle the MOSFET input and start the oscillation. Different lengths of wire or other inductive or capacitive effects will influence and change the oscillation frequency, but that does not change the fact that at the core of the circuit there is an engine running, powered by the power source, that is doing the oscillation.
So what we are looking at has not fundamentally changed from day one. It's a circuit that takes power from a set of batteries and burns off that power in an inductive resistor, a MOSFET oscillator, and other sundry components. The fact that the MOSFET oscillator runs in the 1-4 MHz range with harmonics that extend up into the tens of MHz means that the whole circuit is "buzzing" with a superimposed high-frequency AC voltage signal that makes measurements very difficult to do.
You can't forget the nonsensical aspects of the circuit either, with the function generator in the main current loop when it's outputting a negatively offset signal. That means that the function generator is both contributing to the powering of the circuit in tandem with the battery array, and at the same some time dissipating some of the power running trough the circuit via its internal 50-ohm resistor. Also, the actual square wave signal being output by the function generator, under normal negative offset oscillation mode, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with controlling the ON/OFF switching of the current going through the inductive resistor. The function generator is just acting like an "enable oscillation - disable oscillation" device. It's somewhat bizarre.
The bottom line is that there is nothing here at all. It's all just a giant misunderstanding by Rosemary where she is clinging to her DSO data capture and refuses to wake up and look at the data coming at her from all other directions stating that the setup is under unity. If you had somebody that was really skilled they would be able to use the same DSO on the same circuit to capture good data which would show that the circuit was under unity. Recognizing that the battery voltage has to be filtered to get rid of the superimposed AC voltage waveform would be an example of taking the proper steps to make proper measurements.
Rosemary is clearly not a skilled enough person to use the DSO properly nor does she understand how electronic circuits work beyond the most basic level. The same thing applies to her NERD RATs. How the circuit actually works was discovered _after_ she and her team worked on it for months and months and then presented their paper.
If you know how to use a screwdriver and a spanner you can't then just present yourself to a Formula One race team and proclaim that you want to be the lead mechanic with the pit crew. That's a valid analogy for Rosemary and it's just as ridiculous. She can pick up a scope probe and push a button on a DSO. So what, that means nothing. This notion that you are not "encumbered" when you are clueless with respect to electronics and science is simply ridiculous. Blind ignorance does not give you the ability to have "new insights" that others with education and training are blinded to. In the vast vast majority of the cases, all that you end up doing is deluding yourself. That is clearly the case here.
MileHigh
I just want to emphasize an important point again.
TK's circuit has the same topology as Rosemary's and uses the same MOSFETs and it oscillates in the same manner.
That's enough evidence to give us convergence and state that his replication is a valid replication and the measurements that he makes are going to be analogous to the measurements that could be made on Rosemary's circuit.
The "cult of replication" on the free energy forums is normally very counterproductive. People say things like, "Your replication is not valid because my coil is 220 turns but your coil is 200 turns." These are mistakes coming out of ignorance. In almost all cases, minor deviations like that are trivial and do not affect the operation of the circuit.
In the worst case, this cult of replication is used by the fraudsters. Somebody makes a fake free energy claim and 20 people try to replicate it and fail. The fraudster says "your replications are not 100% accurate" and people seem to accept this and move on. It's the wrong way to think about these things and you are letting the fraudsters take advantage of you when you do this.
So, TK has a valid replication unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. Most objections will be nonsensical, analogous to the 200 turn vs. 220 turn coil example above.
So if you are curious, keep on watching this thread. TK is deconstructing and demystifying the RAT circuit and that's a good thing and people can learn at the same time.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 09:30:31 AM
Hey Fuzzy
I wonder what Mr. Donovan Martin would have to say about Tar Baby.
Hi Tk,
I have been trying to find out exactly that, but finding him through all these shadow companies he's with and for him to actually e-mail me back is something else .... at one time we worked together I thought.
Here is just a few web sites he's with ... ???
http://www.donixes.co.za/
http://donixes.webs.com/
http://cncwings.tripod.com/
http://cncwings.tripod.com/options.html
You would think he would be excited to share the results of the testing and evaluation of the NERD RAT experimental device he is involved with the published and supported "claim" of COP>INFINITY, even a COP>1,000,000,000 ..... COP>1,000,000 ..... COP>100,000 ..... COP>10,000 ..... COP>1000 ..... COP>100 ..... would be nice to show the world unless he doesn't support the "CLAIM".
I'm still e-mailing him and have been sense March 26 to get some answers hopefully it's not like at Energetic Forum where Rosemary promised he would help and "ddmdragon" ( Donovan ) made one post and left http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4676-rosemary-anslie-magnetic-rosetta.html#post66770 ..... this could be a indication of his commitment from years ago.
Onward and Upward !!! Maybe not a COP>INFINITY ..... but a COP>1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
10 ?? :o
FTC
;)
While I don't think it makes any difference for MH's excellent analysis, I actually am using the topology in the diagram below. The only difference is where the FG's "negative" lead is connected. Sometimes I put a 0.33 Ohm resistor in series with the FG+ connection to the gate. Sometimes I also move the FG's "negative" to the common ground point, which makes more sense to me. But usually I have it as below, on the transistor side of the CVR.
I can't find anything objectionable in the MH analyses above. I was surprised, though, that the LEDs could extract as much power as they do from the AC component while the DC is passed through the small inductance of 18 inches of wire or the brown inductor. I'm wondering if there could be some weird effect where the FG's output voltage doesn't have to be greater than the entire battery voltage to charge it. In other words, could the circuit be acting as a form of "joule thief" or boost converter to allow energy transfer from the FG's lower voltage to the battery, in the dynamic operation of the circuit?
I mean, I'm just tossing ideas around that might be able to explain battery charging conventionally, IF it turns out to be demonstrated.... which I still doubt very much.
Meanwhile, the battery that I AM charging with the FG, using the rectifier diode, has now reached 11.7 volts and is still climbing. So I'm disconnecting it, and going on with preparations for the Dim Bulb Test.
Figure 1: Four NOS, non-Chinese, type 1157 automotive brake/taillight bulbs, 12 volt, twin filament, wired in parallel, with leads for attaching to batteries.
Figure 2: The test batteries. All of these were charged two days ago using the automatic automotive battery charger until it reported that they were fully charged by shutting off. After settling, all the batteries measured about 13.2 volts no-load. 3 were selected and used for running the Tar Baby, oscillating, heating a load, etc. last night, until the voltage dropped below 33 volts total. One of these was used in the FG charging experiment and raised to 11.6 or 11.7 volts that way. The fourth battery was set aside and not used before the upcoming test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps)
Sigh.
:-[
TK:
Sublime... I am at a loss for words.
Instead I made two clips to continue the technical discussion. I couldn't find my white lab coat though. Sigh....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYj93Qg6Rc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IP8g7-VPn4
MileHigh
Well, I think there are several conclusions that we can draw now.
1. It's clear that a battery can be charged by a function generator thru a diode, if the FG is powerful enough. Yawn.
2. Tar Baby sure didn't achieve COP INFINITY. Not even close. But did it achieve COP>1 ? In other words, did the batteries run down less fast than they would have, running Tar Baby as compared to DC power at the same average level? I'm saving that one for later on.
Tar Baby didn't charge its batteries at a level sufficient to maintain a "full charge", that's for sure.
3. The Berd is a Werd. Definitely.
There is another broad conclusion that may be drawn here, even before testing is complete.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't stow thrones.
In other words, any claimant for an overunity prize should really expect to have to go through at LEAST this much trouble, public documentation, experimentation, and public testing if they seriously expect consideration. One must be prepared and WILLING to go through all this process, instead of just providing word salad that scrambles existing convention with regard to mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering. This is especially true if the claimant has a long history of error, arrogance, and past unsupported claims. When the claimant refuses to cooperate with reasonable testing protocols, nor to have rational and fruitful discussion about the device or the claims, comprehensive testing becomes even more important IF the award is really to be pursued in earnest. And when the claimant refuses to retract conclusions based on demonstrably wrong calculations, resorts to irrelevant ad hominem abuse, denies the reality and impact of independent work concerning the claims, and continues the pursuit of the award nonetheless.... there is something seriously wrong with the process.
It is my humble opinion that all of the above "due diligence" that I have shown should be accomplished by the claimant FIRST, before applying for any prize or trumpeting great news like COP INFINITY, and this diligence should indeed be open to inspection on request. Obfuscation, denial, delay, ridiculous testing conditions and requirements... all of these things should be firm indicators that the claimant can NOT in fact support the claims, and probably knows it.
Whoever is responsible for administering any prizes or awards should require some minimal level of REAL proof along with any application for consideration. Some word salad essays and a video riddled with error and prevarication do not rise to the level necessary for consideration.
Continuing on: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, sometimes even more so than bland ignorance.
The NERD RATs, having never actually TESTED their battery's state of charge, base their claim of recharging on the power calculations measured by their scopes and calculated by their spreadsheets. The data is coming from digitally sampled repeating waveforms of a fixed frequency. The math performed on this data must be done correctly if it is to be accurate, but just as importantly the data must be COLLECTED properly. Since power calculations depend strongly on the temporal relationship between the measured current and voltage signals, some things must be considered before just hooking up probes and pushing buttons.
The Tek Scope Guru says:
Quote
Measuring AC Power with Advanced Math Question: How do I measure the AC power using the advanced math capabilities â€" I wanted to use the equation p = |V| x |I| x cos(Phase( V-I)) but don’t seem to get the correct answer.
Answer: Just to recap, it looks like you are making a power quality measurement on the input to your power supply. To do that, you are measuring voltage and current on the input, then performing math to determine the Real Power from the measured Apparent Power.
Whenever you are making power measurements, it’s critical to deskew your probes. Your voltage and current probes have different propagation delays, and even the pathways behind each channel of your oscilloscope have different delays and gain. The differences in pathway for the voltage measurement and current measurement introduce timing errors and amplitude errors in to your power measurement, since power is the product of voltage and current. This, of course, will distort your phase measurement and affect your results.
To deskew your probes, you’ll need to adjust the delay and offset of each oscilloscope channel to compensate for the differences in pathways. To do this, you can use a deskew kit. This deskew kit provides a fixture and pulse generator. The deskew pulse generator provides a stimulus signal to the deskew fixture which is then routed to the voltage and current probes. The propagation delay and gain of each path can then be adjusted using the channel adjustments (deskew and offset) in the scope to align the two waveforms.
Or, if you are using automated power analysis software like DPOPWR or DPO4PWR/DPO3PWR, you can use automated deskew in the software. The static de-skew function automatically adjusts the delay between selected voltage and current channels based on an embedded table of propagation times for the probes. Or, each probe may have its propagation delay embedded in its internal memory which the oscilloscope reads. This technique offers a quick and easy method to minimize de-skew. DPOPWR even provides an automatic deskew function in which the scope adjusts the waveforms for you.
Automated power analysis software will also automatically measure power quality parameters like apparent power, reactive power and real power (also known as true power) for you.
For more resources on power measurements, I’d suggest looking at www.tektronix.com/power (http://www.tektronix.com/power).
In an earlier thread I mentioned the problem of probe skew and posted a link to a Tek or Agilent document concerning it; this issue also came up when considering the free energy claims of Steorn. It is a critical issue and the higher the frequency concerned, the more critical it is.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the NERDs have considered probe skew or have dealt with it in any way. It can easily reverse the sign of a calculated power signal, especially one that is collected from a repetitive noise source subject to sampling errors and aliasing.
TK:
I have a few ideas for you if you start probing around the circuit.
I am picking up again on what PW stated about the signal across the 0.25 ohm CSR being pure AC because it's AC coupled to the Q2 MOSFET array through the Q2 gate capacitance.
Also, I am still confining my discussion to "normal negative offset oscillation mode." I am also going to reference the schematic that I reposted a few posts back because it is easier for me. So what I say may not apply or need to be slightly tweaked relative to your setup.
So let's look at the Q2 array as an oscillator, or call it an "oscillation engine." We are going to keep the discussion somewhat simplified and not cover every single signal path for the sake of clarity and simplicity.
So the Q2 engine takes in some average DC current from the drain and that same average DC current must exit by the source and then flow into the function generator.
So you have three primary agents competing for the supplied (battery + function generator) power; 1) the inductive resistor, 2) the Q2 MOSFET oscillator engine, and 3) the 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator. This implies that the higher the power allocated to the MOSFET oscillator, the higher it's effective impedance, and the higher the voltage drop it sustains relative to the other two agents. So if the MOSFET oscillator is especially energetic, two effects will happen. The first effect is that the total impedance of the full loop will increase, and there will be less power drawn from the (battery set + function generator). The second effect is that if the MOSFET oscillator is especially energetic, then it is "stealing" the available power from the inductive resistor and the the 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator.
In terms of the Q2 MOSFET oscillator itself and it's power consumption, you can divide that into two parts, 1) resistive dissipation producing heat, and 2) the export of AC power into the rest of the circuit via the Q2 gate output port.
Continued in part 2....
MileHigh
P.S.: I need to modify my highlighted statement above. I was thinking that if you have three impedances in series, the highest impedance is the one that sustains the higher voltage drop and thus consumes the higher proportional power. This is not necessarily the case here. The impedance of the Q2 MOSFET array is an unknown and can be higher or lower. The amount of power drawn from the battery will respond accordingly and I can't say that the impedance of the Q2 array will "go higher" if it is drawing more power. All three power consuming agents have to be considered to know what will happen with respect to the division of supplied power.
Part 2.....
So, let's look at a simplified model for the MOSFET oscillator itself. The power input is the average current + voltage drop between the drain and the source. So in simplified terms the drain-source is the pair of terminals that represent the power input of the MOSFET oscillator.
The power output of the MOSFET oscillator is the four parallel and connected gate terminals. These are capacitively coupled to the actual MOSFET oscillator engine. So, the output from the MOSFET oscillator is a 2 MHz AC output voltage via the gate terminal. How much AC power is output through this terminal is dependent on the AC source impedance, the AC voltage, and the AC load impedance.
I hope that you are following here, I am kind of describing the circuit with a bit of a level of abstraction in the hope that it connects with yourself and some of the readers.
Finally, let's look at most of the AC power output paths that form the AC load on the MOSFET oscillator gate output:
1. The Q2 gate output to the 0.25 ohm CSR to ground. This where you have already observed pure AC with your scope.
2. The Q2 gate output going across the Q1 source-gate capacitance, through the 0.5 ohm resistor, through the 50 ohm resistor in the function generator, then to the negative potential supplied by the function generator.
3. The Q2 gate output going across the Q1 source-drain capacitance, through the inductive resistor, and then to the positive terminal of the battery set. (This may be the path that explains the AC voltage that we see superimposed on the battery voltage)
4. The Q2 gate output going across the Q1 source-drain capacitance, and then to the Q2 drain. (This might be part of the feedback mechanism to sustain the oscillation)
So, that's a "simplified" model for the Q2 MOSFET oscillator. The fact is that we know that there is AC on the Q2 source also, and that also will be disseminating AC power through more signal paths.
The skinny from this too-long posting is that I showed a mechanism for superimposing an AC voltage signal on the battery positive terminal. There is a clear path between the Q2 MOSFET oscillator and the battery positive terminal.
I said before that this whole circuit was buzzing with high-frequency AC, and hopefully this posting helped explain that.
MileHigh
I think that's clear enough.
Meanwhile... how efficient is the Tar Baby as a heater? In other words, how much of the power that the device draws, is actually dissipated in the load, where it can do useful work, and how much is "wasted" by dissipation in heating the mosfets and resistors and RF radiation?
Once the batteries are all recharged, I'll set Tar Baby up with strict negative-going pulses on the gate, and maximum attainable Q2 drain current as measured by the inline DMM, which for me seems to be something under 200 mA. I'll record a time-temperature curve if I can stay awake. My load cell is pretty well insulated so it might not reach equilibrium temperature in a reasonable time, or it might. We'll see. Regardless, I will then take a straight DC power supply and provide the load with the same average current as read on the DMM, and record the time-temperature data. Then I'll plot the curves for comparison.
Since I only have one load and it will have to cool back to ambient between runs, this will take a day or two to complete.
Meanwhile, I encourage the NERD team... if, that is, all the RATs haven't yet abandoned ship .... to hurry up and get on with their own testing, to refute my results and show that they actually do have what they have claimed so loudly in glowing bold CAPS to have.
(My goodness... am I about to lose my membership in the Rabid Debunkers and PseudoSkeptics Society (RDPSS)? What kind of a thing is that for a Rabid Debunker to say... encouraging testing and publication of results.... ? Everybody knows that a RDPSS member in good standing must SUPPRESS all discussion, DELETE all possible evidence of OU, COVER UP and DISCOURAGE testing that shows OU, and DIVERT INTEREST onto other topics, like Nitinol motors and LENR. I guess I had better watch out, or the MIBs will take away my black Buick.....)
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 10:30:23 PM
snip..
I guess I had better watch out, or the MIBs will take away my black Buick.
..snip
You've got a black Buick ? You lucky B...... LOL
Seriously though TK, I like your methodology.
One thing that still mystifies me a bit, is the the idea of true AC manifesting in the circuit. Varying DC superimposed onto the supply rail is easy to picture in this circuit, but the dual LED experiment you carried out seems to indicate true AC.
This intrigues me a little, because the polarity of any Collapsing EMF during the off time of the pulsing of the inductive resistors is such that current would not normally flow though the load (even with mosfet body diodes) as a result of the current/magnetic field collapse.
The polarity of the resultant EMP is such that a diode would need to be across the load in flyback arrangement, but then the current from the collapse event would still be in the same (uni) direction through the resistors, as the supply.
It's easy to picture actual BEMF from a motor/rotor inducing a current opposite to the supply via the body diodes of the mosfets, and therefore superimpose true AC, but there is no such motor/rotor in this circuit. I find that true AC seems to be present as opposed to just varying DC quite interesting.
Thanks for your presentations thus far !
Cheers
Thanks, hoptoad, I'm glad you find it all entertaining. ;D
The NERD RAT team have been using the scope data dumps of the voltage drop across the CVR (equivalent to the current through the CVR by applying Ohm's law to the resistance value and vdrop) and the voltage on the mosfet drains to calculate their power data, have they not?
That is, they are taking the peaks of the oscillations on the mosfet drains, times the current at those times, and taking the time periods and multiplying these together to get a quasi-time-integration of a power signal, I think. Am I right about this?
So they are looking the area under the curve, formed by the peaks of the oscillations on the drain trace wrt the baseline of that trace. Am I right about this?
If so..... there is a minor problem. 8)
As I've noted before, in the second part of the NERD demo, they are using a POSITIVE OFFSET of their FG signal which as we know will turn on Q1 during the non-oscillating phase of the signal from the FG.
Here's the proof: an explanation and analysis of the LeCroy toy oscilloscope screen shot. Please download and display the figure so you can refer to it as you read the captions.
1. This is the trace of the Voltage Drop across the CVR. The value of the CVR is nominally 0.25 Ohm, so the Current will be, by Ohm's Law, I=V/R, or I = V/0.25. So the Current, in Amps, will have the value of 4 x the indicated voltage displayed by this trace. The part of the trace indicated by the red line is about 1 1/2 minor divisions ABOVE the baseline level, indicating current flow during the non-oscillating portion of the trace. Flow in the normal direction, giving a positive voltage drop across the CVR.
2. The baseline zero voltage level of the CVR trace.
16. The channel setting for the CVR trace. It is displayed at 2.00 volts per division. Therefore each minor division is 2/5 of a volt. Therefore, the voltage level indicated in (1) above is about 3/5 of a volt, and this corresponds to 12/5 Amp or 2.4 Amps. THIS IS WHERE THE HEAT IN THE ELEMENT IS COMING FROM, not from the oscillation portion of the trace at all.
3. The level of the Battery Trace during the NON-oscillating phase.
4. The zero baseline marker below the number 2. Since this trace is set to 100 V / div, we can see that this trace is sitting at battery voltage, and the "means" in the parameters box agree. Therefore, during the NON-OSCILLATING portions of the trace again applying Ohm's law, we find V=IR, or R=V/I, or R(total) = 50/2.4 = 20.8 Ohms. The resistance of their load is 11.1 Ohms, the Q1 mosfet's on-state resistance is 2 Ohms, the CVR is 0.25 Ohms, the cliplead connections and wires add some resistance.... and the initial figure of the 2.4 amps current read off the scope trace by me here a year later isn't all that precise. THEREFORE, the figures given by Ohm's Law and the actual circuit measurements are in nearly exact agreement. The circuit is dissipating (2.4)x(50)= 120 Watts during the NON-oscillating phase of the signal, and (2.4)(2.4)(11.1)= 64 Watts of that is getting to the load itself and the rest is wasted heating the Q1 mosfet and the CVR and the other resistances in the circuit during the NON oscillating portion of the gate signal.
5. The level of the GREEN trace, the common mosfet drains, during the NON oscillating portion of the signal.
6. The zero baseline, the little green line below the number "4".
8. The channel setting, 100 Volts per division.
10. The zero baseline level again.
11. Where the "50 volt" level... the battery voltage level.... would be on that trace at 100 v/div.
12. One full division above the baseline, or 100 V, for comparison.
Note that this is the common mosfet drain signal, or alternatively the load itself. We see that during the NON_oscillating part of the signal, the voltage sags well below the battery voltage and even sags below horizontal during the individual periods themselves. We know that when the mosfet is OFF the voltage here should be HIGH, at or just below the battery voltage. But it's not. Therefore the mosfet is at least partially ON here, as corroborated by the CVR trace.
13. The channel setting for the Gate Drive Signal trace, 20.0 V/div.
14. The baseline or zero volts level of the Gate Signal trace, just below the number "3".
15. The top level of the Gate Signal trace, sitting at least 1 minor division ABOVE the zero volt baseline indicated at (14). This is indicating a POSITIVE level of at least 4 Volts during this non-oscillating portion of the cycle. This is enough to at least partially turn on the Q1 mosfet.
9. The "math trace" channel setting: 500 VxV (not W) per division, and the function being performed: the simple multiplication of the CVR _raw_ trace and the battery voltage trace. Since these are both voltages, the scope knows that the display then will be V V, or the product of two voltages. Had a current probe been used here, as I have illustrated in other videos using a similar LeCroy scope, the scope WILL display V A or even Watts here. But the simple math being used by the presenters does not account for Ohm's Law on the CVR.... therefore the math is wrong. Where the presenter uses the displayed "-5.29 V V" figure (item 7) as "Watts" he is simply talking garbage.
In short, the circuit is NOT giving anything like the bogus figures they have calculated from the scope using the oscillating portions of the waveform.
It is dissipating 120 Watts during the NON-oscillating portions, of which less than half is heating the resistor load. Very little or no power is actually passing during the oscillations.
In other words, this ENTIRE DEMONSTRATION is a combination of ignorant error, arrogance, mendacity, and outright DECEPTION (the way they chose to display the Gate drive signal on the TEK, discussed earlier).
I hope somebody will check my math and interpretation of the scope screen. Somebody OTHER than the NERD RATs, I mean.
(snip) they are taking the peaks of the oscillations on the mosfet drains, times the current at those times, and taking the time periods and multiplying these together to get a quasi-time-integration of a power signal, I think. Am I right about this?
So they are looking the area under the curve, formed by the peaks of the oscillations on the drain trace wrt the baseline of that trace. Am I right about this?
If so..... there is a minor problem. 8)
And this illustrates just what the problem is with doing it that way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU)
So if you are integrating the area "under" a drain trace oscillation signal.... You are actually integrating an "off" signal, over the time periods when the mosfet is OFF and not conducting current to the load.
At least I think that's how it works.
Their OWN raw data don't even support their claims of load heating efficiency and battery recharging. The scope data as I have shown is bogus. Look at the channel means on the battery and the current. They are both positive. Yet the scope calculates a negative mean for the multiplication of the two channels. This is the NUMBER ONE sign that the scope is doing GIGO.
The NUMBER TWO sign is that the scope is not performing Ohm's Law on the voltage drop across the CVR, it is simply multiplying the raw voltage data together. Not only is the sign of the resultant math wrong, but so is the magnitude, because the voltage numbers that are given by the CVR trace need to be multiplied by 4 to give the current in Amperes, because of that 0.25 ohm CVR.
Now you know why I like to use a 1 Ohm CVR when possible.
All of this leaves me feeling very strangely. What does it say about the researchers making the claims? What does it say about the community of people looking at and BELIEVING her claims without critical analysis? The raw data that are available are sufficient enough to quash the claims altogether, just in those two scope shots that I have analyzed. And they have been available for a YEAR. I think .99 and MH have taken a look and pointed out some of the inconsistencies, but nobody listened to them.
COME ON PEOPLE, if you are going to Save the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil...... you really need to polish your skills and knowledge a little bit, to avoid getting suckered into fraud hoax lying mendacity like the Rosemary Ainslie claims of COP INFINITY.
@Fuzzy:
Is Donovan Martin a blood relative of Rosemary Ainslie? I str that her "son" or maybe "grandson" was involved in posting or working with her at one time some years past. Is Donovan Martin Ainslie's son? Whatever happened to that son's involvement, I wonder.
I suppose Martin has still not deigned to answer your questions.
May I suggest the following: Send him a certified, registered letter, containing a reprint of the papers bearing his name, a link to the NERD thread and to this one, and a cover letter explaining what is up, also mentioning the "legal action" that Rosemary is threatening you with. Sign your letter with the honorific "Esquire".... that will get his attention for sure.
TK:
I read through your analysis and followed the annotated scope shot and it looks great. Having two computer monitors really helps. You can't go back when you add a second black monitor to your setup.
It's funny because it's raining on Rosie's parade so it may as well pour. I can't tell you how many times I have felt frustration when Ms. Posie would "throw up" a screen shot of a DSO capture in a thread posting to advance her argument with no indication of what each colour meant, no summary of what each trace was doing, etc. When I read her original report I had to make the mental effort to flip back and forth through the pages to remember what everything meant. But after that whenever she would throw up a DSO capture my brain would simply turn into mush because of the excessive amount of work it would take to figure out what the image actually meant. Rosie, your DSO scope shot presentation skills were nil, and I bet you the vast majority of readers ignored your scope shots just like me. A mini rant!
I just will add some colour commentary to what you said referencing some of the recent things that have been discussed.
Look at the top yellow trace across the current sensing resistor. You will notice that the oscillation is perfectly symmetrical about the ground reference as shown by TK's item #2. It's perfectly symmetrical about ground because it's AC-coupled and coming from the Q2 MOSFET oscillator. That portion of the trace is not even an indicator of the battery current. That's because during negative offset oscillation mode, the battery current is flowing through the function generator.
Look at the mauve trace below the yellow trace which represents the battery voltage. The massive AC voltage waveform that you see on the battery voltage is not real, it's a mirage. We simply know that the batteries would not do this with 100% confidence. One possible scenario previously discussed was that the Q2 MOSFET oscillator is responsible for this. We know that there is an AC-coupled path between the Q2 MOSFET oscillator and the battery positive terminal.
In addition, because of the very high speed switching, the inductive energy stored in the interconnect wires themselves can cause AC voltage to be superimposed on the battery voltage. Notice how the AC voltage is not symmetrical about the nominal battery voltage shown by TK's item #3 in the annotated scope capture. Whenever the Q2 MOSFET array is in the process of switching off while in oscillation mode, that switching off will result in the magnetic field collapsing in the battery interconnect wires. That will generate a positive voltage bump or spike. That may explain why we see that the AC waveform superimposed on the battery voltage is positively offset.
Note how in Rosemary's report they just throw a bunch of DSO captures at you and make no attempt whatsoever to explain them. The only thing that they want you to look at is the final (V x V) average voltage product calculated by the DSO for the math waveform. That is simply ridiculous. You do not capture scope traces without explaining all aspects of what they mean if you are submitting a report that purports to demonstrate over unity. Like I said before, we are not mindless guppies swimming up against the glass in a fishbowl. We have to use logic and reason and evidence and the analysis of that evidence to support our arguments. We also have to demonstrate that we understand our data and clearly explain our captured scope traces and relate them back to the operation of the circuit. Almost none of this was done for the NERD RAT claim and you are seeing the fallout from that right now.
MileHigh
I am now just going to do an abbreviated analysis of the yellow current trace and the mauve battery voltage trace and relate that back to the average pseudo power calculation, i.e.; the (V xV) average, item #7 in TK's annotated DSO capture.
Let's look at the first negative oscillation component of the vaveform. For the yellow current trace, we know it's completely bogus, it's not even the battery current. For the mauve battery voltage trace, we know it's completely bogus, because the battery voltage is not doing that. What you are looking at is likely external high-frequency AC and inductive collapse spikes superimposed on the normal steady DC battery voltage.
So, for the average pseudo power calculation for the negative oscillation component of the waveform, you have (garbage x garbage) = garbage-squared.
Let's look at the non-oscillating component of the waveform. TK did that analysis a few postings back and we know that it represents about 120 watts of instantaneous power being dissipated here. Q1 is on and real current is flowing in this case through the CSR. Since this component represents about 50% of the duty cycle, the average power contribution during this phase is about 60 watts.
So, to keep life simple, let's forget about the (V x V) business and just talk in terms of "watts." (I am cheating.)
If the average from the math trace indicates negative "wattage" then that means you have something like this:
(negative oscillation watts) + (non-oscillation watts) = negative "wattage"
(garbage-squared) + (60 watts) = negative "wattage"
Therefore, the "garbage-squared" portion of the waveform must average to even less than negative 60 watts!!!
The implication if you are operating in NERD RAT fantasy mode is quite startling. While the circuit is running in negative oscillation mode the circuit is pumping more than 60 watts of power back into the batteries!!!
Incredible!
MileHigh
Well, it seems that there is only one thing for the NERDs to do, to avoid looking like a bunch of ignorant, careless, mendacious, self-deluded, lying, ignorant, arrogant, insulting, ignorant and foolish fools, in front of God, Stefan, and the rest of everybody (all three of us) reading here.
And that is to PERFORM A BATTERY DRAWDOWN TEST, one of the many acceptable ones that have been suggested, even the very simplest mindless one that I showed as an example.
PERFORM THE TEST and prove that you are right, Rosemary, and that I am wrong.
IF YOU DO NOT perform the test..... then just who is it who is suppressing knowledge about Free Energy and Overunity?
WHO IS SUPPRESSING WHAT, here?
PERFORM THE TEST. SHOW EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. Otherwise...... Rosemary Ainslie is demonstrating suppression of Free Energy technology, right here for all to see. Or not to see, rather, since she's keeping you from seeing her evidence.
@MH: At last we have a good name for the "ainslie oscillation mode" of circuit operation.
The Ainslie NERD RAT device operates in GIGO mode.... and sure enough, Tar Baby isn't able to replicate that.
Ah.... I forgot to mention Yet Another NERD RAT Facepalm.
Note that in the video, when the LeCroy display is shown it is unstable, jerking back and forth. It's not triggering correctly.
The trigger setting is visible in my analysis capture, just above the 13, 8, 9 set of items. The scope is set to trigger on the Ch 2 trace, the mauve pink fuchsia purple battery voltage trace, on an upward pulse edge, at a level of -244 volts wrt its baseline (my number (4))! This level is indicated by a little fuchsia "T" at the bottom right corner of the trace display, approximately coincident with (but having nothing to do with) the level line of the reddish Math trace.
This might also affect the data and calculations, I don't really know. But what it DOES do is illustrate, again, that this team of "experts" does not know how to use an oscilloscope properly.
The proper channel to trigger on is the Gate trace, since that is what is DRIVING the circuit, and within the trace's clear signal, not outside it looking for some illusory negative spike.
Or even better, trigger on the FG's synch output... that is one reason why it has one.
It feels like Rosie Posie might be flying cookie-free these days. Like I said before, this whole issue became a matter of principle.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 04:55:43 PM
@Fuzzy:
Is Donovan Martin a blood relative of Rosemary Ainslie? I str that her "son" or maybe "grandson" was involved in posting or working with her at one time some years past. Is Donovan Martin Ainslie's son? Whatever happened to that son's involvement, I wonder.
I suppose Martin has still not deigned to answer your questions.
May I suggest the following: Send him a certified, registered letter, containing a reprint of the papers bearing his name, a link to the NERD thread and to this one, and a cover letter explaining what is up, also mentioning the "legal action" that Rosemary is threatening you with. Sign your letter with the honorific "Esquire".... that will get his attention for sure.
Hi Tk,
I don't think Donovan Martin is a relative of Rosemary's possibly a friend of her brothers Peter, her son and only child is James or Jamie and he owns some type of communication company in South Africa possibly with some Government ties. The place Rosemary lives is a small bungalow with a personal maid on the same property of her sons BIG home walled and gated complex in Cape Town.
As for the suggestion to mail correspondence to Donovan Martin is a great one because I haven't received a response from a single e-mail sent and I sent more than one also phoned the numbers that's been circulated that were found. The thing that is troublesome to me is that the three (3) web sites found not one has a published location or address connected to it and for any business that want's customers where do you go to see someone like Donovan or his work. The other thing all the web sites show pretty pictures of things with no explanation of what he did to each photo. There's one web site that even quotes a hourly rate of R380 ( South African "Rand" ) which equals about $50.00 (USD) for engineering.
http://www.donixes.co.za/ (http://www.donixes.co.za/)
http://donixes.webs.com/ (http://donixes.webs.com/)
http://cncwings.tripod.com/ (http://cncwings.tripod.com/)
So .... I'll be mailing out the package to the three address we do have. I really like your quote below and wanted to post it again for the members, guests and the administration here to see ....
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 04:46:48 PM
All of this leaves me feeling very strangely. What does it say about the researchers making the claims? What does it say about the community of people looking at and BELIEVING her claims without critical analysis? The raw data that are available are sufficient enough to quash the claims altogether, just in those two scope shots that I have analyzed. And they have been available for a YEAR. I think .99 and MH have taken a look and pointed out some of the inconsistencies, but nobody listened to them.
COME ON PEOPLE, if you are going to Save the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil...... you really need to polish your skills and knowledge a little bit, to avoid getting suckered into fraud hoax lying mendacity like the Rosemary Ainslie claims of COP INFINITY.
Also .... for the guests, members and those that have been involved for years a reminder of some posts on "Donovan" in the words of Rosemary Ainslie ( aka witsend ) ..... :o
http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59357-post257.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59357-post257.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59721-post369.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59721-post369.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/60215-post494.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/60215-post494.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/83898-post49.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/83898-post49.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/84799-post91.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/84799-post91.html)
FTC
;)
Thanks for those references from the past, Fuzzy. I note once again that she lies, misrepresents, and misunderstands (willfully) my earlier work with her first bogus miracle circuit. Whenever I see that crap it makes my blood boil and I have to set the record straight, or she will run off thinking she's vindicated.
Quoting the post that mentions my work:
Quote
I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels.
I'm laughing at you all right, like I laugh at all transparent liars.
My probes are positioned exactly as she specified in her diagrams. It is the DUTY CYCLE OF HER 555 TIMER that was/is inverted; this issue has been covered over and over again and I have been shown to be correct by everyone who has actually built or simmed the circuit. This goes all the way back to the various "mosfets, how do they work" illustrations that I have done. The drain (load) voltage is LOW when the mosfet is ON and the load is energized. Some of the people trying to work with this circuit STILL apparently do not understand this important point.
QuoteAnd the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern.
I have no idea what she's talking about here. She is just making this up, I think. But certainly....depending on the state of charge.... as I showed in the recent Dim Bulb test --- you can deplete a battery in a few minutes, if it's already mostly depleted.
QuoteI would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team.
She's read a book about Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project..... but she doesn't realize that Oppenheimer was a scientist, a skeptic himself, and a deep thinker. What does that have to do with the present discussion? Nothing.
QuoteAnd I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum.
"MY" previous forum? As far as I can tell, the Energetic Forum was the second place I encountered RA, after she was banned from the Naked Scientists for trying to educate the professionals there about her "circuit". Did I post some quotes from that forum, like where she claimed falsely to have a patent, or where she was trying to educate professional mosfet PWM and PS designers about mosfet switching? I don't remember but maybe I did. I remember that it was the patent claim that first made me aggressively question her and her "work", because she kept claiming to have a patent and when I researched it all I could find was a word-salad patent APPLICATION that had long since expired and that claimed a circuit that can be found in almost every MOSFET data sheet.
QuoteI can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded.
Unfortunately I am little rewarded for my work in a monetary sense. My motivation is simply that I don't like to see creative and talented people wasting their time chasing after mistakes and impossibilities; I don't like to see people lie about their work, I don't like to see willfully ignorant people talking down to their more learned acquaintances, I don't like to see outrageous claims made without solid support, and there's a lot more I don't like about the Ainslie affair. The way she uses people, talks behind their backs, edits old posts to change their meanings, turns on her former supporters (all her supporters have become "former" at this point) and willfully remains ignorant about her topic matter... all of this and more about her "personal style" burns me up, but worst of all is her casual attitude towards facts, accuracy, and truth in reporting.
QuoteSeems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123.
Really? I used both the Flukes that she at one time or another claimed to have used: the Fluke 199 and 123 ScopeMeter toy oscilloscopes. My place of employment had them both sitting on the shelf gathering dust, as we tend to use much better equipment for our purposes. The Flukes are only generally used when a portable scope is needed or their completely isolated references are required for some reason, like differential voltage analyses. Difficulty? It was as difficult as reaching for them on the shelf and lugging them home on the bus. Here she is simply lying to try to muddy the record. I published photos of both Fluke scopes at the time, and used them to show exactly the same kinds of screen traces that she showed: meaningless aliased combs, falsely triggered and laden with artefact.
QuoteHis compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know.
That much is right--- she does not know. I had at that time, and still have, access to scopes and other test equipment that she wouldn't even be able to turn on, much less use properly. Sure, I'd like to have a fancy Tek DPSO of my very own.... but if I can simply borrow scopes that cost more than my house and car together are worth.... then why do I need to own one myself?
QuoteAlso at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery.
She lies again here. I explained over and over again how I did this. She is incapable of understanding the explanation, though, because it requires some understanding of the concepts involved, as well as a little basic math that is beyond her grade level... but that she could easily learn if she would only recognize her own ignorance and do something about it. Reading popular biographies of Oppenheimer and textbooks like "The Dancing Wu Li Masters " (to which she has referred several times) does not an education make.
QuoteIt needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle.
Another misrepresentation or outright lie. I showed the entire energy flow using properly integrated instantaneous power waveforms taken from several places in the circuit. And let's take a look at the waveform across the shunt in the PRESENT CASE: where she is plainly sending massive power into her circuit that she isn't accounting for in her "calculations" and is missing because she simply does not know how to use or interpret an oscilloscope. She was and still is unable to understand the proper use of an oscilloscope to determine energy balance.
QuoteIf he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive.
Apparently not counter-productive enough, since she is still trying to spread her bogus claims and bogus "measurement" methods on the internet, even DEMANDING that somebody give her a monetary prize for her BS.
QuoteI think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate.
This is the most idiotic thing yet. I STARTED MY INVOLVEMENT with the Ains-lie affair by BUILDING HER 555 TIMER CIRCUIT, determining that the duty cycle that it produced was inverted and that this inverted duty cycle was the initial error at the heart of her claim, since I was able to REPRODUCE HER HEAT PROFILES in a load, using it. I also showed, at about that same time, properly constructed high-voltage pulsing circuits using PROPERLY designed 555 timer circuits, I even built and tested the 555 timer circuits that her sycophants built in their attempts to "correct" her original circuit... as people found that sure enough I WAS RIGHT all along about her initial 555 circuit. Some of them even admitted it, but the usual suspects like Murakami and Lindemann and Ashtweth could never bring themselves to acknowledge that I was (and am) right about that circuit, since they ranted so insultingly to me before they had actually constructed and tested it for themselves.
Also about this time RA started claiming that the 555 timer wasn't necessary at all, that a FG could be used instead. So I used a FG, and also a much better, fast rise-time pulse generator, for some of the later work, and I actually did LIVE COMPARISONS between the Ains-lie and other 555 timer circuits and the FG or pulse generator.
Final challenge indeed. Here's a final challenge, Ains-lie: TEST YOUR BATTERIES CORRECTLY and prove your claim. Your scope "math" is bullshit. The only way that YOU YOURSELF, Ains-lie, will understand, is to TEST YOUR BATTERIES by letting them run your circuit for a while, then do some kind of real run-down load test.
WHY are you not doing this?
I know why, MH knows why, .99 knows why, fuzzytomcat knows why, even Stefan knows why. It is because even YOU, Ains-lie, know that you can't support your claims with a real test. Go ahead, Ains-lie..... PROVE ME WRONG.
Just in case there is some curiosity about the matter, in the interests of semi-full disclosure:
NO, I am not getting any monetary compensation for my work here. I am paying for all the parts out of my own pocket, all the expenses of lugging stuff to and fro, picking up parts is coming off my own dime and my own time. I'm probably out about 250 dollars in real expenses, and that's not including the little inductance meter that I hope has arrived today. All the time I'm wasting is my own, but some of it is actually costing me double because it's time and energy that I should be spending on billable-time projects in my consultancy work. In fact, if my colleagues knew (or cared) what I was doing, they would probably be lolling all over the coffee break room floor.
YES, the work I do as consultant sometimes involves stuff similar to what I've shown here. Usually it is much more complex and delicate work dealing with much more esoteric and even controversial topics. But business has been slow.
And I need a new used vehicle. I need a ten or twelve year old Jeep Cherokee 4-liter or Nissan PathFinder preferably 4WD in good mechanical condition and I need six thousand dollars to pay for it. If my usual consultancy fee is 350 PER day (plus expenses and travel), how many days would I have to bill for, in order to be able to buy my vehicle? Performing the division operation 6000/350, and neglecting expenses, I find a bit more than 18 days. Call it 20, allowing for coffee breaks.
Now I'm really starting to get depressed.
Hi All,
today I got an email from R. Ainsley´s lawyer requesting me to shut down this thread and
enable her old thread again.
As I stated before, I would enable her old thread if
she will come back with new measurements done without the function generator.
You may want to save this and the other thread as I am pondering to delete all of her
work from this website and ban her.
I am still looking for an easy way to export the threads to PDF files and then make them available
for download. Unfortunately such a function is not build into the Forum software nor is a a plugin / Mod that
do this... So I am looking for a solution to do this.
Please refrain from take a ride of her name or bullshitting her..
Otherwise I might have to block you too.
Please only state facts you can prove yourself and not calling names !
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan. ( admin)
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 02, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
You may want to save this and the other thread as I am pondering to delete all of her
work from this website...
do that (deleting threads) and people won't bother to post anything on your site for fear of the same happening to them... this is (one of) the reason(s) i won't post any of my projects here.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 02, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
I am still looking for an easy way to export the threads to PDF files and then make them available
for download. Unfortunately such a function is not build into the Forum software nor is a a plugin / Mod that
do this... So I am looking for a solution to do this.
look for a library along the lines of 'PHP-PDF' to make PDF's on the fly. it's simple enough to implement it. i'd write you one, but i doubt you would want to pay my fee...
So, let me get this straight. She is allowed to call me a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Savonarola, call me incompetent and ignorant, revile me for all the work I've done, and distort and outright lie about me, what I've said and what I've done. She is allowed to post ridiculous "calculations" and bogus conclusions and refuses to retract them even after they are pointed out to her by many people over and over. And that's allowed, even when she is clearly wrong and her wrongness is confirmed by others, by internet references, and simple common sense.
OK, glad to get the rules straight. Thank you very much. I hope you do preserve these threads, because I know who is right, who is wrong, and what the evidence will support.
I can prove everything I've ever said about her and her claims and her "work", with references, citations, experiment and demonstrations, and her own words.
Meanwhile, work continues, as I explain and demonstrate more features of the Tar Baby. Now, this is not a replication of the Ainslie NERD RAT device, is it. Even though it uses the same circuit diagram, the same component types and values, and makes the same oscillation and load heating (allowing for its lesser power, of course).... Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT device. You see, it's not on a white pegboard, so that disqualifies it totally.
Nevertheless, it performs exactly as that other device does, for some reason, and the various tests and demonstrations that I have shown here could just as well have been performed on that device..... and perhaps THEY SHOULD BE so performed, especially the drawdown test that I have illustrated, or the more complex ones that others have mentioned. But certainly.... if anyone is talking about claiming a prize, a monetary prize, their claims should be tested in a manner that would indeed hold up in a court of law.
My only claim about Tar Baby is that it performs just like the NERD RAT device in all significant respects. If they are allowed to analyze their data in the way that they have shown..... then so am I, and when that's done, Tar Baby is just as "overunity" as their device. If I am required to perform a battery draw down test... then so are they.
Wait... I've already done that. Where is the NERD RAT test?
And... Stefan.... as we have shown to my satisfaction, even though I have shown a FG charging a battery.... even so, I see no problem any more with allowing her to use the FG in her tests. Let her simply do the same demonstration shown in the second half of her video from last year, where the device is heating a resistor element to nearly 200 degrees C. Let her run the device in that mode continually for 48 hours, then perform a battery draw-down test. Let her use the function generator.
Take away all possible excuses for her not to run the test. Make sure the device stays in the "large heat" mode though, by videoing the scope, with it set in an intelligent and interpretable manner.
It is important, when doing her runs leading up to the battery draw-down test, to make sure that the circuit is actually doing "something", like heating up a load significantly. Using the settings shown in the first part of their video, where essentially no power is being drawn, the big battery pack will last a long time and will need to be run for days before a draw-down test might show some difference.
Meanwhile...
the effect of added inductances is again demonstrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xffhPdoNK0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xffhPdoNK0)
Why, in the second part of the NERD video, do they remove one battery from the pack, leaving only 4 behind, for a total voltage (nominally) of 48 volts? This has never been explained by the NERDs or anyone else that I can find. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
Consider the fact that I uncovered by examining the scope trace. They are oscillating the Q2 stack and very little current if any is coming through there. But.... they are turning on the Q1 mosfet by the positive FG offset. Turning it ON, without oscillating.
Let's assume that it turns fully on. I think it is only partially on in the scope shot they've shown, but with just 1 or 2 volts more on the positive offset of the gate signal this mosfet would be fully on.
And the load resistor is quoted to be 11.11 ohms. So, neglecting other circuit resistances, at 60 volts, the original battery voltage, the mosfet would have to conduct I = V/R = 60/11 = around 5.5 Amps. Call it 5 amps allowing for other resistances in the circuit.
At 48 volts, this figure drops to 4.3 Amps.
Referring to the IRFPG50 data sheet, we find the following:
Under Absolute Maximum Ratings, we find that at a temperature of 25 degrees C the maximum drain current is 6.1 amps, and this falls to 3.9 amps at 100 degrees C.
If they had used the full 60 volts battery in the second part of the demonstration, it is very likely that they would have blown the Q1 mosfet.... and that is why they pulled one battery out AND NEVER EXPLAINED WHY.
A more precise calculation including the other resistances isn't much better. The internal resistance of the IRFPG50 mosfet is 2 ohms when the device is carrying 3.6 Amps, from the data sheet. The circuit, with the 48 volt battery, the roughly 2 ohm mosfet , the 11.11 ohm load and the 0.25 ohm CVR has a total resistance--neglecting clipleads-- of about 14 Ohms. By Ohm's law I = V/R = 48/14 = 3.4 amps. And at 3.4 amps, a 2 ohm mosfet must dissipate P = I^2 x R = 23 Watts. At 60 volts, the current is 4.3 amps and the mosfet must dissipate over 36 Watts. The mosfet will not survive long, since it is not adequately heatsunk and its current is over the absolute maximum for a hot mosfet. Since they are using a 50 percent duty cycle the average power is half that, but they are still at the edge of the performance envelope of the mosfet, and that is with a good heat sink, which their Q1 does not have.
The fact that they have heavy heatsinks on the Q2 mosfets... when they never carry much current unless not oscillating and turned properly on -- while the Q1 mosfet is not heatsunk except for that tiny bit of aluminum u-channel ... and does carry lots of current when the device is getting a positive offset gate signal--- this is another bizarro feature of the NERD device that makes no sense at all. Or rather... it makes sense in that it once again demonstrates the incompetency and lack of understanding on the part of the NERD demonstrators.
Tar Baby's Q1 mosfet on its small heatsink, still better cooled than theirs is likely to be, nevertheless runs quite hot and passes even MORE current if it is allowed to get too hot, approaching thermal runaway. The result of putting a fan on it is dramatic... as it cools off the current might drop from 850 mA to 500 mA, more in line with the expected value for the drive setting.
One can even see the progression. In the early still photos of RA's setup in the broom closet, we see the board with the single, Q1 mosfet installed on a tiny heatsink and no mention of other paralleled mosfets, along with the 11.11 ohm "custom" load, a common water heater element.
This mosfet would clearly be overstressed with 60 volts of batteries and the positive offset gate drive that is necessary for "big heat" in the load.
So, somebody said, well, let's parallel a bunch of mosfets together, and don't forget to heat-sink them. So they slapped the other four on there, hooking them up backwards by accident, and then got caught up chasing oscillations.... and STILL wound up blowing the Q1 mosfet when trying for load heating using the 60 volt battery, because they STILL had no clue as to what was actually happening, AND they screwed up the paralleling plan which would indeed have saved their Q1 if only they had done it properly.
OOhh. Scary. Where did this come from, suddenly?
::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 04, 2012, 11:52:01 PM
OOhh. Scary. Where did this come from, suddenly?
::)
Humm .... kinda fuzzy .... hehehe
The date appears to be 4 APR 2012 ..... a older Tektronix DPO 4034 ..... me thinks ???
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 01:25:58 AM
Humm .... kinda fuzzy .... hehehe
The date appears to be 4 APR 2012 ..... a older Tektronix DPO 4034 ..... me thinks ???
Ok ..... there appears to be a new video called
"Electric OU: Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a PlayDate"
TinselKoala Channel -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA&feature=player_detailpage&v=NevE0FqoRKA
FTC
;)
Oh, what a tangled web she weaves, when she practices to deceive.
Now that Ainslie has tried to disavow the Demo Video that she posted on 22 March 2011, saying that it does NOT represent her claims or even her circuit...... the waters have been muddied yet again. There is indeed a subtle difference, with at least one significant effect, between the circuit that we have been using all this time in our sims and our hardware, and the circuit in the paper. See the diagrams I attach below. The blue border one is from the paper, the plain one is the one that we have been discussing... WITHOUT CORRECTION FROM RA .... and which is the one shown in the video HARDWARE, not the video "stated diagram" which only shows a single mosfet.
Deliberate concealment? Why didn't she point out this subtle difference when the plain-border diagram was being used in simulators and replicators all over the world, and discussed many times in the NERD thread?
Regardless of all that, Tar Baby can easily be converted to the "new" circuit from the paper, and it's a good idea too, because it will then share the heavy current between the Gang of Four during the high heat mode. As far as the various analyses done by everybody, I think only the current flow per mosfet and power dissipation estimates need be revised. I think that except for mosfet heating, all the other circuit behaviour should be the same. Perhaps a bit of difference in the oscillation frequency.
I'll try to test this in Tar Baby later today, but Real Life intrudes and I have other commitments this afternoon so I may not get to it.
TK:
More silly mass confusion. I am under the impression that Rosemary has always gone glazed-eyed when it comes to schematic diagrams and she has been relying on her associates to draw them up. So this could be a generic RAT problem.
I am curious enough now to go look at the video. I will be looking for evidence that the common ground point is between the battery negative terminal and the current sensing resistor. i.e.; in the same configuration as the marked-up schematic diagram that I have been posting.
If I can find confirmation of this I will be listing the timings where the frames show this in the video clip. That will be the smoking gun that shows that the current sensing resistor is in the wrong place and she is recording garbage data.
MileHigh
@MH: I think that what you are looking for is contained in these two screengrabs from the video. But by all means examine that video carefully, with liberal use of pause and rewind, and also listen carefully to the audio, both for what is said and the background sounds.
The top picture is the bottom view; all you have to do is mentally turn it over from right to left, like turning the page of a book.
The FG "positive" is the red alligator clip in the top view; it looks to me like all scopes and the FG are grounded to the same 4 points, which are all connected on the bottom side to make a ground bus, and this is connected to the black battery lead in the top right of the backside view at the place marked "source" with two arrows. (The labelling is nonsensical and distracting.) And the other end of this bus goes to the CVR via the two black wires at lower right, one of which goes to the "5th" resistor, the other end of which doesn't seem to be connected on the topside or the bottom. And the other end of the CVR stack goes to the place marked "source" at the lone mosfet spot, which does appear connected to the source of that mosfet. Unfortunately this is also connected to the "lower" of the threaded rods that connect to the Gang of Four.... which on the topside view can be seen to be connected to the gates of this array by the red cliplead wiring. The mosfets are mounted correctly on the heatsinks, that is, number side out, so the leftmost pin is the gate, looking at it with pins down and numbers facing you.
I just noticed that the "pegboard" appears to have 19 x 19 holes. I wonder if she appropriated somebody's nice GO board !!
(Sorry, miscount... it's only 14 holes vertically but 19 holes across. Is it a piece of ceiling tile? It's pretty thick for pegboard. I do want to get my non-replication right, you know.)
Well, there have been a few other tests and explorations performed; and they are up in the usual place. Please check them out if you haven't already.
Here is an interesting one, with a little surprise at the end. No, nobody is going to scare you...unless you have a mosfet phobia. Some people do, I understand, which prevents them from understanding how they work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU)
Meanwhile, I've decided to make public my NERD RAT Test Prevention technology. This is how I am able to manage to prevent the NERD RATs (although I think there's only just the big old scrawny one left) from testing their battery capacity all the way on the other side of the planet.
You see, it's vital that they be prevented from proving their claims, and I know that I can't possibly do it by forum posts alone, so I've developed the Tesla longitudinal scalar quantum frequency wave linecaster and programmed it with frequencies that will turn the NERD RATs minds to mush. What's not mush already, I mean. In this manner, as long as I have the unit powered up and in the correct mode, the entire southern tip of Africa will be blanketed by the linecast and nobody there will be able to do any battery drawdown tests at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE)
What brand of ping-pong ball is that TK? I want to do a rep-li-ka-tion. ;D
Data data data, tra la.
It appears Rosie has a burr under her saddleblanket and is kicking a bit. The TRUTH can be irritating at times, can't it.
Now.... I'd like to know, since Tar Baby is NOT a replication of NERD, just exactly how it is different in any significant way, so that I can fix those deficiencies and make it a REAL replication that we can test without you-know-who's interference and logorrhea.
I've painted my pegboard white and it's drying in the sun.....
8)
(I no longer consider that the FG might be recharging the batteries, of course. Now I know... that the FG --or even the 555 timer--- is actually providing power to heat the load in the low heat, negative drive pulse, Q2 osc mode !! So of course the batteries don't run down.... much.)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 03:54:49 PM
What brand of ping-pong ball is that TK? I want to do a rep-li-ka-tion. ;D
Stiga brand, 40 mm regulation size, a box of 46 costs about 12 dollars at Academy. Precise holes can be drilled using a step-drill of the "unibit" kind. Don't try a regular twist drill !!
I just watched your "function generator offset explained" clip. That's one hell of a function generator! John Hutchison must be envious.
Not a touch screen, floppy drive, or USB port in sight. Ahhh....
Quote from: MileHigh on April 08, 2012, 06:05:59 PM
I just watched your "function generator offset explained" clip. That's one hell of a function generator! John Hutchison must be envious.
Not a touch screen, floppy drive, or USB port in sight. Ahhh....
Interstate Rules !! I actually have two, the F43 High Voltage model with step calibrator here, and in another place I have the F34 Sweep Function Generator, which has frequency sweep capability... very cool.
They are all big-trace circuit boards, discrete components and a few op-amps and logic chips, very easy to maintain if needed. Don't drop one on your foot, though !
I think the time is nigh for the Big Question: How is Tar Baby different, in any significant way, from Rosemary Ainslie's NERD device described in the papers? Just what factor keeps Tar Baby from being an actual replication of the NERD device?
It can't _really_ be the white pegboard, can it?
Load is at 124 degrees F, inline ammeter says 230 mA, nice oscillations on the Q2s, Q1 inactive but present, and NO FUNCTION GENERATOR, just the 555 timer making the pulses.
The duty cycle has changed a bit as the components have aged, but everything else is stable and getting warmer.
Oh yes... open-circuit battery voltage is now 35.3 volts.
So.... that's how Tar Baby is different. Its batteries run down while heating up the load....... awwwwwwwww dammit.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 12:07:18 PM
Well, there have been a few other tests and explorations performed; and they are up in the usual place. Please check them out if you haven't already.
Here is an interesting one, with a little surprise at the end. No, nobody is going to scare you...unless you have a mosfet phobia. Some people do, I understand, which prevents them from understanding how they work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU)
Meanwhile, I've decided to make public my NERD RAT Test Prevention technology. This is how I am able to manage to prevent the NERD RATs (although I think there's only just the big old scrawny one left) from testing their battery capacity all the way on the other side of the planet.
You see, it's vital that they be prevented from proving their claims, and I know that I can't possibly do it by forum posts alone, so I've developed the Tesla longitudinal scalar quantum frequency wave linecaster and programmed it with frequencies that will turn the NERD RATs minds to mush. What's not mush already, I mean. In this manner, as long as I have the unit powered up and in the correct mode, the entire southern tip of Africa will be blanketed by the linecast and nobody there will be able to do any battery drawdown tests at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE)
TK,
I only have a minute, but nice videos! I have not laughed that hard in some time watching the second one.
You better include a disclaimer stating that no stuffed critters were injured in the making of that video..
Now, I have some testing to do here, so could you please turn that thing off or point it the other way?
PW
@PW: Thanks !! I'm glad you got a chuckle out of it. Many of the alt.snakeoil Video Reports have a similar...er... irreverent quality about them.
Don't worry, I think you are probably immune to Tesla longitudinal scalar quantum frequency linecasts. But just in case... better put on your foil hat (and underwear) as a precaution. Sidebands, you know.
Meanwhile.... I went ahead and trusted my remaining PG50s to the 555 driver.
Scope shot showing 555 timer pulses and drain trace, using 4 x IRFPG50 mosfets in the Q2 positions. Since the timer makes a positive pulse, to get the circuit to see it as a negative pulse... required swapping the little red thing for the little black thing, and vicey-versey.
It is confirmed that I am oscillating Q2s and leaving Q1 off. The Q2s are slightly warm and the Q1 is stone cold, and the circuit is carrying 200mA at least, by the inline DMM, and the load is maintaining 120 F. Touching the Q2 wiring or heatsinks causes the oscillations to change or go away but they are trivial to restore. The hot 555 timer adds some distortion to the overall waveform but with careful settings on the 555's input DC power you can get to the "classic" RA oscillation envelope as shown below.
Top is the pin 3 output from the 555 at 5 v/div, (also shows that "voltage floor" phenomenon), bottom is the common drains at 20 V/div, timebase at 0.5 ms/div.
Just a FYI TK, in case you were not aware;
In most of the scope shots Rosemary posted, the HV oscillation trace is from the high side of the load resistor, rather than directly off the Drains.
The wave form might look a little different there (in amplitude anyway). That's where I always measure in the sims in order to match what the posted results are.
Just something you might want to try.
I figure the very best way to..."prevent" the NERDs from using the very simplest 555 timer that I used is to post the schematic someplace where she won't be able to find it. Like on the internet.
That way, if she ever does decide to test she will never be able to bring herself to use something I came up with, and she'll waste tons of time trying to develop her own timer.
I kind of like this role she's cast me in... the evil Debunker in his bunker, debunking bunkum with reverse-engineered bunk.
(ETA: I forgot to put the pot value on the schematic. It is a 100K trimpot.)
(ETA 2: GL noted that I should have indicated the "-10V" supply point as "0 V". The notation I used is misleading because it usually refers to a bipolar supply and that isn't what is intended here. Think "9 volt battery" and work up from there. Sorry if there was any confusion....)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 10:37:00 PM
Just a FYI TK, in case you were not aware;
In most of the scope shots Rosemary posted, the HV oscillation trace is from the high side of the load resistor, rather than directly off the Drains.
The wave form might look a little different there (in amplitude anyway). That's where I always measure in the sims in order to match what the posted results are.
Just something you might want to try.
Ahh...I wrote a nice long answer to this then the forum ate it.
The high side of the load is the "battery" trace in her data, isn't it? I've found that this doesn't give me as much info on my setup as the common drain trace does (the transistor side of the load). The circuit is so sensitive to inductances that even moving the probe ground lead from the negative rail on the board, over about ten inches to the negative battery terminal itself, makes a big difference in what features I can see and how stable the feedback state is.
(What's neat is at low amplitude the feedback is an almost perfect sine wave !)
The NERDs show the drain trace in the video, and should have shown it in the paper data too.
The probes in the center of the board here are on the common drains, I believe.
But yes, sure, when I have the Tek DSO to play with I'll look at the high side of the load too, and other places. It's just that my analog scope and all these wires make the "battery" trace useless to me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 10:41:03 PM
I figure the very best way to..."prevent" the NERDs from using the very simplest 555 timer that I used is to post the schematic someplace where she won't be able to find it. Like on the internet.
That way, if she ever does decide to test she will never be able to bring herself to use something I came up with, and she'll waste tons of time trying to develop her own timer.
I kind of like this role she's cast me in... the evil Debunker in his bunker, debunking bunkum with reverse-engineered bunk.
TK,
Where did you put the current return path for your +10 / -10 Volt power supply for the 555 circuit?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 08, 2012, 11:20:07 PM
TK,
Where did you put the current return path for your +10 / -10 Volt power supply for the 555 circuit?
GL.
Oh sorry, you are thinking it's a bipolar supply like for an op amp? My bad, I guess I didn't make it clear. It's just a single 10 volt supply, the positive to the +10V and the negative to the -10 V. I guess I should have labelled it +10 and 0, or something. Sorry about the confusion, it has been a rather long weekend. Obviously, whatever supply you use must be kept floating wrt the main circuit, or I dunno what will happen.
A fresh nine-volt battery will work fine but won't be as stable as a regulated power supply. The circuit starts working at about 5 volts, continues to increase osc amplitudes until about 12 volts, and lets the magic smoke out of the 555 at around 15-16 volts. I used a small heatsink on the 555 and it helps the stability a bit, I think.
(Thanks.. I really should correct the diagrams, and I will, but a bit later on, I'm pretty pooped right now.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 11:26:47 PM
Oh sorry, you are thinking it's a bipolar supply like for an op amp? My bad, I guess I didn't make it clear. It's just a single 10 volt supply, the positive to the +10V and the negative to the -10 V. I guess I should have labelled it +10 and 0, or something. Sorry about the confusion, it has been a rather long weekend.
A fresh nine-volt battery will work fine but won't be as stable as a regulated power supply.
TK,
OK, I understand. Single power supply, where your -10 is mislabeled and should have read 0 Volt.
Thanks,
GL.
Yep, I went back and put a note on the post to the effect that you had straightened me out. Thanks.... and have fun !
:P
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 11:36:40 PM
Yep, I went back and put a note on the post to the effect that you had straightened me out. Thanks.... and have fun !
:P
TK,
And what are the value of the variable resistor (potmeter)?
[EDIT 1] Oh, I see you put that in the edit also, 100K :-)
[EDIT 2] Attached is a nice drawing of your 555 circuit, you can copy and paste that into the AN switch drawing.
GL.
That's so pretty.... awww.... thanks GL.
;D
The cap and the pot values can be changed. The pot can be 10k, 100k, or 1 meg, bigger is slower.
The cap can be tiny or up to 1 uF. Again, bigger is slower.
TK,
I really like the way you hooked up that 555. Your solution for providing a negative voltage at the Q2 source using the 555 output tied as you did and floating the supply was very creative and elegant!
I would suggest placing a 10R to 27R between the 555 and Q2's source. The reasoning is as follows. When operated at around 4-5 volts Vgs, the IRFPG50 has a pretty severe increase in drain current as its temp increases. Without a source resistor the current will rise as Q2 warms so to mantain Ibias below the 555's 200ma or so limit (it is a bipolar 555 as opposed to CMOS, correct?) you will have to tweak the 555 supply voltage as Q2 temps change. With a source resistor, as Q2 warms and attempts to draw more current, additional Vdrop will occur across Rsource and reduce the applied Vgs "automatically". It won't provide perfect current regulation but it will definitely help prevent things from "running away" unnoticed. The added Rsource may or may not help/hinder the osc. The value for Rsource will be a tradeoff between low Vdrop (small Rsource) for lower 555 supply operation, and a larger Vdrop (larger Rsource) for better Ireg but also needing a higher 555 supply. Anyway, try 10-15 ohms and see how it goes. You'll lose 2 volts of Vgs due to Vdrop using the 10R with 200ma of Ibias and the 555 supply will need to be increased that much. Adding Rsource could save four expensive mosfets if you aren't there monitoring current all the time. If you want to know how much the added Rsource increases Ireg versus temp, monitor your loop current and alternately hit your mosfet with a heat gun (hair dryer)/freeze spray (upside down dust-off). Then add Rsource and repeat the test. Please carefully monitor current when you warm the mosfets (you don't need to get them "hot") as I wouldn't want you to overcurrent and hurt your magic mosfets!.
Anyway, adding Rsource is just a suggestion. If you knew all that, well, never mind...
You suggested a 9V battery as a possible 555 supply. Will it not have to provide the 200ma Ibias? Typical 9V alkaline would give you what, 2.5 hours or so? Lithium a bit more? Of course, Ibias may not have to be 200ma if the circuit will osc below that. Adjusting Ibias will,however, likely affect the harmonic content (shape) of the osc.
What are you using for a 555 supply now?
Your posted schematic is a pre-computer "copy and paste". Reminds me of "rip up and retry".
What's up with "deepbunker"?
PW
Hi PW....
Great minds think alike! We are tracking perfectly, as far as the series gate resistor and the supply to the 555 goes. I have a 0R3 on the board in that position, but I will add another 10R in series after I've woken up and see what's up. The 555 I'm using is a Philips branded NE555N, which I have a handful of. I also have some TI branded 555P units. Adding the little heatsink helped stability, and I can operate at 320mA sustained with the 830as in all positions. With the PG50s in Q2 slots, the oscillations happen at low power input to the 555, like 5-7 volts indicated on the PS meter, and go away as power is increased and I can't sustain more than about 240 mA in oscillation mode. The circuit will oscillate with only a few tens of mA indicated but the best undistorted envelopes seem to happen at around 90-110 mA (the zoomed oscs are almost perfectly sinusoidal at low bias currents). Maybe this will change when I put the 10R in the gate drive line (source bias, gate drive... what a crazy circuit.) Even though the Q1 is "out to lunch" during the negative drive pulse Q2 osc mode, it needs to be in its socket for the oscs to appear, using the PG50s as Q2. But with the 830s the oscs are easier and more persistent.
I use the upside down air can trick all the time to cool components. Works well on hot glue to cool it off quickly too!
And... for the 830s and the 555, I have simply superglued the components to their heatsinks. No separations yet, even though they've been hot enough to burn my fingertips! The PG50s of course are bolted down with heat transfer compound, and I have a fan handy.
I don't want to use a LiPo battery for the 555 supply because of the danger of short circuits and superposed spiky crap damaging the battery. Right now I'm running the 555 on a regulated bench supply at 10 V indicated. I think it might be possible to use a couple of 78 series regulators to cobble up a quasi-floating supply that could run the timer off of the TarBaby's running batteries, or perhaps use the 555 to switch a transistor to make the negative going pulse somehow. If you have any ideas I'll be more than happy to hear them and try them out. I think that the best solution would be running from the circuit's own supply, of course.
(Well, actually the BEST solution involves a deep lake, a bass boat, a bucket of readymix concrete, and a six-pack of Shiner Wild Hare, but that comes later...)
8)
(deepbunker, debunker..... get it? I know.. it's weak, and I'm not actually in a basement any more..... oh well.)
To your attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c1py6CrgOY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c1py6CrgOY)
Gyula
8)
Well done, Gyula. I'm glad you posted that...
What did you discover about the 555 circuit? Did you have to make any changes from the original published diagram in the Quantum magazine article? I'd also like to know the resistance actually used in the series gate potentiometer... I always wound up running mine at almost minimum resistance. (You probably know that I did a lot of work with this Ainslie circuit a couple of years ago).
You got very little heat in your load at Ainslie's reported 3.5 or so percent duty cycle. Try flipping the duty cycle exactly inverted to 96.5 percent ON, and see if your resistor heat profile matches what RA published. Mine did....... :o
What's the scope app that you are using? Does it use the sound card for input? I've been looking for a good scope app that will run on Linux (and is free... of course.....)
Thanks again, that was a blast from the past !
The "official" schematic for Tar Baby with the 555 timer driver.
(Thanks to GL for the 555 rendering; and thanks for the basic diagram, whoever drew it and released it into the wild...)
(And not showing the 10R that might be inserted into the pin 3 output as discussed above... watch for the next revision if it works out.)
For some reason, this tune reminds me of you-know-who every time I hear it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDl3bdE3YQA
Now.... originally it was believed that the FG might be supplying power to the circuit that went either into the load heating it up, or back to the battery keeping it from discharging. So it was suggested that the FG be isolated, which I tried with optoisolators. Result: isolation achieved, mosfets switch perfectly and no oscillations present. So I finally built the 555 circuit, but it seems that the main issue is still unresolved: the power supplied to the timer gets mixed into the mess in the Tar Baby main circuit, and even appears to be necessary for the oscillations (by providing that source bias current).
Right now I'm kind of stumped. How to drive the circuit with the timer (or FG for that matter) to make oscillations superimposed on the signal, with controllable pulse parameters, but without injecting extra power into the circuit?
I mean, once again..... it's a case of being able to duplicate her raw data but differing about the interpretation. It seems possible at this point that perhaps the circuit _could indeed_ have run continuously in the q2 oscillation mode, heating the load to perceptible warmth like the 50 + degrees C given in the video demo... without the batteries running down very much at all. But NOT because energy was coming out of the superluminal zipon flux, but rather because all or most of the heating power came from the FG, not the battery.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 10:04:01 AM
Right now I'm kind of stumped. How to drive the circuit with the timer (or FG for that matter) to make oscillations superimposed on the signal, with controllable pulse parameters, but without injecting extra power into the circuit?
Perhaps you haven't seen this circuit of mine? It does what you are asking for, and is what I will be building to demonstrate COP Infinity. ;)
http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/msg310972/#msg310972
.99
Hi TK,
Sorry but I have no any connection with that video, I stumbled upon it accidentally.
Gyula
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 08:21:21 AM
Well done, Gyula. I'm glad you posted that...
What did you discover about the 555 circuit? Did you have to make any changes from the original published diagram in the Quantum magazine article? I'd also like to know the resistance actually used in the series gate potentiometer... I always wound up running mine at almost minimum resistance. (You probably know that I did a lot of work with this Ainslie circuit a couple of years ago).
You got very little heat in your load at Ainslie's reported 3.5 or so percent duty cycle. Try flipping the duty cycle exactly inverted to 96.5 percent ON, and see if your resistor heat profile matches what RA published. Mine did....... :o
What's the scope app that you are using? Does it use the sound card for input? I've been looking for a good scope app that will run on Linux (and is free... of course.....)
Thanks again, that was a blast from the past !
@Gyula:
Oh, well, thanks for posting it anyway. I've favorited it and I'll post my questions to the YT comments section, maybe the originator will answer.
@.99:
Yes, I'm aware of your neat solution and I intend to build your circuit too. Very neat by the way. I'm going out to the component supplier today to see if they have finally received my inductance meter, and they should have the TC4426 in stock, I hope. Also I hope they have gotten some more PG50s.... somebody seems to have cornered the market around here, they are hard to get. I wonder if the cholos are using them in their stereo boot-rattlers along with those big 5-Farad electrolytics.
But really.... you and I both know that the "main suspect" will never never in a million years acknowledge that results from such a "complicated" circuit could possibly resemble, or falsify, hers. ("My circuit simply has no long wires or curly things or terminals or capacitors, Poynty Point, and this has been verified over and over by seven collaborators and an entire boatload of academics. Therefore your argument is invalid. Warmest regards, Posie Roaster")
That's why I want to try to use as much of her original circuit (whichever one) as possible and make some kind of "dropin" module that could simply replace the FG without the power injection and yet preserve the oscillations. That might be impossible, even though I was able to do it 2 different ways using the baby 2n7000 mosfets (cap coupling, very simple, and the optoisolators worked too).
TK,
That variable oscillator I designed around the TC4426 doesn't have a very wide range of frequency or duty cycle adjustment. It's just enough to play with things a bit and provide an adequate drive to the MOSFET. Feel free to use your FG or 555 there instead if you do build this.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 09, 2012, 02:59:09 PM
TK,
That variable oscillator I designed around the TC4426 doesn't have a very wide range of frequency or duty cycle adjustment. It's just enough to play with things a bit and provide an adequate drive to the MOSFET. Feel free to use your FG or 555 there instead if you do build this.
I just took another look at your schematic and it looks like I might be able to build an oscillator around the 4426 driver chip (excellent choice btw, makes a killer H-bridge SSTC driver with its complement 4427.)
I don't have any on hand at the moment but I do have some Intersil mosfet H-bridge driver chips all on one chip, 16 pin DIP IIRC. But I'm about to go to the store so if I'm lucky I'll pick up some of the 4426s. Perhaps using the 555 to clock the 4426 might work to give the wide range and still drive the mosfet "properly".
Tar Baby likes the 10R in series with the 555 pin 3 output-- thanks PW---. And my inductance meter finally arrived.
Revision B:
Can anyone tell me what are these "Phase Shifts" that suddenly have appeared in Rosemary's imaginings...er.... data? Is she talking about Paper2Fig8 below?
If she is talking about the phase relationship between the current (voltage drop) in the CVR , and the "battery" trace (or more useful for power readings, the common drain trace) oscillations at that frequency, my demonstration of that is being uploaded now.
And of course there is a "phase shift" in these signals... it's AC at RF frequencies, and besides... current and voltage are expected to be out of phase, or rather at a basic 180 degrees difference, plus or minus , right?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 09:35:22 PM
Tar Baby likes the 10R in series with the 555 pin 3 output-- thanks PW---. And my inductance meter finally arrived.
Revision B:
TK,
Did you take the time to measure the drain current versus temp before and after the 10R? Just curious, that, to me, would at least be a bit of "fun".
.99,
I am not sure why the switching circuit and switched mosfet in the source leg is required at all. Why not just put a 50R in the source leg instead of the switched mosfet and let it run? The 50R would emulate RA's FG out and you an set the bias current by adjusting the applied gate voltage. Alternately, of course, the gate voltage could be fixed and Rsource adjusted to set Ibias.
PW
Hi Tk,
Here is another 555 timer circuit that was hidden in plain sight on the internet .... with a 5% to 95% duty cycle .... don't tell everyone where it is. :-X
Cheers,
Fuzzy
;)
@PW: no, not yet, the batteries I'm using are just about ready for Dim Bulb 2 and other circuit features are not yet stable enough for me to want to put in the sustained attention that a good time-temp-current profile will take. Besides, looking at the recent posts from RA, I think she's decompensating and getting further and further removed from reality and I'm feeling discouraged a bit.
Now... if I had a nice, paper chart recorder and a mile of chart paper, I could just sleep through the whole thing.
But I did purchase two more batteries, so now I have a matched set of 6 ea. 12 V nominal, 5 A-H sealed lead-acid batteries, so if voltage is the key, I can supply it, and if good randomised Dim Bulb repeats are necessary I can handle that too. I'm setting up right now to see if intercell lead inductance and another battery or two will bring my osc freqs down to the 1.5 MHz range.
TK,
All I can say is, well, "geeeeesh..". I now have a much greater understanding of certain "frustrations" I have noted in "other" threads.
I am beginning to wonder how a few IRFPG50's would perform as a class A electrostatic driver amp amp. It is beginning to sound like a better use for them.
I just wish they were not so slow, i.e., large Ciss.
PW
More data: with fewer than 30 Volts in the main supply, the oscillations (at least using the 555 timer) become less and less strong and more and more "picky" in terms of the 555 input power range needed to produce them, until they become difficult indeed to find at below 29 volts indicated in-circuit. Of course at less than 10 volts indicated each, these batteries could be considered completely flat.
Restarting with a full battery pack at 38.4 volts open-circuit, the oscs return in full force and controllability.
Quote from: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 04:10:22 PM
TK,
All I can say is, well, "geeeeesh..". I now have a much greater understanding of certain "frustrations" I have noted in "other" threads.
I am beginning to wonder how a few IRFPG50's would perform as a class A electrostatic driver amp amp. It is beginning to sound like a better use for them.
I just wish they were not so slow, i.e., large Ciss.
PW
Frustration isn't the half of it. It was the same three years ago on Naked Scientists only not so much with builders. The threads there are still archived. And it was the same two years ago with the Energetic Forum (panacea u.) And it was the same last year here and on .99's forum. And it's the same now.
Yeah, you really have to pump them power hexfets to wake them up. In my next SSTC I'll use these, and discharge a tantalum cap into the gates via a phase transformer. That'll kick start those puppies, I'll bet.
Something like this but more better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfR-wsDoBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfR-wsDoBI)
This shot is more typical of the scope shots RA usually tries to show. She's been doing this kind of stuff for years. The few other shots in the papers are the only really informative shots she's ever posted, as far as I can tell. Usually they are a mess of false triggering, aliasing, and continuous combs all across the screen, like this silly, improperly triggered, useless for anything shot here. I swear, if misuse of an oscilloscope is a crime, these people are the Moriartys of South Africa.
Paper 1, Figure 8:
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 10, 2012, 03:50:10 PM
Hi Tk,
Here is another 555 timer circuit that was hidden in plain sight on the internet .... with a 5% to 95% duty cycle .... don't tell everyone where it is. :-X
Cheers,
Fuzzy
;)
Heh... thanks, Fuzzy.
I just happen to have a copy of Forrest Mims' "Engineer's Mini-Notebook" volume on the 555.... lots of top secret information in there !
And I made a great score yesterday at the used bookstore: a copy of the third SAMS edition of the book "IC Op-Amp Cookbook" by Walter Jung. A classic reference and in excellent shape. Seven chapters of application circuits of common op-amps.
8)
You are a Seventies nerd if you had a copy of Don Lancaster's CMOS Cookbook.
I recall all of the National Semi. 'blue' books. I think there was one dedicated to op-amp application notes. They were really good too. Adders, subtractors, integrators, differentiatiors, low-pass filters, band-pass filters, high-pass filters, comparitors, oscillators, quadrature oscillators.... Wet dream material! ;D :P
MH,
Hey, be kind, the pages may be yellowing, but all those books still reside on a shelf here!
And MH, don't you dare start giving up on analog scopes, I won't permit it. It happened to audio, it is not going to happen to my bench!!!! An 8-10 bit digital can't hold a candle to a good analog. I still use old analogs with cursors and love them. I only use digital here for hi res FFT's so my PC scopes are all 16 bit. I routinely need to see out to a few meg at THD's of close to (or even below) -100dB (yes, that is .001% and I have the generators to do so as well!). I suppose I could live with a 12 bit digital scope for most things, but at that res and at any real bandwidth, they are very pricey. I have used 8 bit DSO's and even some LeCroy's, and hated dealing with 8 bit, particularly for non-repetitive signals and if looking at/for noise.
PW
MH,
As well I have maintained my full set of "blue books". I have an entire library of now defunct data books that for some reason I just can't bear to send to recycle. Can we say Intersil, for example? At some point I'll decide the space they take up is better spent otherwise. Everything today is a PDF from a mfg web site, and actually, quite a bit handier.
TK, apologies for the off topic..
PW
How can this be off topic? I have my CMOS and TTL cookbooks at the other undisclosed location....
and my sophomore EE textbook "Circuits Devices and Systems" by Ralph Smith close at hand on the shelf over there.
And here's a couple of little toys that I often sometimes use:
In my experience, the first thing that a reviewer looks at when a paper comes by, is the reference section. First and most importantly to see if any of the reviewer's _own_ publications have been cited, and second to judge the nature and quality of the background research that went into the paper in the first place. Depending on the citations and bibliography the reviewer can often make a broad judgment as to the suitability of the paper for the particular journal being targeted. A paper referencing only data sheets and user's guides and instrument instruction sheets, and perhaps a calculus textbook.... and of course the writer's own totally unscientific internet blog.... means that the paper won't be considered for publication in any peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and the reviewer won't need to proceed further.
The Second category to be examined will be the Figures, Graphs and Tables of data. If a reviewer knowledgeable in the art got as far as that Paper 1 Figure 8 above.... that would be the point where the paper would go into the circular file, with extreme prejudice.
IMHO, of course.
:-*
TK,
Nice...
Were you using 'scopes back when you had a Tektronix mainframe and a set of plug-ins belching out heat from hundreds of tubes and sitting on a huge cart next to you? (OK, the hundreds may be a little excessive..)
'Twas nice in the winter, but not so much in the summer!
If someone were new to 'scopes, I would probably suggest one of the many low cost 8 bitters for a PC, as any 'scope is definitely better than no 'scope. But, even with the best DSO available to me, I would still find the need to confirm things from time to time with an analog. I suppose, like 96K/192K 24bit audio, some day DSO's will routinely acheive 18-20 bit at a few gig sample rate. I probably will never see one, but that would likely satisfy my DSO desires.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 03:28:06 PM
.99,
I am not sure why the switching circuit and switched mosfet in the source leg is required at all. Why not just put a 50R in the source leg instead of the switched mosfet and let it run? The 50R would emulate RA's FG out and you an set the bias current by adjusting the applied gate voltage. Alternately, of course, the gate voltage could be fixed and Rsource adjusted to set Ibias.
PW
I could just let it run in oscillation mode, then M5 wouldn't be required (just ground M4's Source). However, I want to be able to achieve burst oscillation mode just as Rosemary's circuit does. It poses a bit more of a measurement challenge as well.
Some of her experiment runs described in the paper used ridiculously long periods, like two minutes plus. That's a "slow burst" if I ever heard of one. Might as well be DC at that frequency.
@PW: I never got to use a mighty 555, no, but I actually would buy one if I could find a nice one... it does get chilly here in the winter.
I've got a couple of RM503s that are hybrids, a few tubes a few transistors, nice blue phosphor but low bandwidth. I love the look of them though.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 10, 2012, 07:30:33 PM
I could just let it run in oscillation mode, then M5 wouldn't be required (just ground M4's Source). However, I want to be able to achieve burst oscillation mode just as Rosemary's circuit does. It poses a bit more of a measurement challenge as well.
.99
Thanks for that 99, now it is perfectly clear to me. I was thinking with regard to a battery run down test or similar.
PW
Gentlemen:
Yes I am an analog scope man too! I loved that generation of scopes from the early 90s.
If you want to go computer-based there are some higher-end cards out there:
http://www.gage-applied.com/index.htm
Here is the setup to think about: Modern Core i7 computer with three 22" or 24" monitors. So you can dedicate two monitors to your virtual scopes and run your desktop on the third. And then of course you have your favourite analog scope on your bench also. It would be pretty sweet. Throw in about 700 movies too! ;D
Some of you may remember the days when an engineering department always had a 10-foot row of yellow TI data books and an eight-foot row of blue National data books. Almost every year they were renewed and you had to start throwing them out.
MileHigh
If you are hard core:
http://books.google.ca/books/about/Advanced_Engineering_Mathematics.html?id=qh1W-1nwUsEC&redir_esc=y
8)
Quote from: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 08:15:37 PM
Gentlemen:
Yes I am an analog scope man too! I loved that generation of scopes from the early 90s.
If you want to go computer-based there are some higher-end cards out there:
http://www.gage-applied.com/index.htm
Here is the setup to think about: Modern Core i7 computer with three 22" or 24" monitors. So you can dedicate two monitors to your virtual scopes and run your desktop on the third. And then of course you have your favourite analog scope on your bench also. It would be pretty sweet. Throw in about 700 movies too! ;D
Some of you may remember the days when an engineering department always had a 10-foot row of yellow TI data books and an eight-foot row of blue National data books. Almost every year they were renewed and you had to start throwing them out.
MileHigh
MH,
I have used a few PCI cards over the years, and I see the link you posted has some fairly high bandwidth 16 bit cards that look interesting. The problem is that with all the hi res PCI cards I have used, the PC evironment is just too terribly noisey. All those harmonics spewing from all those clocks and switchers is just a mess at the 16bit noise floor. I have had better luck with USB and a laptop on a linear supply or with a gel cell running the laptop. Possibly the newer cards are shielded and isolated better. I do however wish companies would just put pricing on their website! Possibly I'll check with them regarding pricing. I see their USB scopes only go to 14 bit.
I never doubted your appreciation for analog as well, however, and yes, the 90's were indeed good years for analog scopes (and about the last good years as well).
PW
So I see that there is still some question about which schematic is the correct one to use. Evan Robinson, one of the co-authors of Ainslie's papers, is listed as the Page Coordinator of the Rosemary Ainslie page at Sterling Allen's PESWiki site, and he has this as the "latest circuit". It appears to be the one given in the second paper, that we are assured is a misprint or typo by RA.
These things do matter, at some level. I mean, if the bullshit stops below eye level or above eye level, that's a significant difference. It's still bullshit and you're still covered in it, but it's a significant difference nevertheless.
It's hilarious. In the Q2 oscillation mode, I think the mosfets are actually dissipating even more power than the load is, somehow.
TarBaby does the impossible!
According to RA, there is no way that Tar Baby's load could be getting warm, because the current and voltage in the oscillations are "exactly" out of phase. Of course they aren't "exactly" out of phase, and she's wrong anyway..... but experiment trumps theory, because Tar Baby's load, the resistors in 250 mL mineral oil..... is sitting at 125 degrees F, which actually is fairly warm. Of course the mosfets are warm too..... Testing Kontinues....
So.... I put together the MileHigh LEDs of DOOM, Special Edition Director's Cut this morning. One addition to MH's design is the small brown inductor (only about 2 microHenry) and the switch. The LEDs are parallel within color, and opposite between colors. (All red anodes together with all green cathodes, and vice versa). The inductor can be switched out of circuit, or in circuit to "short out" the LEDs completely with the small inductance.
Inserting the device inline at the negative battery terminal makes a small difference in oscillations and indicated current flow. No difficulties here. No white smoke or spalling LEDs yet !! I think she can take the strain as long as we stay under Warp 2, Captain.
With the inductor switched OUT, we see only the green bank of LEDs glowing. This means that only green zipons are detachyfying from the overwhere and flowing into the battery.
However, with the inductor switched IN, we detachyfy a bunch of red zipons from the underwhere and they try to mix inside the brown inductor, and overflow to light up both banks of LEDs.
Unfortunately the LEDs must be preventing the zipons from keeping the battery charged, because it still seems to be running down. At least the reading on my cheapo, not-AC-high-frequency-qualified DMM is going down.
(No bad jokes please. There is already one big one staring us in the face.)
Items of possible amusement and interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ynqTc1fY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ynqTc1fY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcJQpilAdM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcJQpilAdM)
Figure 1: Tar Baby motherboard, showing 555 timer section mounted and wired in place.
Figure 2: Tar Baby schematic, Rev C.
Hey TK!
Very nice workmanship. That could be a useful tool in general, just try not to over-current it. It should be able to resolve ambiguities in the net current flow direction for some circuits. You know how those wonderful DSOs are only as good as your skill set with respect to making proper measurements.
I suggest you do a preliminary current reading with a multimeter first. Always do a visual check and feel for excessive heat between thumb-forefinger. You probably have a good 1 1/2 seconds before a catastrophic failure.
High heat mode would spell DOOM for the LEDs of DOOM.
The logic is that if you have say a 48-volt power supply, the LEDs of DOOM are only "stealing" about one volt (?) from the supply source. (I forget the voltage drop across a vanilla LED.) So in theory you are not going to disturb the device under test too much.
So the big question is we saw the GREEN LEDs light up when connected to the Tar Baby. Were they LEDs of Salvation or were they LEDs of DOOM?
MileHigh
Well... it is the Cathode side of the Green LEDs that is connected to the negative battery pole.
;D
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!
Meanwhile..... back at the DeepBunker..... I finally got a round two it, so I hooked up the Tar Baby to the Clarke-Hess 2330 Power Analyzer aka Sampling V-A-W meter.
It is true that this instrument says that it is supposed to be accurate below 600 kHz, so it might be missing some of the action in the high frequency oscillations. But there it is, for what it's worth.
I used 4 x 12 V batteries, and set the Tar Baby's 555 driver to make the highest amplitude stable oscillations, which usually causes my inline cheapo DMM to indicate 200-210 mA.
Figure 1: Clarke-Hess 2330 readings: Input power to circuit.
Battery >>> CH2330 >>>> Tar Baby >>> water heater element load
Figure 2: CH2330 readings: Output power to load
Battery >>> Tar Baby >>>> CH2330 >>> water heater element load
Figure 3: Waveform during CH2330 testing. Note the 60Hz ripple envelope on the overall waveform. The CH needs shielded input leads, I guess. Top trace is pin 3 output from 555 timer @ 10 v/div, bottom is common drains @ 20 V/div. The channel zeros are on the nearest graticle line to the grey dots on the bezel.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 07:38:21 PM
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!
For most LEDs the cathode is the little cup-like structure inside, and the anode comes over the top and contacts whatever is in the cup with a little wire. I always remember it as "cup==cathode" and usually you can see this inside the LED. And I just confirmed it with my bench power supply: when the negative lead from the supply is hooked to the cup-cathode side of the green LEDs, and the positive lead to the anode side, they light up and the red ones don't.
So what are the implications of this, especially considering two things:
First, there is the AC oscillation and it is possible to extract power from it...
and
Second.... Rosemary now says that she has never claimed that the batteries are _recharging_, just that they aren't _discharging_. And you know what happens next: the current comes out of one end of the battery, and a current goes into the other end of the battery, right? So they are equal and opposite and the battery remains charged. The LEDs prove nothing because they do just what's expected: they indicate the flow out of one end of the battery (or in the other end.)
I think the oscillations are affecting my brain or something.
So.... The C-H appears to be confirming what I have thought since these several days. It appears that in the "q2 oscillation mode" using a negative going gate drive pulse from the 555 timer, and the water heater element load of 10.3 Ohms and 75 microHenry inductance, at 48 V nominal input voltage.... the Q2 mosfets and the rest of the circuit are actually dissipating quite a bit more power than is getting to the load itself.
The mosfets get warm. I think I just might have to do this: I'll suspend the q2 stack in 250 mL mineral oil, insulated like the load is, and run the thing and see which jug of oil gets warmer faster !
How I would like to see some real test reports from the NERD device.
This is unique in the history of "open source" projects, I think. The "inventor" and claimant is being totally uncooperative in performing requested tests and in releasing clear and unambiguous information. Meanwhile... back at the ranch... the evil rival debunker Grand Inquisitor replicator is building who-knows-what and just might beat the NERD RATs to the vaunted OverUntied Prize.
If he can just figure out what those squiggly lines really REALLY mean, that is. Everybody knows that you can't use analog scopes for anything.
Oh never mind.
TK:
Yes indeedy in negative oscillation mode more power is dissipated in the MOSFETs themselves. Bandwidth issues notwithstanding it looks like the C-H is in the ballpark.
The key thing to think about is voltage drop. Whomever is "gobbling up most of the voltage drop" is the guy that dissipates most of the power. So if you put your multimeter across the inductive resistor you might get a decent average DC voltage measurement across that component. Again, having no direct experience and it being so long, I am not 100% sure. Poynt has some wonderful clips on YouTube that show how the dual-slope integration hardware for getting an average DC voltage measurement works amazingly. I am just not sure if it extends out into the megahertz range. Of course you could put a simple low pass filter between your multimeter and the inductive resistor that doesn't disturb the oscillations.
So if you have a 48-volt voltage source and you notice that your 11-ohm load resistor is only responsible for about 7 or 8 volts of that voltage drop, then you know that your MOSFETs are dissipating the bulk of the supplied power. I suspect that this simple logic could have eluded the RATs. Hence this might be another surprise for Team Rosie Posie - that the magic negative oscillation mode that generates an alleged "COP infinity" actually results in more battery power being dissipated in the MOSFETs than the load resistor.
MileHigh
P.S.: The reason I have no "direct experience" is that I never had a logical reason to make some of these krazy-kooky measurements in the real world working on a real bench working on a real project.
@MH...yep, I concur. They had no idea what was happening in their circuit.... but at some point they realised that the mosfets needed heatsinks.... it's just too bad that they didn't compare the heating of the mosfets with the heating of the load... properly.
In the oscillation mode the thing works like a disabled PWM controller; the mosfets are partially on, I guess. The thing makes a pretty good motor driver (no oscillations) when you just hook a small DC motor where the load goes. Control motor by input voltage applied to the 555. Very inefficient.
Well, I have six batteries now, and all IRFPG50s as the transistors (although I see that as a waste of money). I'm making waveforms and heating the loads, both the parallel ceramic resistors and the stock water heater element, with oscillations. I have phase relations. (Don't tell my neighbors, please.) I have the LEDs of Doom, Deluxe Edition. I have every damn thing _except_ perpetually charged-up batteries.
Could it be that the NERDs are deploying anti-replication technology against me? Yes.. that must be it, otherwise my exact duplicate of their circuit, except for the batteries, must work in COP INFINITY mode.
Or could there be another reason? Stay tuned for the next episode in the continuing saga of TarBaby vs. the NERDs from Bizarro Universe.
Hi TK,
I was curious on the Clarke-Hess 2330 Power Analyzer that your using and found a PDF file ( 2330.pdf ) on it's operating specifications what a nice unit !! The one thing that really surprised me was the 30 minute warm up time for full accuracy ... like a older analog scope or maybe even a little longer. ???
Fuzzy
;)
Yeah, long warmup times are pretty standard in the test equipment field, even with today's digital equipment.
Some of that stuff like precision counters even has a little oven in it to keep its crystal oscillator at an even temperature as long as it's plugged in.
Okay,
Rosemary aggreed to do new tests on her circuit with the 555 timer being powered by the same battery pack
and will also do a battery charge status test.
I will leave this thread open but this should only be used to explain the
effects with this or simular circuits, but not to be used for name calling or flame wars...
So please be more polite and just concentrate on the technical side of things please.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
I certainly hope you have the same requirement for Rosemary. And of course she should not be permitted to lie, to make incorrect calculations without retractions or corrections, nor should she be allowed to post incorrect information over and over and over without correction. I don't think anyone has been as insulted around here as I have been by Rosemary Ainslie. When you add in the lies and distortions she's posted about my work.... one really has trouble understanding why she is allowed to post at all.
Stefan, she's not going to be testing anything-- and if she does, it's not going to be done properly. She's been doing this same thing for at least ten years... you are simply the latest victim. Do you really think she'll change her M.O. at this point? I sure don't. Or should I say beneficiary... since you make money from traffic on your site. She certainly brings in the traffic !!
So... do you think there is some significant feature or hidden variable that is preventing Tar Baby from being an accurate "replication"of Ainslie's device? Tar Baby is ready for testing now, and in fact has already been tested to see if its batteries run down. How is Tar Baby significantly different from Ainslie's device? Other than actually being available for actual testing, that is. I have even offered to send Tar Baby to any independent tester that Rosemary might appoint, to be tested side-by-side with the NERD device using the same tests and analyses for both. My claim is that Tar Baby and NERD will perform just the same in all significant respects. If a calculation shows NERD is OU, then I claim that same calculation and measurement will show that Tar Baby is OU as well.
And since I will have demonstrated it first...... well, I'm quite sure you can "do the math" as Ainslie says.
What does Tar Baby mean exactly? How does it describe or relate to the circuit or Rosemary?
Mags
Well bring it on! lol
TK, you did probably the best battery analysis test that I have ever seen on the forums! You compared freshly charged batteries of the same age (if I recall you just purchased them) with batteries that had been driving the Tar Baby load. Of course I am referring to the famous dim light bulb test. (Now everybody's heard about a NERD, NERD NERD NERD.....)
I have cranked out reams and reams of text about how to properly test batteries to see if simple pulse motors do any magic "battery resonance" effects and not a single person has ever even acknowledged the logic and thought put behind the proposed test procedures.
So, we know that any battery testing has to be based on some way of gauging, or relating to, the ENERGY stored in the batteries. Any talk of battery voltage as far as I am personally concerned should be dismissed outright as invalid data. When I think of the fact that there are people out there that make their living off of essentially deceiving people about battery voltage it kind of infuriates me.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 12, 2012, 09:42:08 PM
snip...
TK, you did probably the best battery analysis test that I have ever seen on the forums!
snip..
Indeed, TK, I commend you for your thorough analysis of the entire RA circuit equivalent - your tar baby. In fact, I think the tar baby has been so openly exposed and well explained by you, that it's now probably time for your naked tar baby to be covered up with some nice warm feathers. It's earned a good dressing.
Cheers. Good work, well explained.
KneeDeep from Hoptoads
Thank you all. It was actually my read of the various analyses from you all in the "other" forum that got me to take my mosfets off the nice circuit board and mount them with all that extra snarly wire, and Fuzzy suggested varying the lengths of the gate leads. These two things allowed me to achieve the "required" oscillations.... feedback that is. They are very nicely sinusoidal at low amplitudes! And I'm sure the Dim Bulb test floated into my brain from outside, probably from you guys. The only credit I deserve is for my somewhat thick skin, which has even so been worn thin by Rosemary's insults and inanities.
@Mags: The Tar Baby is a legendary character from a classic of American literature, the Uncle Remus stories. Wiki explains it pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby)
I'm just glad I have other uses for the batteries and the mosfets. No, I won't write them as "MOSFET's" (sic); that's another of RA's irrelevancies (and a misuse of the apostrophe as well.)
Tar Baby is tired, but I still intend to do some more scoposcopy using the Tek DPSO, probably tomorrow evening or over the weekend. But that will be mostly an exercise, to see if the scope can cope with integrating the noisy instantaneous power waveform, to come up with an overunity result. Or not......
:o
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 11:20:06 PM
@Mags: The Tar Baby is a legendary character from a classic of American literature, the Uncle Remus stories. Wiki explains it pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby)
Tar Baby is tired,
:o
pretty well indeed....
Although the term's provenance rests in African folklore (i.e., the gum doll Anansi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anansi) created to trap Mmoatia, the dwarf), some Americans consider "tar baby" to be a pejorative term for African Americans.
[6] The Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) defines "tar baby" in its original sense â€" and as "a derogatory term for a black person (U.S.) or a Maori (N.Z.)".
[7][8] Several United States politicians â€" including presidential candidates John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain), John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry), and Mitt Romney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney) â€" have been criticized by civil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) leaders, the media, and fellow politicians for using the "tar baby" metaphor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor).
[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] An article in
The New Republic argued that people are "unaware that some consider it to have a second meaning as a slur" and it "is an obscure slur, not even known to be so by a substantial proportion of the population." It continued that, "those who feel that
tar baby's status as a slur is patently obvious are judging from the fact that it
sounds like a racial slur"
Mags
Personally, I've never heard the term used as a derogatory or any other kind of name for African-Americans, or even black people. The Uncle Remus stories, in their original uncensored versions, were part of our growing up, and we even acted them out on stage skits in grade school and summer camps, and the Tar Baby could be played by a Mexican kid, or an "Anglo" or even Jewish or Afro-Indonesian. Why, some of my best friends are Tar Babies.
However.... back in the day, when I first started talking to Rosemary about integrating waveforms..... she thought I was talking about ending apartheid in oscilloscopes, or something.
Or, not from the Oxford English dictionary as in my previous post, but an online dictionary....
tar babyâ€, noun a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/break) away from.
Or is it to say that your circuit has a problem and is impossible to solve? ;]
Or is it the doll made of tar with a dress?
Mags
Tar Baby's no doll, that's for sure. You can touch it, hug it to your breast even because it's sooo cute, and like turpentine it smells sweet from a distance.... but then you get all stuck to it, it stains your clothing, the odor overpowers, the more you struggle the more it sticks and the more it sticks the stucker you get.... And of course the remedy is to get yourself tossed into the briar patch..... where you are quite at home and can apply the proper "cleansing" to get unstuck and free.
I thought the metaphor was rather obvious, really.
OK... back to business.
Clearly for any testing to continue we've got to get some baseline ideas down pat.
First: the circuit. I'm using "revision C" which is posted above somewhere, but I still have to power the 555 with a separate power source, and I see that SH would like to see it powered by the same batteries as the main circuit. So would I. Any ideas as to how to implement this, with minimum component count and circuit modification to the main circuit?
Second: the load. I have a water heater element, 1500 W, and also the stack of ceramic tube, wirewound resistors. Both loads have a resistance of 10.3-10.4 Ohms and inductance of around 75 microHenry. Yet they behave a bit differently in the circuit. I prefer the ceramic wirewounds, because immersion in oil makes sense to me for rough calorimetry. I can't get the entire water heater element covered in oil and insulated. But if "naked" load is required ala NERDs, then I would use the water heater element, I guess. Any thoughts on this matter?
Third... batteries and voltages. I now have six matched batteries, 12 V nominal, 5 A-H. .99 and RA seem to have agreed that 36 volts was good enough for testing to show her effect. I have found that it gets hard to get oscillations at or below 30 Volts, and going up to 48 makes it a lot easier. 36 is fine though if that's agreed to as being suitable for proof-testing. BUT..... there has never been an explanation forthcoming from the NERDs as to why one battery was removed, leaving 48 volts, in the second part of the demo. I think it is because that part used the positive pulse mode, which would have turned on the Q1 mosfet hard, and allowed current to flow that was near the transistor's absolute maximum rating.... and that transistor was not properly heat-sunk. At 72 or 60 volts... Pop goes the mosfet. So they had to reduce the voltage for that test... and probably don't even understand why.... .or perhaps someone DID understand why... but it wasn't likely RA.
So I think the issue of the 48 volts is an important technical question.... how many volts should I use then, 72, 60, 48, 36.... or ?
And fourth... I am really trying to understand this "phase" thing. As far as I can tell Tar Baby is creating the same phase relationships between the various signals as NERD is making. Yet someone's panties are all in a bunch over this phase thing. Can someone please explain to me, in words I might understand, just what her issue is and what the flak she is talking about? I surely would like my batteries to keep their charge, and if phase is the key, let's unlock that door.
And fifth... Do I want my batteries to "recharge" or just not to discharge? I'm not sure I see the difference, even in light of Rosemary's zipon conjectures. If the batteries need to be there at all, then something is probably flowing out of them at some time, and so must be replenished if it is not to diminish. Unless even the supply of zipons is unlimited of course. Well, if the COP is (blank) INFINITY, I guess the zipon supply must be unlimited. So ok.... then....... maybe they left the zipons out of my batteries at the factory. Stranger things have happened, I understand.
@Magluvin.... yes, ironically, my circuit has a problem, and I'm starting to be afraid it IS impossible to solve.
You see.... no matter what I do, if my load is heating.... my batteries discharge.
::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 11:46:20 PM
Personally, I've never heard the term used as a derogatory or any other kind of name for African-Americans, or even black people.
Really? But your reference to wiki is where it is found. Must be careful with that wiki.
I dont see any relation to the circuit by your sticky tar description.
Mags
Now, as I see it there is a strong claim and a weaker one. The strong claim is COP INFINITY, batteries never discharge while running the circuit and the heat output is for free, served up by the superluminal zipons. (How she knows that it isn't Glomlets from the underwhere that are doing it, I'll never know, because nobody has ruled out Glomlets, as far as I can tell.)
And the weaker claim is some degree of efficiency in load heating greater than that expected from application of straight DC.
The Dim Bulb test is a rough-and-ready, go-nogo test of the Strong Claim. Three out of five, winner takes all, loser.... gets to keep the white pegboard and clipleads.
But the Weak Claim will require some crude calorimetry, at least. (At least.... if you don't believe in Clarke-Hess, the demon god of power measuring, it will.) So... I can do that. By heating up the container of oil and letting it cool, I can quantify the heat-leak rate of the insulated container, since I know that the specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 Joules/degree/gram,and that there are 250 mL of oil in there, and a Watt is a Joule per second, so if I heat the oil to 100 degrees and let it cool back to ambient at 20 degrees, and this takes an hour exactly, or 3600 seconds.... that would be 80 degrees x 250 mL oil x 0.83 gm/mL x 1.67 Joules/degree/gm = 28000 Joules, and per 3600 seconds... or 28000 J/3600 s = about 8 Watts average dissipation over the hour of cooling. So.... then I can use that figure in conjunction with a heat _rise_ caused by the Tar Baby and also a DC control.
First, I can use the CH2330 to measure the input power to the circuit, and see how hot the load heats per unit time. Then I can use a regulated DC power supply to give the load the same average power, but DC, and without the intervening circuit's dissipative elements. Comparing the two graphs generated from the time-temperature data will likely produce a set of curves like these that I got the last time I did this same sort of thing, a couple of years ago. This will tell me the "efficiency" of the device as a heater. And knowing the container's loss rate and the other parameters, I should actually be able to get close to the total energies involved as well.
--- This is old data from RA's COP>17 claim, shown as representing the type of data that a time temp curve will yield. ----
Quote from: Magluvin on April 13, 2012, 12:54:41 AM
Really? But your reference to wiki is where it is found. Must be careful with that wiki.
I dont see any relation to the circuit by your sticky tar description.
Mags
Would you feel better if I called it the "DERN STAR" anti-replication device? Are you due to return from Bizarro Universe any time soon?
The name "Tar Baby" doesn't describe my circuit, it only _relates_ to it. And your phase is all ugly, you really should wear more makeup.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 01:17:25 AM
Would you feel better if I called it the "DERN STAR" anti-replication device? Are you due to return from Bizarro Universe any time soon?
The name "Tar Baby" doesn't describe my circuit, it only _relates_ to it. And your phase is all ugly, you really should wear more makeup.
Damn Baby might work. ;]
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 12:42:31 AM
snip...
..... if the COP is (blank) INFINITY, I guess the zipon supply must be unlimited. So ok.... then....... maybe they left the zipons out of my batteries at the factory. Stranger things have happened, I understand.
I get all the zip'ons I need, at the local clothing shop! :P
Heh.... C'mon, get serious. Tar Baby's tired and needs tucking in, or maybe wrapping up in wax paper with a nice ribbon bow, a shoebox, a hole in the ground, a little cross made of sticks. (Bet you didn't guess that TB is Christian.)
Anyway.... I'd like to get some amusement out of this, still. We sure aren't going to get to see RA fail bigtime in a well-conducted Dim Bulb test, for whatever reason. And this circuit isn't even as interesting as it could be, with bigger inductances and some diodes and a capacitor or two sprinkled into the mix here and there to make spikes and produce interesting high voltage phenomena like lighting NE-2s or charging up caps to make impressive sparks.
The thing could be made to oscillate in a controlled manner at the correct frequency to drive resonantly a flyback transformer's primary, or even a Tesla resonator, with real power coursing through those five magic mosfets, to make some really impressive effects. And, as I have often said before, when a system like that is analyzed using the same "logic" and analysis that the NERDs use, it would also look to be massively OU. The straight multiplication of the measurements of voltage and current swings on the secondary of a Tesla resonator has snookered many a researcher into thinking they've found the Magic Resonance or the Lost Chord or something. It's only SWR, but I like it (like it, yes I do).
Okay, I guess we have discussed now the old circuit of Rosemary
enough over here and some people also demanded
to lock this thread as the new tests will come
up and it is not fair to let this thread open, when I locked
the other "nerd" thread...
See the circuit diagramm for the upcoming test of her over here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318838/#msg318838
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, I have unlocked again this thread as some other people
complained again.
But please keep this thread again free from
bullshitting other people and just discuss, that Tinsel Koala posted
in his experiments.
When Rosemary Ainsley will have done her new experiments
with the circuit I posted she will open up a new thread and
then we can discuss her new results there.
Regards, Stefan.
Thank you Stefan.
By the very nature of things, though, we are still trying to resolve several issues pertaining to the Ainslie device and claims. Since Ainslie refuses to cooperate by answering simple questions with simple answers, we feel free to speculate, test, experiment, and speculate some more.
1. We would like to know the "approved" final circuit, minus timer or FG. Until otherwise informed, since RA has endorsed the crossover circuit with the Q2x4 stack on the left side of the diagram, with its Source pins connected to the Positive marked lead of the FG, that is the version Tar Baby will continue to use, with the addition of my timer circuit in place of the FG. If it later turns out that RA is claiming some other diagram for her experiment, I'll be slightly upset but not at all surprised.
2. We would like to have a real answer to PicoWatt's question about the possibility of the RA circuit having a bad transistor in some of the scope shots presented in the two papers. I think everyone who has real experience in these matters must agree that there is something wrong with those shots as PW has pointed out, and Rosemary's explanations are not satisfactory.
3. We would like to know the real reason that one battery was removed from the 60 volt stack, leaving 48 volts, for the "high heat" positive going drive pulse portion of the Ainslie demo video. Since the schematic of Paper 1 is supposed to be correct, a positive-going drive pulse would turn on the single Q1 mosfet completely, and with 60 volts and a total circuit resistance of under 14 Ohms, this single mosfet would be near its absolute maximum current, and on the small heatsink the Ainslie crew provided, would likely exceed its maximum heat dissipation value, hence would fail quickly. It is my hypothesis that they removed batteries (they claimed to have used 72 volts in some experiments) to avoid blowing this mosfet, and perhaps don't even understand the reasons. But whether or not they do, they have never given any explanation for this glaring fact. A 72 volt supply and a positive-going drive pulse would certainly have blown this single, poorly-mounted mosfet fairly quickly.
4. The issue of "phase shifts" or phase differences has also not been adequately explained by Ainslie. She has complained about phase relations in Tar Baby, yet her own scope shots show the same phase relationships that she finds objectionable in Tar Baby. Clearly.... this is inconsistent, nonsensical, and requires an explanation from Ainslie. Since power calculations done the way RA has done them depend critically on the phase relationship between the signals used, this issue is obviously critical to any replication or non-replication duplication efforts.
5. Ainslie still seems to deny the possibility of current flow through, or current sourced by, the FG (or even the 555 timer) in the NERD (and Tar Baby) circuit. Even in the face of experimental demonstrations, circuit diagrams of the FG she herself used, and documents from major test equipment manufacturers, she continues to maintain her mistaken position. Since MY function generator, and everybody else's FG, does indeed act as a current source or a 50-ohm impedance to external current flow.... it will be difficult to make any "replication" or duplication non-replication of her device that she will agree is valid. This issue needs to be resolved, by Ainslie understanding, finally, how these things actually do work.
Other issues with reference to Ainslie, the NERD device, and the RATs claims may also arise and become significant in the context of duplication. These will obviously be discussed here, since there is no other thread available to do so.
TK:
I think that the issues that you raised in your previous posting are all relevant. Don't be surprised if Rosie does not answer them directly but instead tries to address these issues in some future presentation of new data. The big question being does she have some people to help her or is she biting off more than she can chew?
About the thermal stuff:
QuoteBut the Weak Claim will require some crude calorimetry, at least. (At least.... if you don't believe in Clarke-Hess, the demon god of power measuring, it will.) So... I can do that. By heating up the container of oil and letting it cool, I can quantify the heat-leak rate of the insulated container, since I know that the specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 Joules/degree/gram,and that there are 250 mL of oil in there, and a Watt is a Joule per second, so if I heat the oil to 100 degrees and let it cool back to ambient at 20 degrees, and this takes an hour exactly, or 3600 seconds.... that would be 80 degrees x 250 mL oil x 0.83 gm/mL x 1.67 Joules/degree/gm = 28000 Joules, and per 3600 seconds... or 28000 J/3600 s = about 8 Watts average dissipation over the hour of cooling. So.... then I can use that figure in conjunction with a heat _rise_ caused by the Tar Baby and also a DC control.
First, I can use the CH2330 to measure the input power to the circuit, and see how hot the load heats per unit time. Then I can use a regulated DC power supply to give the load the same average power, but DC, and without the intervening circuit's dissipative elements. Comparing the two graphs generated from the time-temperature data will likely produce a set of curves like these that I got the last time I did this same sort of thing, a couple of years ago. This will tell me the "efficiency" of the device as a heater. And knowing the container's loss rate and the other parameters, I should actually be able to get close to the total energies involved as well.
Yikes, you are being too crude in your estimates here in my opinion. For starters, recall that your insulated container will decrease in temperature over time in essentially the same way that a capacitor discharges. In that sense it will "never" cool down to an ambient temperature of 20 C or more realistically it will take a long time, like 10 hours or more. It all depends on how much precision you have for reading the temperature.
So I have a few suggestions. Heat up the container and monitor how long it takes for the delta temperature between the heated oil and the original ambient temperature oil to drop by 63%. So you will get your time constant for your thermal system. Supposing for the sake of argument that it's one hour.
Once you have that number and you know the thermal capacity of your container then in theory you know very precisely what the heat power dissipation rate is at any given temperature. So you can drop the "8 watts" number that you averaged out, I can't see any use for that information.
For the thermal capacity of your container, I think it would be worth it to factor in the glass beaker also. I don't know if you know what type of glass it is. If you can weigh the container and you know the specific heat of the glass then you can calculate the thermal capacity of the glass. On the other hand, it it's a real beaker made for a chemistry lab, I assume the manufacturer would give you that information.
To be continued....
MileHigh
TK:
Here is where I think you could make good use of your thermally insulated container:
Suppose that your time constant for the container is two hours. So then you can say that if you make tests that involve heating up the container for say 10 minutes or less, that will give you a fairly accurate reading of the heat energy produced by the load resistor. I also am going to assume that part of your setup is something like an insulated stir stick that pops through a tiny hole in the top of the container that allows you to agitate the oil to even out the temperature.
So, for example, say the oil is at 20 C when you start your test. You run a test where power is supplied to the load resistor for exactly 10 minutes. Then you lightly agitate the oil for fifteen seconds, then you wait for fifteen seconds, and then you lightly agitate the oil for fifteen seconds and then you take your temperature reading.
Since the thermal time constant is two hours and you were providing heat for only 10 minutes, you know that the heat dissipation (a.k.a.; lost heat) was relatively minor during the 10 minutes. So you can get a quite accurate reading for the heat production during the 10 minutes. The reason I am suggesting two light agitations with 15 seconds in between is to let the glass of the beaker and the oil reach the same temperature.
With respect to the testing itself, we already know there is a kind or conundrum. The conundrum being that we know ahead of time that massive amounts of power are "lost" in the Q2 MOSFET array in negative oscillation mode. So he NERD circuit will never be as efficient as a heater as compared to a straight DC connection between your variable power supply and the load resistor. So with that in mind, the whole thing might be an exercise in futility.
Perhaps, you might want to look at the "COP infinity" claim in a bit more detail before you look into the thermal stuff? The suggestion would be to set up a nice robust oscillation in negative oscillation mode with the full battery voltage, nice clean waveforms and the whole nine yards. Such that it at least looks like you have the waveform shapes and the "phasings" (what to what???) that look very RAT-like.
With that robust by-the-book "COP infinity" setup, then try doing an LEDs of DOOM test, and then do the big capacitor test. Both of those tests will indicate that the battery is discharging, and you can crunch the numbers on the big capacitor test and get a decently accurate measurement of the power consumption in negative offset oscillation mode.
I don't know if Rosemary is going to do much with the positive-pulse high heat mode in her tests. I just don't see any point, it's just a pure standard implementation of using a MOSFET to switch on and off a resistive load. It's a no-brainer exercise in under unity if you don't count the heat dissipated in the MOSFET itself. If you do count the heat dissipated in the MOSFET itself, then it's a no-brainer exercise in unity (or near-unity).
MileHigh
What I don't understand with the initial evaluation of these setups that use function generators is,
Why isn't the power consumed by the function generator considered as input ? Without the signal the circuit does not operate.
If they (FG's) are part of the circuit all power consumed by them is input. If the Function generator is plugged into the wall a
simple watt meter should measure the consumed power. The entire circuit would need to then produce that much power again
to break even. If a function generator is used in a battery powered system it should be powered from the batteries, even if an inverter is needed.
The alternative would be to build a low power circuit to provide the signal, which would be powered from the batteries.
If a vital part of the circuit is plugged into the wall (the function generator) then the power it consumes is part of the input.
It really is that simple in my opinion.
Cheers
@MH:
Your calorimetry is a bit more sophisticated than mine... I was just going to approximate the dissipation rate by assuming linearity from hot to cold, but of course you are more correct and precise by using a single time constant and assuming little or no leakage.
KISS is my motto on this project.... the "choir" already knows the tune, but we are trying to convince some others that simply taping a thermocouple to a resistor hanging out in the ambience isn't quite good enough calorimetry, even for high-school science fair standards.
As far as operating in the "correct" robust oscillation mode and so forth.... except for the capacitor test part, I've already done that, twice, and tested the run batteries with the Dim Bulb Test. The only part lacking is some kind of agreement that I'm making the right waveforms and that Tar Baby is a duplication of the NERD RATs circuit and operating parameters. And we know... without the white pegboard and clipleads.... that kind of agreement will never be forthcoming from the "one who matters" in this matter.
(An interesting point that might be made with the calorimetry would be to examine the differences in efficiency between the IRF830a and the IRFPG50 mosfets. The 830a has a substantially lower Rdss and a faster turn-on time, which means that it should dissipate less heat in the mosfet itself and allow more of the total circuit power to be dissipated in the load.)
I'm still willing..... just take me to the highway and show me a sign, take it to the limit one more time.
@Farmhand:
We are indeed considering the FG as input. That is one of the major issues, in fact.
The problem is that the original NERD RATs device was built by Rosemary Ainslie, who denies that the FG can provide power to the circuit or even allow the circuit's power to pass through it. This is the motivation for Stefan's requirement that the circuit be tested with a 555 timer. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to realize that the simple 555 circuits will also suffer from the same problem: they can act as a power source or alternate unmonitored current pathway for the main circuit.
It is possible to get the circuit to oscillate without the FG's or 555's input, if one can accept just a long feedback "squeal" with no superimposed pulsations. In the main paper of Ainslie, they use a very long duty cycle of some minutes of oscillations followed by a short "off" period, so presumably the steady-state squeal would also be permissible. Once the oscillations are started with a little "tickle" they can stay on until something disturbs them. In fact, the main function of the FG or timer (besides injecting more power) seems to be to turn the oscillations _off_ during the off part of the cycle.
There is a lot of background material that you may have missed, including a lot of discussion about the FG's roles in the circuit. The main discussion of the Ainslie device is in another thread, unfortunately now locked.
Keep thinking, keep suggesting, though. It's all good....
Oh... regarding the high-heat, positive pulse mode:
This was demonstrated in the video demo, and it was also described in the paper(s) that contain the claims. And there is the discrepancy noted by PicoWatt concerning the possible bad mosfet.... which I think is caused by them operating in high-heat positive drive pulse mode until failure, which failure was unnoticed due to the lack of oscilloscope interpreting skills on the part of the experimenters.
This part of the experiment _must_ be repeated, the use of 48 volts instead of 60 volts explained, and the PW question about the damaged or missing mosfet cleared up, as the whole matter represents issues at the core of the validity of the entire Ainslie project, claims, and papers.
TK
Your TarBaby circuit is not a replication of the NERD circuit
. Unless it is confined to an inductive element resistor of the type you showed but did not apparently, use in that calorimetric test apparatus
. Unless it is then confined to a detailed analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply
. Unless it establishes the rate of current flow accurately over the shunts
. Unless that flow is determined by fine adjustments to the switch
. Unless those adjustments related to that switch can be proved through close integrated power analysis
. All of which relies on the use of an oscilloscope that can store and download data
And since none of these criteria has been in any of your 'debunk' claims - then you have not replicated nor debunked the NERD circuit
. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not
We are yet to see
. Your colorimetric test results to give us some indication of the power dissipated
. Your tests results including some analysis of the power delivered by the battery
. Your tests results comparing that rate of delivery to the potential from that power supply
In effect your debunk is relying on data that you have not either fully revealed or not yet done. You have implied a result without giving us precise data. Which is troubling. And you repeatedly refer to the RAT circuit. What is this? And how does it relate to the NERD circuit?
Regards
Rosemary
Rosemary:
You cannot couple the device itself and the measurements on the device to say if it is a replication or not.
TK's device uses the same components as yours, and is the same circuit, and the waveforms it displays on the scope are essentially the same waveforms that you display.
Your "inductive resistor" is just a commercial off the shelf resistive element used for heating water that barely possesses any inductance at all. TK's use of some resistors wired together also would have a very small inductance.
The inductance of the resistive elements is secondary to all of the inductance associated with the interconnect wires.
All of your comments about making measurements have nothing at all to do with whether it is a replication or not. There are many errors and questions associated with your measurements. TK has and will do his own measurements and they do not in any way have to agree with your measurements. That presumes that your measurements are "correct" and his are "incorrect." Anybody that has been following both threads understands that that is a preposterous statement.
Other people building replications puts some heat on you because you are not the only game in town any more. You are just going to have to deal with it.
MileHigh
Rosemary
Please answer the questions asked, or you will be completely ignored.
Which circuit diagram is correct, the one in Paper One or Paper 2, or some other version? This requires a single sentence to answer, and please be specific. Feel free to post the correct diagram here, so we will all know for certain just which one you endorse.
You claim again that you can produce the high-heat mode using positive going drive pulses, as shown in the second part of the demonstration video, using the full 72 volt battery pack (and of course the circuit shown in the first paper.)
Recall that for the video demo, you REMOVED one battery from your initial stack of only 5, leaving only 4 with a voltage of 48 volts.... and you have never yet explained why.
Until you explain this adequately or show the high heat mode using 72 volts..... I simply do not believe you. At 72 volts and a long duty cycle, with the positive-going gate pulse.... you are asking the single Q1 mosfet to carry 72/14 = over 5 Amps, and it is not adequately heat sunk. The data sheet for the mosfet indicates that the absolute maximum current and heat dissipation will be exceeded. So... you must use less voltage (like only 48 volts as in the demo.) Feel free to prove me wrong by showing a detailed demonstration using 72 volts similar to those I show in this thread.
Please explain the discrepancy in your scope shots that PicoWatt has pointed out. If you are using a postive gate pulse with the schematic you say you use, a mosfet must turn on and there must be current shown in the "shunt" unless the mosfet is faulty or missing. Or unless there are other errors, like the use of yet another different circuit diagram, perhaps. Your constant stamping your foot and saying "it is so" doesn't make it so, nor explain why or how.
You are welcome to post in this thread, as long as you back up your assertions.... all of them.... with data and checkable references. Got that? If you assert that you have achieved high heat mode with positive going gate pulses and 72 volts, using the Paper 1 schematic.... then show a scope shot that supports the claim, or some other evidence. Otherwise you will simply not be believed and you will wind up being ignored.
If you simply continue to make assertions without the least evidence, especially if they involve misrepresentations or misinterpretations of MY data and reports.... you will be completely ignored.
In fact, if you don't answer the questions that have been asked of you, in your next post here, without equivocation or dissembling.... you will be completely ignored from then on. You have a single chance to show that you can carry on a constructive dialog.
Now... for the last time on this thread, to address some of your points made here:
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 15, 2012, 06:31:18 PM
TK
Your TarBaby circuit is not a replication of the NERD circuit
. Unless it is confined to an inductive element resistor of the type you showed but did not apparently, use in that calorimetric test apparatus
You have yet to explain why the "inductive element resistor" is needed for this device, but a wirewound ceramic tube type was required for your other circuit. Since both the loads that I have INDEED used in "that calorimetric test apparatus" have the same resistance of 10.3 ohms and the same inductance of about 74 microHenry... the only real difference is that the load I prefer to use can be easily and completely submerged in oil. I can easily, however, reproduce the measurements you made with a thermocouple attached directly to your water heater element hanging in the air. Unfortunately data acquired by that method is unreliable at best and completely useless for the purpose to which you have put it. My method is better, so unless you can come up with some real reason why my loads aren't equivalent and the "effect" depends on having the water heater load.... I'll continue to use the resistors, whether you think it's a replication or not. I'll also not be using the white pegboard or the clipleads.
Quote
. Unless it is then confined to a detailed analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply
Confined? Are you limiting the kinds of measurements I take, and if I take extra ones, it's not a replication? Please, that is not a coherent objection at all.
Quote
. Unless it establishes the rate of current flow accurately over the shunts
I can and have "established the rate of current flow" more accurately than you have over the "shunt", more properly called the current viewing resistor, and of course this is a basic circuit operational parameter.... even though the current through the CVR is not all the current flowing in the circuit to the load.
Quote
. Unless that flow is determined by fine adjustments to the switch
By "switch" I presume you mean the gate drive, whether from the FG or the 555 circuit, since this is the only adjustment available to you. And of course, anyone who has watched my videos can see that the "flow" is indeed determined by fine adjustments of the FG or 555 power in my demonstrations. You are ignoring or missing what you don't want to see. I've demonstrated this fine tuning and its relationship to the current several times.
Quote
. Unless those adjustments related to that switch can be proved through close integrated power analysis
I have subjected those adjustments to analysis by the Clarke-Hess 2330 integrating power analyzer. What do you mean by "proved" in this context? Are you saying that, unless Tar Baby is overunity, it's not a replication? That is the "Mylow" objection and it's not valid.
Quote
. All of which relies on the use of an oscilloscope that can store and download data
Correction. Only the last item, the integration of an instantaneous power waveform made from the multiplication of the CVR trace and the battery voltage trace... only that item needs the DSO. And of course..... I have one available and will be using it when the time comes. And I will be doing the measurements both as you do them, Rosemary... and also correctly. Just as .99 showed in his simulation results, an overunity math result is easy to get if the measurements that go into the computation are improperly obtained.
Quote
And since none of these criteria has been in any of your 'debunk' claims - then you have not replicated nor debunked the NERD circuit
There you go again, claiming distortions of the truth. If you don't want to call Tar Baby a replication of your circuit, you really should point out how it is different. And I agree.... I have not yet even BEGUN to debunk the NERD circuit. Where did I claim to have done so?
Quote
. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not
Claims without evidence are against the rules in this thread and will result in your being completely ignored. This is fair warning, and this is hopefully the last time you'll try it.
All levels measured to exceed COP Infinity? Exceed COP Infinity? COP > INFINITY, then? Are you quite sure of this?
I really don't think you have shown evidence for this, anywhere or any time. But it would be easy to do.... just show that your batteries do not run down, by the simple Dim Bulb test.
Quote
We are yet to see
. Your colorimetric test results to give us some indication of the power dissipated
. Your tests results including some analysis of the power delivered by the battery
. Your tests results comparing that rate of delivery to the potential from that power supply
Some of this has indeed been presented, even if "delivery to the potential" doesn't make sense. The Clarke-Hess has been deployed to good use and doesn't seem to object to the high frequencies, and has provided hard numerical data concerning the power from the battery and the power to the load. In addition two Dim Bulb tests of running batteries have already been performed, along with the LEDs of Doom which show the direction of dominant current flow. But we have not seen any real data from you regarding these matters. The papers have so many errors and unanswered questions that they must be considered completely unreliable, and the experiments described should be repeated, with these issues in mind. The differing schematics, for example, and the PicoWatt bad mosfet issue alone are enough to cause the papers to be questioned.
Quote
In effect your debunk is relying on data that you have not either fully revealed or not yet done. You have implied a result without giving us precise data. Which is troubling. And you repeatedly refer to the RAT circuit. What is this? And how does it relate to the NERD circuit?
Regards
Rosemary
It's too bad that you feel troubled. You should feel troubled, because my "non-replication" of your RAT team device is calling into serious question your claims, and will continue to do so. And I'm afraid that any complaint from YOU about my "imprecise data" is going to be met with great amusement every time. You still haven't retracted your claim based on your incorrect "25.6 million Joules" bogus calculation, remember. So any talk from you about data precision or calculation isn't going to be taken seriously, because we know your history in those matters.
You are in a rather strange position, Rosemary. This is the first time that I can think of that an uncooperative claimant is making demands on a replicator, demanding more data and more precision than the claimant has actually shown. Shouldn't you be preparing for your testing, so that you can "debunk" the debunker with tests and demonstrations of your own? I have shown a number of subtests and manipulations that you don't seem to believe. OK... then show your circuit behaving differently under the same circumstances. Otherwise... your demands fall rather flat.
Now... this will be the last of this. As I said in the post above, you are welcome to post here.... but you will be ignored completely if you overstep the boundaries, and especially if you make claims and assertions without evidence.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 10:41:56 PM
Now... this will be the last of this. As I said in the post above, you are welcome to post here.... but you will be ignored completely if you overstep the boundaries, and especially if you make claims and assertions without evidence.
Are you threatening to ignore me? Golly. I'd rather welcome it TK. If only. :o 8)
Rosie Pose
Quote from: MileHigh on April 15, 2012, 08:52:03 PM
All of your comments about making measurements have nothing at all to do with whether it is a replication or not. There are many errors and questions associated with your measurements. TK has and will do his own measurements and they do not in any way have to agree with your measurements. That presumes that your measurements are "correct" and his are "incorrect." Anybody that has been following both threads understands that that is a preposterous statement.
My dear MileHigh
TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements. How is it then that he claims that his 'replication' has disproved anything at all? Isn't he jumping the gun somewhat? I'd have thought? If he wants to claim this then show us. We're not all about to sit back and let him insinuate his argument.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 10:00:13 PM
Please answer the questions asked, or you will be completely ignored.
I have answered this. At length. But feel free to ignore me if you want. Again. I'd welcome it. Disabuse yourself of the impression that I'm posting here for your benefit. On the contrary.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 10:00:13 PMYou claim again that you can produce the high-heat mode using positive going drive pulses, as shown in the second part of the demonstration video, using the full 72 volt battery pack (and of course the circuit shown in the first paper.) Recall that for the video demo, you REMOVED one battery from your initial stack of only 5, leaving only 4 with a voltage of 48 volts.... and you have never yet explained why.
We most certainly DO manage the high heat test, as you put it - or the water to boil test as we put it - at CONSIDERABLY less than 5 amps delivered by the battery. The actual value is indicated in our paper. And it has been more than adequately explained in our 2nd paper.
Regards,
Rosie Pose.
That was your one chance and you blew it.
There will be no more responses to you in this thread.
I just sent this email. I'm also posting it here in case there are any other readers who might be interested.
Quote
Stefan:
It is clear from her last posts that Ainslie is not going to cooperate, that she continues to make false statements, and that she continues to make claims without adequate evidence. She is trying to clutter up the Tar Baby thread with the same kinds of irrelevancies, ignorance and bad attitude that caused her own thread to be locked.
I am asking you, Stefan, to block her from posting in the Tar Baby thread. I stated the reasonable conditions under which she would be welcome to post and she immediately violated them and will continue to do so.
If she is not blocked from posting she will be completely ignored, and so she will simply be wasting your bandwidth and her own time as well as adding distractions and hindering progress.
This is the first time that I have ever asked for anyone to be blocked or banned in any forum. I am in general against censorship of any kind. And I don't want to censor Ainslie either.... but I will not have her lying and distorting and making claims without evidence in a thread where we are trying to carry on a scientific investigation. And every second that she spends commenting and making claims is another second that she is NOT preparing to perform her own definitive testing.
Thank you for your consideration.
--TK
(copies to Ainslie, MileHigh, poynt99, fuzzytomcat, Laurie, picowatt, Humbugger, Groundloop, hartiberlin)
The instrumental measurements that I have shown using the Clarke-Hess integrating power analyzer are better measurements of circuit power performance than any Ainslie has shown. The Dim Bulb tests are better basic measurements of battery charge performance than any Ainslie has shown. When Ainslie claims that I have not shown any measurements.... she again makes false claims which are easily refuted. For Stefan's benefit, since he is unlikely to want to prowl back through the thread, I will repost the Clarke-Hess measurements here. And there are videos full of measurements on the YT channel... just not a lot of colored numbers in boxes.
Conditions of testing: Tar Baby in negative-going gate drive pulse mode, making the oscillations, driven from 555 timer, heating a load, running on 4 batteries at a nominal 48 volts. In other words, just the same mode as shown in the first part of Ainslie's demo video but with one less battery. (I have six batteries, of course, but I am reserving two, chosen randomly, as "setasides" for Dim Bulb test comparisons.)
The first shot shows the "input" power: the Clarke-Hess is inserted between the battery and the rest of the circuit:
Battery >>> CH2330 >>> Tar Baby >>> Load
The second shot shows the "output" power to the load; the only change made was to swap the CH2330 over to the output side, a matter of switching cables that takes about 30 seconds to do.
Battery >>> Tar Baby >>> CH2330 >>> Load
The third shot is the scope during the CH testing, negative pulse gate drive signal on the top at 10 V/div and the battery voltage at the battery terminals on the bottom trace at 20 V/div, zero references indicated by the graticle line nearest the grey dots on the right side of the bezel. The feedback oscillations have a slight envelope distortion (amplitude increase) caused by the CH's cable harness inductance.
The CH current readings are consistently about 10 percent higher than the readings on my cheapo inline ammeter. This current difference could reflect the fact that the CH is better at reading odd signals than the DMM is. And this current is adjusted by fine tuning the gate drive to the circuit and looking at the form of the "oscillations", which refutes yet another false claim that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance. The differences in the input and output power readings represent power lost in the circuit that doesn't reach the load: mosfet heating, RF radiation, and so on.
The Clarke-Hess might be missing some power in higher frequency oscillations, though. That's why I also used an RF wattmeter on the Tar Baby, as if it were a radio transmitter putting power at 1.6 or 2.4 MHz into a transmission line or antenna represented by the load and batteries. The SWR sucks which means that the RF power is bouncing around and being dissipated within the circuit; not much of it is radiating, even though I can pick it up on my FM radio. So there is an issue with respect to calibration of the CH2330 to see if it's accounting for the RF power in its measurements. One thing seems fairly certain: Tar Baby isn't recharging batteries with RF-- since it is AC, and since TB's batteries do run down. Some is evidently heating the load which doesn't care about polarity reversals, and some load heating is coming from the "dc" that the partially on mosfets can pass, separate from the oscillations. The power levels are so small though that I might not be able to tease them apart with my crude calorimetry.
(Note that the CH is _not_ simply multiplying the average current shown by the average voltage shown. It is taking into account the phase differences involved in the signal it's measuring. I could select "power factor" on the display to indicate what the CH is detecting here, but for this measurement I'm just showing the "true power" as determined by the CH's integrating function.... combining the functions performed by the NERD RATs scope dumps and spreadsheet analysis and doing it properly... within its frequency limitations of course.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 08:54:25 AM
The instrumental measurements that I have shown using the Clarke-Hess integrating power analyzer are better measurements of circuit power performance than any Ainslie has shown. The Dim Bulb tests are better basic measurements of battery charge performance than any Ainslie has shown. When Ainslie claims that I have not shown any measurements.... she again makes false claims which are easily refuted. For Stefan's benefit, since he is unlikely to want to prowl back through the thread, I will repost the Clarke-Hess measurements here. And there are videos full of measurements on the YT channel... just not a lot of colored numbers in boxes.
Conditions of testing: Tar Baby in negative-going gate drive pulse mode, making the oscillations, driven from 555 timer, heating a load, running on 4 batteries at a nominal 48 volts. In other words, just the same mode as shown in the first part of Ainslie's demo video but with one less battery. (I have six batteries, of course, but I am reserving two, chosen randomly, as "setasides" for Dim Bulb test comparisons.)
The first shot shows the "input" power: the Clarke-Hess is inserted between the battery and the rest of the circuit:
Battery >>> CH2330 >>> Tar Baby >>> Load
The second shot shows the "output" power to the load; the only change made was to swap the CH2330 over to the output side, a matter of switching cables that takes about 30 seconds to do.
Battery >>> Tar Baby >>> CH2330 >>> Load
This is not clear. Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330? In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic. You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all. Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery? At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal? Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal? If the former - then the readings should be co-incident. If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim. And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing? To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output. In which case? On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery. Which is a negative voltage value. If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge. And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit. Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation. I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive. And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other. Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results. That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement.
Regards
Rosemary
ADDED
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 08:54:25 AMThe CH current readings are consistently about 10 percent higher than the readings on my cheapo inline ammeter. This current difference could reflect the fact that the CH is better at reading odd signals than the DMM is. And this current is adjusted by fine tuning the gate drive to the circuit and looking at the form of the "oscillations", which refutes yet another false claim that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance. The differences in the input and output power readings represent power lost in the circuit that doesn't reach the load: mosfet heating, RF radiation, and so on.
The Clarke-Hess might be missing some power in higher frequency oscillations, though. That's why I also used an RF wattmeter on the Tar Baby, as if it were a radio transmitter putting power at 1.6 or 2.4 MHz into a transmission line or antenna represented by the load and batteries. The SWR sucks which means that the RF power is bouncing around and being dissipated within the circuit; not much of it is radiating, even though I can pick it up on my FM radio. So there is an issue with respect to calibration of the CH2330 to see if it's accounting for the RF power in its measurements. One thing seems fairly certain: Tar Baby isn't recharging batteries with RF-- since it is AC, and since TB's batteries do run down. Some is evidently heating the load which doesn't care about polarity reversals, and some load heating is coming from the "dc" that the partially on mosfets can pass, separate from the oscillations. The power levels are so small though that I might not be able to tease them apart with my crude calorimetry.
The rest of this post is simply an admission of the inadequacy of your measuring instruments. Why are you not simply analysing the waveform across a shunt resistor to determine amperage? That should be possible even with your scope. And even if you can't finely integrate your values. At least then we'd see the 'trend' of that voltage - whether or not it is greater above or below zero? Right now the evidence is that you've partially replicated our battery waveform - but without the required amplitude. And that you have simply NOT replicated our current flow as you give no evidence of it's voltage one way or the other. The signal from the switch is not relevant to this power analysis. It will only be relevant when you need to prove that the battery supplying that switch may or may not be adding energy to the system. And that's another thing. Are you using a separate battery? Or are you powering the switch from one of the four batteries you use for your input.
If you are going to claim that you've debunked - I'd have thought that all these points are critical. Why are you not addressing them?
Regards,
Rosemary
The noise will be ignored.
And TK - don't give me that 'the NERD team have shown no measurements. We give copious measurements. The problem is that we dare not compute the wattage as we do not know how to resolve the anomaly of a negative product related to this. It has no relevance to any known power measurement.
And our measurements are clear and have been conducted on highly sophisticated machines. What is true is that we have not tested our apparatus switched by a 555. That's due.
Again,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:52:04 AM
The noise will be ignored.
The 'noise' as you put it is the counter argument. I see why you need to avoid this. Your object is to try and convince our readers that you have replicated our circuit. It is patently NOT a replication. It lacks critical features - some of which I listed in the previous two posts namely
. Oscillation amplitude over the battery is inadequate and variable between each switching period
. There are no indications of the voltage across the shunt
. Therefore there is no way to gauge whether the voltage is predominately negative
. You need to replace the load with something more appropriate as the inductance is, we suspect, a critical factor
We are yet to see some conclusions drawn from the calorimetric apparatus that you've installed. How and what do you determine is the wattage dissipated.
Regards again,
Rosemary
Regarding this email to Stefan:
>>It is clear from her last posts that Ainslie is not going to cooperate, that she continues to make false statements, and that she continues to make claims without adequate evidence.
Where have I made false statements?
>>She is trying to clutter up the Tar Baby thread with the same kinds of irrelevancies, ignorance and bad attitude that caused her own thread to be locked.
I am addressing certain inaccuracies. That's hardly irrelevant. And the locking of my own thread had nothing whatsoever to do with any of my input. Unlike the rest of you, I never resorted to slander nor did anything short of defend my work - which is and was much required.
>>I am asking you, Stefan, to block her from posting in the Tar Baby thread. I stated the reasonable conditions under which she would be welcome to post and she immediately violated them and will continue to do so.
I see this now. What you want is to flame my thread that it's locked. Then prevent my protests on your own thread. And leave unanswered and undefended the continuing allegations and insinuations that claim you've replicated and debunked our hard work. Which would leave me without any kind of voice to protest a continuing abuse. And you consider this fair?
>>If she is not blocked from posting she will be completely ignored, and so she will simply be wasting your bandwidth and her own time as well as adding distractions and hindering progress.
Very happy to be ignored. Just as long as I can interject with the occasional and much needed contradictions against your own insinuations Tk. That - at its least - leaves me with a voice. Else I suspect that you'll not give a fair account of those tests as is evident thus far.
>>This is the first time that I have ever asked for anyone to be blocked or banned in any forum. I am in general against censorship of any kind. And I don't want to censor Ainslie either.... but I will not have her lying and distorting and making claims without evidence in a thread where we are trying to carry on a scientific investigation. And every second that she spends commenting and making claims is another second that she is NOT preparing to perform her own definitive testing.
Yes indeed. I see that now. You are indeed very fair minded. One just needs to see how you managed to get my own thread locked by your own controversial and slanderous allegations to prevent any progress to any kind of reasonable discussion.
Regards,
Rosemary
Let me remind everyone again that this thread is about testing the Tar Baby. The only claim I have made is that Tar Baby performs just the same in all significant respects as the NERD circuit. If anyone is going to claim differently, they need to show proof by showing the NERD circuit doing something that Tar Baby doesn't, under the same conditions. Does NERD run without depleting its batteries? We will only find that out when it is tested. Tar Baby depletes its batteries when running. But in every case where actual data is available, Tar Baby does just what NERD does. I have asked some questions about NERD to help me in this effort... and the answers have not been forthcoming. Why was one battery removed for the second part of the video demo, leaving only 48 volts for the high-heat mode? That is just one question that has not been answered, in spite of constant protestations to "read the papers" which are fraught with errors and bad presentations.
I am sure that everyone with any electronic expertise understands how the Clarke-Hess is hooked to the circuit, and certainly the operating manual is on the internet for downloading by anyone who cares to. But for those readers who might not understand that the instrument is a sampling V-A-W meter and thus performs the exact same function as an oscilloscope's two channels monitoring voltage and current, sampling them, multiplying them, accounting for power factor phase shifts, and integrating if necessary...... here is the schematic showing how the instrument is hooked into the circuit. Obviously I only have one (of this model; I actually do have another CH available of a different model). So the measurements are made by unhooking it from one end and re-hooking it to the other end without changing anything else.
And... consistent with my main claim... I maintain that if the NERD circuit were hooked to a similar meter a similar result would be obtained. If someone maintains differently it is up to them to show the evidence. And once again... I have offered Tar Baby to be tested independently, side-by-side with NERD, by whatever method the tester chooses, as long as both devices are treated the same. That is, I am willing to have my claims tested independently at any time, and I am ready for this now.
And still further..... if someone doesn't believe that Tar Baby is an accurate replication of NERD, and yet cannot state just why, with references and data..... then perhaps they are posting in the wrong thread.
The requirement that the 555 timer circuit (or other clock) be powered from the main running batteries has a problem.
With a positive going pulse, like that used in the high-heat demonstration, there is no difficulty and the circuit above can be used simply by swapping the 555 pin 3 and minus connections to the circuit and providing a suitable voltage dropping potentiometer to make the input voltage from the main battery's most negative cell, to the 555, adjustable.
For a negative going gate drive pulse to be used, as in the low heat mode which is supposed to be of most interest .... the pulse has to be negative with respect to the _negative rail_ of the main circuit.... that is, the most negative pole of the battery. An externally powered FG can do this, obviously, through the use of offset and pulse type controls. The 555 timer can do this if it's externally battery powered too, by wiring it "inverted" as I have shown above and have been using with Tar Baby.
I don't think a 555 timer or other simple clock, powered by the running batteries, can make a pulse that is more negative than the most negative pole of its battery. Hence it cannot be used this way to provide the negative going gate drive pulse. I think.
If anybody can come up with a simple solution to this little problem, or show that it's not a problem at all .... please PM me and I'll try it right away.
And there seems to be another little problem for replicators of this open source community effort free energy project.
The NERD RATs now seem to be claiming that a wirewound ceramic tube resistor stack won't work in their NERD device to prevent battery depletion, even if it is almost of the same resistance and inductance as the "custom" water heater element that they have used. Such a resistor was the preferred load for an earlier COP>17 claim using an IRFPG50 mosfet and batteries that didn't discharge.... but they can't be used in the present NERD device. Only the exact custom element they used will work properly, according to the current claim. This throws an obvious wrench into the replication efforts of others.
Fortunately... we know that Tar Baby isn't a replication, don't we.
TK
Thank you for clarifying the position of the CH2330. If I understand you - you're claiming that the first set of numbers on that instrument represents the output and the second set of numbers represents the input - then correctly you should take the sum of both values. Surely this is NOT what you mean?
Current at the output = 0.2386
Current at the input = 0.2291
I suspect that the amperage is determined as a DC value which means that the CH is simply giving the sum. Which means that the wattage delivered by the battery supply is either 11.62 watts OR 11.157 watts determined as a product of the battery voltage 48.7 volts and the current. However. Neither number is evident on the CH2330. And in any event you don't clarify what those numbers represent. I can see the amperage and I can see the voltage over the first picture. Not the second. If the machine is not able to ascertain the battery voltage you can hardly expect it to represent the wattage accurately.
Therefore we none of us have any idea what it is you're hoping that the CH2330 is showing. Hopefully you'll clarify this in the fullness of time.
Regards
Rosemary
I will answer you this one time.
No, as usual you are not correct. The first picture, labelled "INPUT", is the measurement taken at the location marked "INPUT MEASUREMENT" on the diagram.
The second is at the other location.
FROM MY POST:
QuoteThe first shot shows the "input" power: the Clarke-Hess is inserted between the battery and the rest of the circuit:
Battery >>> CH2330 >>> Tar Baby >>> Load
The second shot shows the "output" power to the load; the only change made was to swap the CH2330 over to the output side, a matter of switching cables that takes about 30 seconds to do.
Battery >>> Tar Baby >>> CH2330 >>> Load
Next.... the differences in current... a few milliamps ... can be attributed to the slight differences in wiring length in the two locations. You do not in any way "add" these figures together. They represent the average current flowing through the meter's very precise and very low-resistance internal "shunt" -- hence through the circuit itself -- at the time the photos were taken, and are very reliable. You have no grounds for disputing them.... unless you want to demonstrate that they aren't reliable, by some measurements and data of your own.
Next... the CH definitely DOES take into account the oscillations and is NOT simply measuring a DC current. THIS IS WHY THE WATTAGE FIGURES DO NOT REFLECT A SIMPLE MULTIPLICATION. The unit computes and takes into account the power factor, and can display it if asked.
In the second picture -- the OUTPUT TO THE LOAD -- the voltage meter is showing the voltage that the load is experiencing, if you want to look at it that way. The voltage and current readings displayed on the meter are averaged over a suitable time constant that the meter itself determines based on the frequency it detects.
In other words, the Clarke Hess is detecting, computing and displaying the same information you get when you use an oscilloscope to multiply current and voltage to determine a power curve, and further, can integrate that curve to give the energy flow.
"WE none of us" means only YOU, in this context, Rosemary. The instrument reads what it reads, it is hooked up as it is hooked up, and the interpretation is clear... to those who know their subject, and I don't have to explain it to them, I allow them to make their own conclusions. You, however, not only do not know your subject, but you apparently cannot even read figure captions correctly... so I will give you the courtesy of an explanation.... something you yourself avoid when asked questions.
Why was the battery removed from the "high heat" portion of the video demo, leaving a battery pack of only 48 volts? This question is not answered in the papers, it is not answered in the video, and you have never answered it. And you aren't going to answer it now, either.
Therefore, back to BIPS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:50 AM
Let me remind everyone again that this thread is about testing the Tar Baby. The only claim I have made is that Tar Baby performs just the same in all significant respects as the NERD circuit. If anyone is going to claim differently, they need to show proof by showing the NERD circuit doing something that Tar Baby doesn't, under the same conditions.
I've already listed the variations. I'll do so again later tonight.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:50 AMBut in every case where actual data is available, Tar Baby does just what NERD does.
So you say. But we've not seen this. The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude. And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:50 AMI have asked some questions about NERD to help me in this effort... and the answers have not been forthcoming. Why was one battery removed for the second part of the video demo, leaving only 48 volts for the high-heat mode?
I have answered this. You have ignored my answer.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:50 AMThat is just one question that has not been answered, in spite of constant protestations to "read the papers" which are fraught with errors and bad presentations.
So I'm not sure that this statement is correct. Anywhere. At all.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:50 AMI am sure that everyone with any electronic expertise understands how the Clarke-Hess is hooked to the circuit, and certainly the operating manual is on the internet for downloading by anyone who cares to. But for those readers who might not understand that the instrument is a sampling V-A-W meter and thus performs the exact same function as an oscilloscope's two channels monitoring voltage and current, sampling them, multiplying them, accounting for power factor phase shifts, and integrating if necessary.
I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts. Or unless that number now represents something else? You do not specify this.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:50 AMAnd... consistent with my main claim... I maintain that if the NERD circuit were hooked to a similar meter a similar result would be obtained. If someone maintains differently it is up to them to show the evidence. And once again... I have offered Tar Baby to be tested independently, side-by-side with NERD, by whatever method the tester chooses, as long as both devices are treated the same. That is, I am willing to have my claims tested independently at any time, and I am ready for this now.
This argument is somewhat meaningless. We do not use the CH2330. We calculate the current from the supply - under considerably more stringent conditions that are also based on the voltage across the shunt or CSR in our schematic.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:50 AMAnd still further..... if someone doesn't believe that Tar Baby is an accurate replication of NERD, and yet cannot state just why, with references and data..... then perhaps they are posting in the wrong thread.
I am entirely satisfied that I have already pointed out where the Tar Baby varies from the NERD circuit.
Regards
Rosemary
Let me see if I can explain this again. It will require that you read what I post here TK.
Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery. This results in a negative wattage. We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.
If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit. It's that simple.
Regards,
Rosemary
In the Ainslie paper the value of the load inductance, the "custom" water heater element that looks perfectly standard to me and others.... the inductance is given as 2.23 microHenry. I think the lead inductance alone would be greater than this. The inductance of the "shunt" resistor stack, 4 ordinary wirewound "cement" resistors in parallel, is given as 110 nanoHenry, a remarkably low value for wirewound resistors of this type. My own stack of 4, outwardly identical resistors, measures around 2 microHenry on my cheapo inductance meter.... which measures the known inductances I have available quite accurately.
I'd like to see these inductance measurements repeated on the NERD device.
And no, it's not "as simple as that."
You are resorting to Mylow-Allen logic just as I said you would. The Tar Baby isn't a replication, you claim... because it's not overunity. And that's just ridiculous.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 02:16:35 PM
In the Ainslie paper the value of the load inductance, the "custom" water heater element that looks perfectly standard to me and others.... the inductance is given as 2.23 microHenry. I think the lead inductance alone would be greater than this. The inductance of the "shunt" resistor stack, 4 ordinary wirewound "cement" resistors in parallel, is given as 110 nanoHenry, a remarkably low value for wirewound resistors of this type. My own stack of 4, outwardly identical resistors, measures around 2 microHenry on my cheapo inductance meter.... which measures the known inductances I have available quite accurately.
I'd like to see these inductance measurements repeated on the NERD device.
And no, it's not "as simple as that."
You are resorting to Mylow-Allen logic just as I said you would. The Tar Baby isn't a replication, you claim... because it's not overunity. And that's just ridiculous.
TK. We do not claim over unity. What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP. This is using standard measurement protocols. We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery. Those numbers are unequivocal - carefully evaluated and widely accredited. It does not help anything to simply state that it is 'ridiculous'. We know this. Which is precisely why we have written that paper.
And then, with respect, there is only one way to evaluate this - if that evaluation is sincere - and that is to see if you can replicate that number. If you can't - then your replication has failed. We can and do. And we do it under the most stringent of applied protocols. Look at our 3rd test in that paper. Look at the current flow during the 'on' period of the duty cycle. That's our 'water to boil' test. Conservatively we were dissipating in excess of 120 watts. And the current discharge from the battery supply during the 'on' period of each duty cycle was based on a voltage that varied between 0.002 volts and zero. Not only that but our battery voltage actually increased over the test period.
So. Again. If you are going to replicate then you needs must find that negative value. And I suspect that you cannot tune to that value as your scope is not able to show the sum - which is our easy and quick guide to the required settings.
Regards
Rosie Pose
added
In the second NERD paper, page 2, Table 1, the value of the "shunt" or current viewing resistor is given.
Quote4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed
in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 110nH.
One hundred and ten nanoHenries.
In the video of the demo, the apparatus is shown and these resistors appear to be ordinary power resistors of the common "ceramic" wirewound type. However they are not 1 Watt but rather 10 Watt resistors. Yet the paper appears to be describing the same experiment and apparatus shown in the video.
Perhaps this is yet another typo.
Strange, though, that nobody has told me that my CVR is using 10 Watt resistors where I should have been using 1 Watt. Therefore, the preponderance of data suggests that the NERD device did in fact use the 10 Watt resistors in the paper, since they certainly did in the demo video.
I measured the inductance of one of my resistors and it measures 7 microHenry. Therefore, calculation says that the stack should have 1.75 microHenry inductance, and in fact the meter gives me a value something under 2 microHenry for the stack in place on the board. That would be 1750 nanoHenry or well over ten times the inductance reported for the same parts by the NERDs in the paper.
I've made a video illustrating these measurements, including "calibrating" the Pro'sKit meter against commercial loads of known (labelled) inductances.
It's uploading now and will be hidden in the usual hiding place.
Clearly.... there is a discrepancy somewhere. How did the NERDs get such a low inductance value, using the same kind of resistors as I am using?
Either their common-appearing wirewound ceramic power resistors are different in some hidden way, or they used different resistors altogether than what was shown in the video, or.... their reported inductance reading is wrong. Once again, a simple 5 minute video showing the same things that I show in the present video would answer the question once and for all. Use the Ainslie inductance meter to measure some marked, known inductances, then measure the questionable inductances. Simple and definitive. Here is where I remind the readers that no calibration data whatsoever has ever been shown by the Ainslie team, and in fact they have reported temperatures of 104 degrees for boiling water, without blinking an eye.
The resistors can be seen fairly well in the shots attached below.
TK:
Do the NERDs list the part numbers for the resistors somewhere? They may be counter-wound non-inductive resistors.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 16, 2012, 09:38:50 PM
TK:
Do the NERDs list the part numbers for the resistors somewhere? They may be counter-wound non-inductive resistors.
MileHigh
milehigh... on the prowl. *splat* *splat* time for you to scavenge for some restaurant napkins, hopefully unused.
.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PM
temperatures of 104 degrees for boiling water, without blinking an eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I
???
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxkjvKBPQjo
???
Quote from: MileHigh on April 16, 2012, 09:38:50 PM
TK:
Do the NERDs list the part numbers for the resistors somewhere? They may be counter-wound non-inductive resistors.
MileHigh
I have never seen a part number for these resistors in the NERD data. Of course, they also list the part number of their function generator incorrectly....
Certainly, had I used special counter-wound noninductive resistors, I would have said so and listed their part numbers. Wouldn't you? I might even have wired them in counterparallel pairs... like they clearly didn't.
Instead, they list them as indicated in their papers, one list of which is reproduced below. And in the video at least, they certainly don't look like anything but common power resistors, and they have plenty of wire length attached to them, much more than Tar Baby does.
Quote from: evolvingape on April 16, 2012, 10:00:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I)
???
The NERD load was of course not in any kind of pressure vessel. It was open to the atmosphere, and its container can be seen in the videos.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PM
In the second NERD paper, page 2, Table 1, the value of the "shunt" or current viewing resistor is given.
One hundred and ten nanoHenries. In the video of the demo, the apparatus is shown and these resistors appear to be ordinary power resistors of the common "ceramic" wirewound type. However they are not 1 Watt but rather 10 Watt resistors. Yet the paper appears to be describing the same experiment and apparatus shown in the video.
Not actually. There is a 10 Watt resistor that is disconnected. It was provided for in the event that we needed to test higher amperage flow. The resistors that we use to gauge our current were 4 x 1 Ohm in parallel. It's a shame that you could not show this with greater clarity. Or was that deliberate? One never knows TK - if you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts - or if you're responding to a rather desperate compulsion over which you have no control.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PMPerhaps this is yet another typo.
Or not? Take your pick. I'm reasonably certain that you're not so much concerned with the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it - as you are with the 'spin' as Goebbels would put it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PMStrange, though, that nobody has told me that my CVR is using 10 Watt resistors where I should have been using 1 Watt. Therefore, the preponderance of data suggests that the NERD device did in fact use the 10 Watt resistors in the paper, since they certainly did in the demo video.
Not actually TK. But far be it from me to prevent you inventing some bases for your objections. You can hardly promote them from the facts.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PMI measured the inductance of one of my resistors and it measures 7 microHenry. Therefore, calculation says that the stack should have 1.75 microHenry inductance, and in fact the meter gives me a value something under 2 microHenry for the stack in place on the board. That would be 1750 nanoHenry or well over ten times the inductance reported for the same parts by the NERDs in the paper.
Which is an interesting if utterly irrelevant 'real truth'. Based as it is on the assumption that we're using 4 x 10 Ohm resistors. Golly.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PMI've made a video illustrating these measurements, including "calibrating" the Pro'sKit meter against commercial loads of known (labelled) inductances. It's uploading now and will be hidden in the usual hiding place.
One hopes that it's presented with some level of good lighting and clear argument. That would be a welcome change.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PMClearly.... there is a discrepancy somewhere. How did the NERDs get such a low inductance value, using the same kind of resistors as I am using? Either their common-appearing wirewound ceramic power resistors are different in some hidden way, or they used different resistors altogether than what was shown in the video, or.... their reported inductance reading is wrong.
You've made a glaring omission of another relevant option. Here it is. 'Or you're misrepresenting the facts.'
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PMOnce again, a simple 5 minute video showing the same things that I show in the present video would answer the question once and for all. Use the Ainslie inductance meter to measure some marked, known inductances, then measure the questionable inductances. Simple and definitive. Here is where I remind the readers that no calibration data whatsoever has ever been shown by the Ainslie team, and in fact they have reported temperatures of 104 degrees for boiling water, without blinking an eye.
We most certainly DO make the calibration of the measuring instruments known. And the data rests on those calibrated instruments. I'm not sure of the sense you're using the term 'calibration'? And our temperature of the load resistor in the water showed 104 degrees. I never measured the water temperature. But since boiling was evident - then I think one could 'speculate' that it was in the region of 100 degrees. I would have thought?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 09:26:37 PMThe resistors can be seen fairly well in the shots attached below.
I think you need to refer to Poynty's work on this TK. His investigation was thorough. Your's not so much. And your selection of 'shot' not entirely representative of the 'real truth' - again, as MileHigh puts it.
Rosie Pose.
So TK. On the whole I'm inclined to think that your 'claimed' replication falls on it's knees at every point. I think you need to start again. And I'd recommend that you do this with some adequate measuring instruments. As fine and as antique as are your own - they do not meet the required measuring standards. And then you need to measure the appropriate 'thing'. So far we've seen no detailed analysis of any current flow at all. Perhaps you misunderstood our claim. Or perhaps you deliberately misrepresented our claim. I'm not sure. And nor do I much care. Bottom line is that your arguments are spurious and unsubstantiated. I would be delighted to see a genuine effort at replicating our claim and then seeing how this effects the draw down efficiency of the battery supply. That would be an interesting thread - INDEED.
Regards,
Rosemary
Once again, Rosemary seems to have trouble reading what's written. Compare her rant to what I actually posted. The resistors are as I described, I never mentioned the unconnected fifth resistor, I never said anything about a 10 ohm resistor at all.... and so on and so forth. She is doing what I specifically required her not to do -- distorting my data, not representing it correctly, and flat-out lying about it -- and hence I will persist in asking that she be blocked from posting here.
QuoteBased as it is on the assumption that we're using 4 x 10 Ohm resistors. Golly.
Do you see this lie? NOWHERE did I ever say or "assume" that they are using 10 ohm resistors.
Now... moving forward without the noise:
There is another glaring discrepancy in the first paper. Several places in the text describe tests using a negative-going gate drive pulse. Yet EVERY scope shot in that paper shows the gate drive pulse going positive. This figure particularly: the text describes the negative going gate drive pulse but the scope shot clearly shows a positive pulse of around +12 volts. And yet... no current is shown in the current viewing resistor trace.
ETA: the gate drive pulse is more correctly described as a "negative going pulse".... but it has a +12 volt offset of its baseline, so when the FG signal is "off" it is actually sending a +12 volt signal to the circuit, as if it were a positive pulse of short duty cycle. This should turn the Q1 mosfet on and cause it to conduct measureable current on the shunt signal. But it does not.... indicating, again, that this transistor may be defective in this shot.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 11:33:57 PM
So TK. On the whole I'm inclined to think that your 'claimed' replication falls on it's knees at every point. I think you need to start again. And I'd recommend that you do this with some adequate measuring instruments. As fine and as antique as are your own - they do not meet the required measuring standards. And then you need to measure the appropriate 'thing'. So far we've seen no detailed analysis of any current flow at all. Perhaps you misunderstood our claim. Or perhaps you deliberately misrepresented our claim. I'm not sure. And nor do I much care. Bottom line is that your arguments are spurious and unsubstantiated. I would be delighted to see a genuine effort at replicating our claim and then seeing how this effects the draw down efficiency of the battery supply. That would be an interesting thread - INDEED.
Regards,
Rosemary
Since you think this is not a replication.... why don't you go post your lies and distortions somewhere else.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 11:40:59 PM
Since you think this is not a replication.... why don't you go post your lies and distortions somewhere else.
TK - if you do not want my input it can only be because you want to comment - free from contradiction or challenge. In effect the TarBaby thread would then be as relevant as a 'gossip column' - and have no relevance to any facts at all - let alone to science. Frankly I think that would be a gross insult to the objects of this forum - a gross insult to the integrity of our readers - a gross insult to the intelligence of both our members and our readers - and a gross abuse of impartial and relevant assessment owed to good science practice and protocols. It would be a gross abuse of the interest owed to the public good - which requires impartiality. And it would be a gross abuse of the 'real truth' which is MileHigh's measure of excellence - albeit that it's somewhat tautological.
Therefore I put it to you that my input most certainly IS required. God knows what our readers would have deduced, thus far, had I not pointed out where you TARBABY circuit is NOT a replication. Because in defiance of the evidence - or the lack of it - (one or other or both options, as preferred) - you keep insisting that it is.
As ever,
Rosie Posee/Poser
Changed deviance to defiance - but both terms are appropriate. 8)
Some wirewound ceramic power resistors. All are 1 Ohm.
From the top:
1 Ohm, 10 Watt, as used in Tar Baby and the NERD demo video.
1 Ohm, 5 Watt.
1 Ohm, 1 Watt.
All have similar inductances of 5-7 microHenry.
The ruler is in inches. The holes in the NERD pegboard are 1 inch apart. The holes in TarBaby's circuit board are 0.1 inch apart.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 12:05:13 AM
Some wirewound ceramic power resistors. All are 1 Ohm.
From the top:
1 Ohm, 10 Watt, as used in Tar Baby and the NERD demo video.
1 Ohm, 5 Watt.
1 Ohm, 1 Watt.
All have similar inductances of 5-7 microHenry.
The ruler is in inches. The holes in the NERD pegboard are 1 inch apart. The holes in TarBaby's circuit board are 0.1 inch apart.
Poynty Point. If you're there. PLEASE put TK straight. I'm now seriously concerned that he's convinced himself that we're NOT using 1 Ohm resistors x 4 - in parallel. You're well able to show this. I can't. I can't even find the appropriate shot. It's too dark here and it's too late and my eyes are not equal to it.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 11:59:43 PM
TK - if you do not want my input it can only be because you want to comment - free from contradiction or challenge. In effect the TarBaby thread would then be as relevant as a 'gossip column' - and have no relevance to any facts at all - let alone to science. Frankly I think that would be a gross insult to the objects of this forum - a gross insult to the integrity of our readers - a gross insult to the intelligence of both our members and our readers - and a gross abuse of impartial and relevant assessment owed to good science practice and protocols. It would be a gross abuse of the interest owed to the public good - which requires impartiality. And it would be a gross abuse of the 'real truth' which is MileHigh's measure of excellence - albeit that it's somewhat tautological.
Therefore I put it to you that my input most certainly IS required. God knows what our readers would have deduced, thus far, had I not pointed out where you TARBABY circuit is NOT a replication. Because in defiance of the evidence - or the lack of it - (one or other or both options, as preferred) - you keep insisting that it is.
As ever,
Rosie Posee/Poser
Changed deviance to defiance - but both terms are appropriate. 8)
I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.
Just in case there was any doubt, the Clarke-Hess can and will report "negative wattage" if it detects it. The numbers in the left window can be several things, but when "PWR" or "Px10" is selected the window displays the real power figure determined by taking into account the phase relationship between the voltage and current signals detected. Here the instrument is just "floating", its input harness isn't connected to anything, and it's picking up stray EM in the DeepBunker. (Selecting the "freq" display in the left window gives me a 60 Hz indication.) Look !! Free Energy, Negative Wattage !!
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 12:08:12 AM
Poynty Point. If you're there. PLEASE put TK straight. I'm now seriously concerned that he's convinced himself that we're NOT using 1 Ohm resistors x 4 - in parallel. You're well able to show this. I can't. I can't even find the appropriate shot. It's too dark here and it's too late and my eyes are not equal to it.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
YET AGAIN you lie. Nowhere do I allege or assert anything other than that you are using ONE OHM, TEN WATT resistors in parallel in your demo and your work. However, your paper lists them as ONE WATT.
I can see the resistors in the pictures of your demo and I can read the labels, ffs. YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS INSANE DISTORTION OF WHAT I SAY AND SHOW.
My whole point is that the INDUCTANCE of these resistors is much higher than what your paper says that they are, and this discrepancy needs to be addressed.
Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.
Here is Yet Another refutation of a misrepresentation that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance.
I refer to her complaint about the amplitude of the oscillations on the Tar Baby BATTERY trace... which once again she has wilfully ignored and lied about. This video should make it perfectly clear that:
1) the battery trace oscillations are the same amplitude as NERD shows on scope traces
2) the amplitude of the battery trace oscillations is set by finely tuning the drive from the FG or the 555
3) the current through the system depends on the oscillation amplitude and is set by 2) above
4) the load heats up in this mode, and by an amount that depends on the current in 3).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUxzOyS-ck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUxzOyS-ck)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 12:11:04 AM
I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.
My dear TinselKoala,
Here's the thing. If you did not insult our work - then I would not be insulting yours. The original insult stems from a compulsive requirement to deny our claim based on any reason at all. When I challenge those bases - which are insulting to me - you are thereby insulted by that challenge. And that simply compounds those insults whereupon you lose your emotional control and then run to Stefan for appeals to 'intervene'.
I would hope that if you are to evaluate the evidence that is shown in our papers - that you would also evaluate the actual claim. Thus far you have not even addressed it. It relates to the negative voltage computed across the shunt resistors. And there most assuredly ARE 4 of them and they most assuredly are at 1 Ohm. And their inductance has been carefully evaluated with the fine and calibrated instrument shown in our video display. Therefore when you question those facts then you are inferring errors and those inferences are inappropriate. And when you don't refer to the current flow measured from those resistors - then you are omitting the only relevant aspect of our claim. And yet. Without all that INFERENCE you have no argument. So? What to do?
My options are to let you continue this thread - which will make it the most biased equivalent of a scientific 'gossip column' ever to disgrace these forums. Fraught as it is with the misrepresentations associated with any kind of 'gossip'. Or I must interject - timeously - with some kind of protest against that gossip. Knowing how much you resent any corrections - notwithstanding it's dire need - I also know that you're very likely to lose any kind of emotional control and that you'll 'run to Stefan' very much as my grandchildren 'run to their mother' - when they've got a complaint.
May I remind you. My own thread was comprehensively set ablaze by the contributions of MileHigh, fuzzytomcat, and picowatt and your good self. My post response lagged your combined input by a factor not less than 6 and possibly as high as 10. At no stage did I need to run to Harti. And - on the face of it - I'd say that I was somewhat outnumbered. But never outgunned. So. I put it to you that you can only comfortably operate when you are free to promote your irrelevant assessments of our claim. And that your objects are not to evaluate anything at all - but to put a spin on things in the thin hopes that no-one then believes our results or that they dismiss them - out of hand. And that authority depends on the welter of support that is on 'tap' from precisely these personalities. And I also suspect that every time that Harti bans me it's because you 4 together with that charming host who contribute to my hate blog - send him emails - in concert - to protest to my posting anything at all.
Well. One needs must ask why? Why are you so anxious to apply your 'spin'? And why must you do this without fear of 'contradiction'? Because the disciplines of science require that everything is always challenged. But under usual circumstances - both sides of the case needs must be evaluated. Are you trying to promote something that is less than scientific? Are you anxious that people don't realise your instruments aren't capable of performing the measurements that you claim? Are you hoping that all will overlook our actual claim while you pretend that it's entirely related to the evidence of an oscillation? Which on its own means absolutely nothing at all? Are you persisting with the use of the wrong element resistor to avoid showing the benefits of it's higher 'iron mass' and it's higher inductance value? Are you casting aspersions related to our shunt resistor measurements because you hope thereby to assure our readers that our measurements are fallacious? Are you avoiding mention of the DC coupling of our oscilloscope - so that you can promote 'doubts' related to the voltage measured across the gate? Are you avoiding any analysis of the energy dissipated in your calorimetric apparatus because you can only 'infer' a value and not actually measure it? And why do you keep referring to my 'mendacity' if it's not to cast a slur against my good character? And where have I 'lied'? as you repeatedly claim.
If you had any strength of conviction you would most certainly NOT need the rather vocal support of those who you keep appealing to - to rally. And you would be more than ready to 'take me on'. But you can't. Your argument is weak. In fact it's non-existent. And you cannot manage anything at all when the 'real truth' (MileHigh's term, not mine) is brought to the table. Therefore do you need to silence me. And to effect that you'd prefer it that I was 'banned'. That's hardly an acceptable solution. I need to defend our claim against a valid counterclaim. I have had no such evidence.
Regards,
Rosemary
added some emphasis. still not enough.
BIPS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.
I do not misrepresent your work. That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt. That's the first time TK. In what is it? 25 pages or thereby? That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested. And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero. That's an interesting visual reference. Why did you see need to pass it by? So quickly? And I see that you've finally managed to get the those oscillations consistent between each switching cycle. Well done. Your previous best efforts confused the repositioning of that watt meter from what you termed the 'output' and the 'input'. Both terms are entirely inapplicable. And then you compounded that 'confusion' with the erroneous display of a voltage applicable to that current display - at something in the region of 7 volts. Will you please explain this. And when and if you are showing us numbers on anything at all - then it would be as well tell let us know what those numbers represent. Else you're using implication and allegation. Not scientific TK. Not at all.
And WHEN are you going to give us some kind of assessment of the wattage dissipated as heat? You accused us of NOT doing this. We HAVE. But you still HAVE NOT. In fact what you claimed is that the heat that was dissipated at the load resistor resulted from the 'twiddling' as you put it - of the offset - prior to the oscillation. How could you determine this? And what is the earthly good of doing your battery depletion exercise without giving us those results? We still don't know what that rate of discharge is. We still don't know the battery capacity. Are you keeping this hidden? For some reason? Or do you rely on all that ambiguity? Where you can IMPLY anything you like and you leave it to everyone's exhausted patience and attention - to take a stab at the sums for themselves. And then you duck behind the need to do this by implying that if we were all sufficiently 'expert' then we'd see those well hidden values?
You're dancing the dance of the 7 veils. We need clarity. Kindly oblige us all.
Regards,
Rosie Posie
You do misrepresent my work in EVERY post you make, liar.
For example:
QuoteI do not misrepresent your work. That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt. That's the first time TK. In what is it? 25 pages or thereby? That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested. And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero.
You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work.
This is just ONE of the many prior times I have shown the voltage across the CVR. You lie about my work with every post you make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Here's another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z95kvoE7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z95kvoE7s)
And another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI)
Note the dates, you liar, and go and play somewhere else. You even made some misrepresentation comment about this last one, so I know you have seen it before. Therefore, you are a liar, because you know damn well that I have shown "shunt" or CVR traces before.
You constantly misrepresent my work. Yesterday you were claiming that I said something about a 10 ohm resistor, which I never did. Today you are claiming I haven't shown CVR traces, which I clearly have. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, Rosemary.
Now. Please go away and lie about somebody else's work for a change.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.
Some recent quotes from Ainslie:
QuoteTK. We do not claim over unity. What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP. This is using standard measurement protocols. We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery.
Quote. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not
Preserved for posterity, emphasis mine.
One simply must wonder though... if over unity is not being claimed..... why is the Overunity Prize being applied for?
And again the claim of COP _greater than_ infinity is made. Varying levels of efficiency, all exceeding infinity. COP numbers--- different numbers--- all over infinity. All different, all over infinity. There it is in black and white, in her own words as posted on this very thread. She's not claiming over unity... just several different efficiencies, all different, all exceeding infinity.
And again... several more claims are made without any references or support. If high heat can be achieved with the single mosfet, positive gate drive _and 72 volts_.... why then was only 48 volts used for the demo of this mode? One battery was pulled out of the stack without explanation, and this has never yet been explained.... by anyone except me.
This is getting really interesting. TK. My goodness. You DID reference those shunt voltages? And I missed them? Somehow? I'm getting old. Clearly. Delighted that you set me straight because if you didn't I wouldn't have noticed them. God forbid. Luckily I've made up for lost time and can now count myself in as one of the 69 viewers that it has well deserved. Here are some questions against the first video referenced. Hopefully more of our readers will take the trouble to look at this - CLOSELY.
Your first video referenced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
. Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
. It's really easily managed. Yet you didn't see some need for this?
. Or is that display there? In the right hand corner at the top?
. Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
. But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
. ALWAYS
. And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
. When this would have got to the heart of the matter
. so easily?
. And that trick with the ground?
. And all that INSINUATION?
. Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
. Therefore the circuit is only finally open
. Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
. When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
. Shouldn't you have explained this?
. Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
. I'd have thought?
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'? Surely not? I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics. :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit. It's not your style. I see that now.
Regards TK
Rosie Pose
By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine. Is that a warehouse? Full of equipment? Did you officially register your loan of it? For that little video of yours? I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 06:37:30 PM
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.
Not at all TK. I have some background work to do.
. I need assurance that the thread that I report on will not be 'flamed'.
. Again
. Or locked
. Before the work is finished
. Because that WILL jeopardise the technology
. And our hard work
. And the good of public interest
. In relation to this claim
. And I need assurance that the applied protocols will then constitute unequivocal proof
. Which will take some negotiating
. With all parties.
And I need to establish a series of tests as representative of that proof
And then I need to establish that proof as it relates to our thesis
Then - when that is managed
. I need to establish the setting for those tests
. And the methods required to bring this to the public arena
. That nothing can be 'fudged' or 'falsely represented'
. Because I know your tendency to 'imply and infer' such
. And I want to be sure that you have no grounds for complaint.
Then - there would be no point in testing this
. If I do not closely follow your work
. Lest you negate the value of the tests
. On spurious bases.
. Which means that I have to study your arguments
. Even before I present my own
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
And guys, while I'm at it and FOR THE RECORD.
We use 4 x 1 Ohm 10 Watt resistors.
We have a 10 Ohm resistor that is disconnected to the circuit
And I NEVER reference COP>INFINITY. And not only is COP infinity yet to be explained but it needs must have some qualification. As the levels of that COP are VARIABLE. Semantically confusing - but nonetheless - required.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
added
Actually we do not argue COP Infinity ever. What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself. The apparent COP Infinity is simply the result of our standard measurement protocols that only allow for one energy supply. Therefore the term COP Infinity is simply an artifact related to one of the many anomalies that we're exposing in this circuit.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself.
Rosemary,
What material in the circuit is used up in the process? All, one specific?
Guys,
The following is part of a background 'on going' complaint against me and my work - written to Stefan - with the general appeal that I be banned and thereby prevented from defending our work against any spurious arguments presented by any members at all. Since I am heartily sick and tired of dealing with these background 'whispers' I am making that complaint public knowledge. And I argue it accordingly.
The complainant states...
Quote from: complainant on April 17, 2012, 01:05:07 PM
Stefan,I would agree totally now with Rosemary's continued misrepresentation of any facts by anyone presented is constantly challenged with uneducated nonsense babble from Rosemary.
My education is well equal to the task in hand. And my language skills are considerably better than the 'babble' here referred to.
Quote from: complainant on April 17, 2012, 01:05:07 PMThe continued denial of Rosemary in her testing and evaluation data being incorrect from data collection to the interpretation of that data.
The evaluation of that data is NOT incorrect. And since the evaluation is related to the 'interpretation' then that qualification is redundant.
Quote from: complainant on April 17, 2012, 01:05:07 PMThe simple question of "which" schematic was or was not used and presented in Rosemary's BLOG, PWESwiki and paper #2 to this day has not been answered.
The correct schematic applied to our tests has most CERTAINLY been answered. If I knew how to access my locked thread I'd prove it.
continued/...
Quote from: complainant on April 17, 2012, 01:05:07 PMAll I see from Rosemary is lurking around attacking posters with anything unrelated to the conversation like a addict looking for a fix to get their rush.
I am indeed 'addicted' to defending our technology from 'attack'. It's URGENTLY required lest spurious objections mitigate against the evidence and our public interest and public good thereby get jeopardised.
Quote from: complainant on April 17, 2012, 01:05:07 PMRosemary still doesn't understand the thread she got locked down was from her own fault by giving incorrect information, unable to justify the results of the information she did provided, unable to answer all the questions directed towards the information she provided, new required additional testing she was directed to accomplish and didn't and to stop the redundant repeating of her incorrect test results.
This was NOT why the thread was locked. It was locked because Stefan was innundated with claims from those such as this poster and TK flaming that thread to prevent any kind of decent progress of a discussion related to the required test parameters.
Quote from: complainant on April 17, 2012, 01:05:07 PMThe requirement for further testing for a new thread is nonsense without a "firm" timeline, although everyone knows she isn't going to do any anyway as it would disrupt her prized unproven THESIS that this is all about, nothing really about a device or reproduction.
The ONLY thing that is delaying this is a firm undertaking by Stefan NOT to lock those threads before the completion of proposed series of tests which cover up to 7 different 'draw down' tests required against not less than 3 circuits to be tested.
Quote from: complainant on April 17, 2012, 01:05:07 PMRosemary is a ignorant person that lives a life of false statements and bloviating her accomplishments for COP>INFINITY to which no one agrees with but herself.
In the first place I DO NOT advertise any accomplishments - let alone towards claims of COP>INFINITY - which we argue is nonsense. And IF I am ignorant it does not, in any way, meet the level of ignorance related to this communication or to the communicator - who is STILL unaware of the extent of our claim. And there are many, many, many people who entirely agree that our measurements indicate COP Infinity. At it's least this question needs to be addressed as there is no explanation for this within the standard model. Therefore would it progress the interests of science, and the implications of that measurement would indicate that there is some real benefit to us all - to apply this technology. As it exposes the evidence of an alternate energy supply source that has not, heretofore, been fully exploited. And I do not bloviate. I am merely articulate. Which is something that this poor poster IS NOT.
There you have it. This and variations of this communication continually FLOOD Stefan. Is it any wonder that he simply locks my threads - or bans me? To date I've resisted answering them. Here's an exception.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2012, 10:54:47 PM
Rosemary,
What material in the circuit is used up in the process? All, one specific?
We propose that no atomic material comes into the equation. We're not transmuting elements - as does Rossi. What we're proposing is a 'binding' field which may explain the Casimir Effect. This is extraneous to the atom and binds structures into molecules or into coalesced matter. This is proposed to be the 'thing' that transfers its energies through space. But it's 'hidden' in the field - a material that structures our magnetic fields. It's apparent 'out' of the field structure and manifests as 'heat'. In effect we're proposing that magnetic fields are structured by magnetic dipoles that exceed light speed and respond to an immutable principle of charge balance. But I'm not sure I can elaborate on this on this thread. Read my blog.
Regards
Rosie
Rosemary:
QuoteThis is extraneous to the atom and binds structures into molecules or into coalesced matter.
They are called chemical bonds, not zipons.
QuoteA chemical bond is an attraction between atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) that allows the formation of chemical substances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance) that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electromagnetic force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force) attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrons) and nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus), or as the result of a dipole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole) attraction. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" such as covalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond) or ionic bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bond) and "weak bonds" such as dipoleâ€"dipole interactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force#Dipole-dipole_interactions), the London dispersion force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force) and hydrogen bonding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bonding).
Since opposite charges attract via a simple electromagnetic force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force), the negatively charged electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrons) that are orbiting the nucleus and the positively charged protons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protons) in the nucleus attract each other. Also, an electron positioned between two nuclei will be attracted to both of them. Thus, the most stable configuration of nuclei and electrons is one in which the electrons spend more time between nuclei, than anywhere else in space. These electrons cause the nuclei to be attracted to each other, and this attraction results in the bond. However, this assembly cannot collapse to a size dictated by the volumes of these individual particles. Due to the matter wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave) nature of electrons and their smaller mass, they occupy a much larger amount of volume compared with the nuclei, and this volume occupied by the electrons keeps the atomic nuclei relatively far apart, as compared with the size of the nuclei themselves.
In general, strong chemical bonding is associated with the sharing or transfer of electrons between the participating atoms. The atoms in molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule), crystals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal), metals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal) and diatomic gasesâ€" indeed most of the physical environment around usâ€" are held together by chemical bonds, which dictate the structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure) and the bulk properties of matter.
And there is no "fire" on the surface of the sun.
You have a long long long way to go baby.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 17, 2012, 11:48:23 PM
Rosemary:
They are called chemical bonds, not zipons.
And there is no "fire" on the surface of the sun.
You have a long long long way to go baby.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh,
We most certainly concur that it's a chemical bonding. But chemical bonding does not explain the Casimir effect. And there is most certainly a fire on the surface of the sun. It's a 'nuclear fire'. If it weren't we wouldn't get the benefit of all those photons. But yes, I've got a long way to go. And that's the road needed to educate the likes of you MileHigh.
Rosie Pose
Some recent quotes from Ainslie:
Two days ago she said
QuoteTK. We do not claim over unity. What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP. This is using standard measurement protocols. We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery.
If you do not claim overunity you have no business applying for an OVERUNITY PRIZE. And if you are claiming that useful work can be done without depleting a power source, you are in fact claiming overunity.
In other words, you are lying again.
Quote. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not
>
And now she says,
Quote
And I NEVER reference COP>INFINITY.
Actually when you say your levels measured to exceed infinity... that is EXACTLY what you reference, liar.
AND
Quote
Actually we do not argue COP Infinity ever.
Actually... you do, over and over, as in your own words above.
Rosemary, you are a liar. You contradict yourself over and over, you constantly misrepresent and lie about my work, and this thread IS NO PLACE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS IGNORANT THEORIES.
Hello TK,
Nice to see you around. I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to address this post. Then I'll move on to the other three video references. Because I KNOW how badly you want to keep your thread topical.
Rosie Pose
Your first video referenced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
. Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
. It's really easily managed. Yet you didn't see some need for this?
. Or is that display there? In the right hand corner at the top?
. Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
. But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
. ALWAYS
. And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
. When this would have got to the heart of the matter
. so easily?
. And that trick with the ground?
. And all that INSINUATION?
. Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
. Therefore the circuit is only finally open
. Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
. When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
. Shouldn't you have explained this?
. Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
. I'd have thought?
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'? Surely not? I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics. :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit. It's not your style. I see that now.
Regards TK
Rosie Pose
By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine. Is that a warehouse? Full of equipment? Did you officially register your loan of it? For that little video of yours? I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.
ADDED
I see I'm wrong. He was here - and .... GONE again. I've just checked through 'who's on line'? I can't think why he won't answer this post. :o
Rosie Pose
My dear TinselKoala
I can't answer this post of yours without also explaining the thesis. And in terms of this 'preclusion'...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 12:02:09 AMRosemary, you are a liar. You contradict yourself over and over, you constantly misrepresent and lie about my work, and this thread IS NO PLACE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS IGNORANT THEORIES.Some recent quotes from Ainslie:
Then I can't answer any of your points here...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 12:02:09 AMTwo days ago she said...If you do not claim overunity you have no business applying for an OVERUNITY PRIZE. And if you are claiming that useful work can be done without depleting a power source, you are in fact claiming overunity.
In other words, you are lying again.
And now she says,
Actually when you say your levels measured to exceed infinity... that is EXACTLY what you reference, liar.
Be reasonable. :( :o 8)
Rosie Posie
Rosemary:
QuoteAnd WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
That would be a first step.
What the NERDs failed to do was investigate that "COP infinity" negative "vv" value any further. You collectively hit an intellectual wall and could go no further.
If your DSO had the bandwidth, you could have looked at the individual oscillation waveforms at 2 MHz. You could have looked at the battery "voltage" waveform and the current sensing resistor waveform and deduced precisely when and how much power was going to the load and precisely when and how much power was being returned from the load. Then you could have examined these numbers and analyzed the situation to see if they really made sense.
For example, when you were measuring a phase when power was being returned to the battery, what was the battery voltage at that time? Was it artificially high? If yes, was that the true battery voltage? These are issues that you never even explored.
You never actually tried to understand what was going on over an individual cycle and to explain exactly how you got a negative number.
You never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.
As TK said, you all got excited about seeing a negative number in a little box.
You may be going through yet another "smug phase" but we all know how this story is really going to end.
MileHigh
TK,
I have been looking at all available waveforms and I am a bit puzzled regarding the large AC excursions at the BAT+. Particularly in your Tek video where you scoped right at the battery. I believe that determination of the SLA/gel cell battery AC impedance is in order. I would have thought that the battery would be a bit more capacitive in nature than is apparently indicated by the scope shots. Possibly the interconnect inductance is higher than expected, or the batteries themselves do indeed have a high AC impedance.
You might consider doing a few tests to measure the battery's AC impedance.
As a preliminary test, with your circuit osc'ing scope each battery connector in the series string of batteries and note how much AC you see at each battery interconnect, particularly at the first battery terminal above ground.
As a second test, using an unconnected, isolated battery, you might try cap coupling your FG output to a battery and measure the FG open-circuit versus in-circuit voltage at 1.5MHz. I would use an electrolytic paralleled by a ceramic for the cap coupling. You can verify that the reactance of your paralleled cap is sufficiently low for the test by placing the cap directly across the FG output (set to 10VPP and 1.5MHz) and measuring across the cap with your scope, which should indicate that the cap is pretty much a short circuit at 1.5MHz by seeing very little signal on the scope.
To prevent any surges going into the FG, I would charge the cap before attaching the FG or short the FG terminals when the cap is first connected to the battery. Once the cap is charged there will be no DC for the FG to deal with.
Place the FG and scope ground at BAT-. Measure/set the FG open circuit VPP prior to attaching the FG to BAT+ and then measure the VPP at BAT+ with FG connected (thru the DC blocking cap above). Assuming the FG is 50R, you can calculate AC impedance from the observed drop. FG amplitude can be anything convenient, say 10VPP to start with. If you need more drop, or for more convenience, add an additional series resistor in the FG output path. You can then alternately probe both sides of the added resistor to get your Vdrop. Keep all leads as short as possible to reduce lead inductance.
Of course, all of the above is just a suggestion...
PW
Pico
Batteries are not real real good at discharging or charging quickly like caps. A 1.5mhz, the batt may not be taking or giving a charge almost at all. that would be interesting to find out.
And the connections at the batteries I believe are trying to replicate Roses wiring ways to get as close to a replication as possible. No stone unturned. ;)
I know what your talking about. Your talking about good wiring habits. I think the same way for a lot of things. But sometimes we just bust out the clip leads and goto town for a quickie. ;D
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 12:47:49 AM
What the NERDs failed to do was investigate that "COP infinity" negative "vv" value any further. You collectively hit an intellectual wall and could go no further.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have investigated more thoroughly. From detailed waveform analysis - to full on power integration - as parts of the cycle - for the full cycle - and for multiple cycles. We've tested with a function generator and with a 555 switch. We've applied it with a continual negative impulse at the gate - and we've tested it on multiple loads.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 12:47:49 AMIf your DSO had the bandwidth, you could have looked at the individual oscillation waveforms at 2 MHz. You could have looked at the battery "voltage" waveform and the current sensing resistor waveform and deduced precisely when and how much power was going to the load and precisely when and how much power was being returned from the load. Then you could have examined these numbers and analyzed the situation to see if they really made sense.
EXACTLY what we do in full on power integration.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 12:47:49 AMFor example, when you were measuring a phase when power was being returned to the battery, what was the battery voltage at that time? Was it artificially high? If yes, was that the true battery voltage? These are issues that you never even explored.
The waveform as it relates to the batteries' chemical interaction have been omitted. And it most certainly IS required. But that would need to be done by chemists. We do not know if the battery is ever recharged. What we DO know is that the advantage to that system is irrespective of the benefit to the supply source. It merits investigation simply by itself. Again. It makes no earthly sense to be left with a negative wattage. That needs explaining - no matter what is happening at the battery. Surely you see this?
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 12:47:49 AMYou never actually tried to understand what was going on over an individual cycle and to explain exactly how you got a negative number.
This is NOT true. Read our 2nd paper.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 12:47:49 AMYou never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.
There is only one way to measure power delivered and power dissipated. Well established measurement protocols. They can't be improved on.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 12:47:49 AMAs TK said, you all got excited about seeing a negative number in a little box.
Both you and he would need to say this. It suits your argument. But it is not the 'real truth' as you put it MileHigh.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 12:47:49 AMYou may be going through yet another "smug phase" but we all know how this story is really going to end.
What SMUG phase? I most certainly am NOT SMUG. About what? For God's sake? And IF this does not merit a full investigation which is ALL that we've motivated in our paper - then I will, indeed, be deeply disappointed.
Regards,
Rosie Posie
Ya know, this makes me think. You know how a battery, if it sits at 12.7v and we put a 10 second 10a charge to it, and what ever voltage is read at the battery when the charge is removed, we will see it go down. Even if you hit it real quick, you get something similar.
So im wondering if the battery can act as a capacitor above certain freq and no actual battery action really happens at all, charge or discharge. So that may be what you are seeing in the scope shots, is the battery just playing capacitor above certain frequencies.
So in my first statement, the cap may be taking on some of the charge from the charger and is stored in this capacitance. And when the charger is taken away, the capacitance charge , being higher than the battery(chemical charge side) discharges into a chemical charge, the battery. Lol just reread it and laughed. But oh well. ;) One of those just before I fall over sleeping posts. ;)
Just thinkin.
Mags
@PW:
Thank you for your suggestions. Wouldn't it be more interesting, though, if RA did those things FIRST? I mean, the way this usually works is that the CLAIMANT responds to suggestions for tests from those who are trying to reproduce the effects of the claimant. In this case.... I have already reproduced everything that the claimant has actually shown, without having any cooperation from the claimant, and in fact I've been working around the many obstacles put in place by the claimant.
Now we have the claimant ranting and raving, demanding that I do things or answer questions.... when she herself has not addressed any of the important issues. Note the pattern in the claimant's posts: I make a point of difficulty or inconsistency in the NERD reports. I even illustrate the point with a video demonstration. The claimant returns with post after post of irrelevancies, misrepresentations and outright lies about what I show and covers up the issues completely, until pages go by and the issue of importance isn't addressed. But I don't forget about them. Here are just a few which have been buried by this technique of the claimant.
1. It is not possible to get a simple 555 timer circuit powered by the main batteries to produce a negative-going gate drive impulse--- which must be more negative than the most negative pole of the main batteries. Some solution -- like the one I have used -- must be found for this problem.
2. The impedance values given for the NERD current viewing resistors are implausible and need to be repeated in a way that is unequivocal--- like I have shown. Measure some known inductances and show that the measurement agrees with their known values, then measure the shunt in the same manner.
3. A claim of COP > INFINITY has indeed been made several times by the claimant in her own words, as I have shown REPEATEDLY. Does she wish now to withdraw that claim? I think that would be a good idea. Further, this claim is also equivalent to a claim of "overunity" performance. Yet she stated yesterday that she DOES NOT CLAIM OVERUNITY.
Fine.... I will expect to see a formal withdrawal of the Prize Claim, as well as some effort on her part to clear up all the statements on the internet where she DOES claim COP>INFINITY and overunity performance. But then I expect to win the lottery someday too.
4. PW's queries about the possibly blown mosfet are important and have not been answered adequately by the claimant. The correct way to answer PW's points is to GET A KNOWN GOOD MOSFET, demonstrate that it is good, and then make the waveforms shown on the scope again. This would take 5 minutes to do, and is something like what I do all the time. Many times, someone has asked me a legitimate question or made a suggestion for a test or variation, and by the next day, sometimes within the hour, I make a video showing the results. The claimant in this case has produced NO NEW DATA OR TESTING since over a year ago, yet there are many questions that could be cleared up in moments, with a cooperative attitude and a video camera.
5. The claimant constantly misrepresents and mischaracterises my work, lying about it even. Examples of this are on every page of this thread where the claimant has posted, especially in the last few days. One of my videos of the CVR trace was even commented on by the claimant when it was first posted.... and yet now the claimant, lying once again, pretends that they are new. Most of the "questions" from the claimant have to do with her own misrepresentations and lies about my work... witness all the accusations and ranting about "10 ohm" resistors yesterday when I said no such thing in the first place.
And of course there are many more similar points.
Once again, I say that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in the same testing. This is my claim: If the NERD device is "overunity" then TB is too, by the same measurement methods and analyses. Is this a claim of "debunking" or "replication"? Tar Baby has already done everything that the claimant's device has ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN to do. It is time for the CLAIMANT to stop obfuscating, and start demonstrating. Let the claimant show that her device does something differently from Tar Baby.
If the claimant wishes to complain about what I'm doing with Tar Baby, the correct AND ONLY way to do it will be to show the NERD device doing something different than Tar Baby when tested in the same way. I have illustrated MANY possible tests and subtests.
One that I would like to see right now is a confirmation of the 110 nanoHenry value cited for the inductance of the claimant's 4 ordinary 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistors in parallel.... because my resistors of the exact same type measure 7 microHenry each. This is done on a meter that measures a known 1 microHenry inductor as 1 microHenry and a 1.5 millHenry inductor as 1.5 millHenry. In other words, the meter I used is accurate in the range used and with the measurement method I used, and I demonstrate this for anyone to see, try for themselves and refute if they find something different. The claimant claims that the shunt inductance of NERD is 110 nanoHenry. I question this because of readings I have made and I've asked the simple thing: for the readings to be repeated in an unequivocal manner. What is the response from the claimant? Post after post talking about some "10 ohm" resistors in her imagination and not a single responsive and substantive response. "Here's the part number of the special non-inductive resistors that look just like ordinary power resistors, and here's a video showing us measuring them on our fancy inductance meter, and here's the meter measuring a known inductance so you'll know the meter is being used correctly." That is the kind of response that a cooperative claimant would make, and that is the kind of response that I myself have made, many times. Checkable references, real data, repeatable tests, full disclosure.... these things are not forthcoming from the present claimant.
A cooperative claimant would refute me with FACTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS in an afternoon. But all the present claimant can do is... claim. And this is just a single example of a subtest where Tar Baby and NERD could be compared.... if there was something that Tar Baby could be compared to.
I, as a builder and tester of claims, do not have to address random insinuating questions that the claimant tosses at me, I don't have to explain where I get my test equipment and I don't have to conform to anyone's schedule ... because I am not making extraordinary claims and I'm not applying for any monetary prizes based on my claims. IF I WERE.... then I would and SHOULD be expected to answer these kinds of questions and give these explanations. But of course the present claimant will not cooperate and instead wants to obstruct. Once again, my "claim" is that Tar Baby performs just like the claimant's device in all significant respects. If the claimant wishes to demonstrate otherwise.... that is up to the claimant, and the longer she delays the worse things look for her claims. I have demonstrated that Tar Baby does do everything that the claimant's device has actually been shown to do. It is LONG PAST time for the claimant to show that her device does something that Tar Baby cannot: heat a load without discharging its batteries.
At the beginning of this thread I stated what it was about and what my goals and purposes are. When the thread was reopened I stated the conditions under which the claimant was welcome to post here. Among those conditions was that no claims be made WITHOUT EVIDENCE, references, data, checkable and external. Another condition was that the claimant stop misrepresenting and lying about my work. Yet the claimant has chosen not to respect these simple and reasonable conditions and has continued with her campaign of insult, non-cooperation and active hindrance of the work going on here, while at the same time making NO progress at all towards her own testing. It would take three days to determine unequivocally whether her batteries are discharging.... in other words it could have been done several times already, had she only stopped talking and started working.
This is not the place to discuss the "theories" of RA. This is a thread about testing the Tar Baby and showing that it performs like the NERD device or doesn't. I've shown many tests and variations and I've shown that there are discrepancies in the data from the NERD device that I am comparing to. The correct way to deal with these is for the claimant to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong, if I am, by showing comparable tests and checkable, repeatable data. More talk, more claims without evidence, and especially reference to any "theory" or conjecture, is out of place and isn't helpful.
Let's see a simple photograph of one of the NERD resistors hooked up to an inductance meter reading 500 nanoHenry or less as the value, and another with the meter reading a known inductance correctly. For example. I've shown a reliable reading of 7 microHenry on an apparently identical resistor, which calls into question yet another bit of data reported by the NERDs. This issue could be cleared up in moments.... and would be.... if there only were a cooperative and knowledgeable and skilful claimant involved. Instead the claimant bloviates for pages, insults my equipment, makes innuendoes and aspersions, and NEVER addresses the issue other than to resort to an appeal to authority and more claims without evidence.
@MileHigh:
Of course you can see that what she says in her reply to you is mostly garbage. Especially the part about "integration". The "integrations" that she has shown on the scope traces are incorrectly performed (not incorporating shunt value, not integrating the correct waveforms, not integrating over a suitable sampling interval, not accounting for probe skew, etc) and her values come from the data dumps to spreadsheet analysis, NOT live integration of proper waveforms to determine energy flows. Anyone who is familiar with the use of oscilloscopes for power measurements can confirm this, and the information that supports me is easily available from the scope manufacturers and others.
The "power dissipation" claims she makes are also false. There is indeed more than one way to measure power dissipated, she does not use "standard protocols" at all, and so on. But of course you know this too.
Her ignorance regarding the use of the Clarke-Hess sampling integrating power meter -- an "industry standard" instrument being used exactly as designed -- is a perfect example. Instead of focusing on a real limitation (the manufacturer's cited bandwidth of accuracy) she gets muddled about how it's connected in the circuit...even though it is connected exactly as an oscilloscope (with its own CVR) is connected. In other words, she again betrays her monumental wilful ignorance of proper standard power testing protocols, while at the same time proclaiming that she knows more than anyone else about it.
I can easily accept that the readings of the CH may be off by a few percent due to the bandwidth accuracy limitation. However, it is being used correctly and it's monitoring the same circuit "input" point as the NERDs monitor, and in addition it also monitors something they did not: the power _delivered_ to the load. Stated another way, it is monitoring the power drawn by the load, or yet another way.... the power that must be dissipated in the load. The CH's accuracy in this regard has been rigorously tested USING A CALORIMETER-- a real one -- and the CH's readings of power dissipation by the load agree with calorimetric measurements. Call the bandwidth into question: OK, that is a real issue, an empirical one, and can be addressed by calibration against standards. Call the hookups and the basic methodology and basic accuracy into question -- that's just ignorant whining and is without merit.
Imagine, if you will, a simple circuit. One twelve volt battery, a black box (containing a 555 timer and some other cheap parts) and a pair of output wires. Call this a FG if you like, since it's set to produce a square wave of period one second, going positive and negative five volts, just like a real FG powering some LEDs in the demo I showed concerning FG polarity. (This could even be arranged by a simple relay in the black box and the Secret of DPDT for polarity reversal.)
Now, take your isolated-ground oscilloscope and hook one channel to the battery and the other channel to a "shunt" in one of the output wires going to your LED antiparallel pair. Turn the system on. What do you see?
You see a battery voltage that is always positive, and you see a current trace that goes positive (forward) for half a second, then negative (backward) for half a second. Multiply these two traces together and what do you get? An instantaneous power curve, of course... don't you? Integrate that curve... and what do you get? Does the result of the integration indicate the power being used (dissipated) to light up the LEDs ?
I leave the answer, and the consideration of the implications, to the reader.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AM
1. It is not possible to get a simple 555 timer circuit powered by the main batteries to produce a negative-going gate drive impulse--- which must be more negative than the most negative pole of the main batteries. Some solution -- like the one I have used -- must be found for this problem.
Then use a separate battery. And monitor it's voltage to determine the output. That's simple.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AM2. The impedance values given for the NERD current viewing resistors are implausible and need to be repeated in a way that is unequivocal--- like I have shown. Measure some known inductances and show that the measurement agrees with their known values, then measure the shunt in the same manner.
Our impedance was determined by measurements made by 'EXPERTS' on excellent and calibrated machines from well respected laboratories. And whether their inductance values are greater or less - will not make an ounce of difference to the negative value of the current flow determined from the voltage across those shunts. And it is that negative current flow that predominates each cycle that is of interest and is the entire substance of the claim.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AM3. A claim of COP > INFINITY has indeed been made several times by the claimant in her own words, as I have shown REPEATEDLY. Does she wish now to withdraw that claim? I think that would be a good idea. Further, this claim is also equivalent to a claim of "overunity" performance. Yet she stated yesterday that she DOES NOT CLAIM OVERUNITY.
We do NOT claim COP> INFINITY. We MEASURE COP Infinity. That's NOT the same thing. We argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source. Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY. What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source. THEN - there would be no further EVIDENCE of COP Infinity. But then we do not know how to measure the energy. Any more. Because those new protocols need to be forged by EXPERTS TK. Not by you. As it is you can't even get your head around this distinction. And to this end we have written that paper.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMFine.... I will expect to see a formal withdrawal of the Prize Claim, as well as some effort on her part to clear up all the statements on the internet where she DOES claim COP>INFINITY and overunity performance. But then I expect to win the lottery someday too.
IF there is an alternate supply of energy that has, heretofore, NOT been factored into power analysis - then the EVIDENCE would be that we would have exceeded unity. The prize is offered for over unity. Therefore we would most certainly qualify for any over unity prize. Whether or not we demand that prize is immaterial. It's our qualification for that prize that's at issue. Because when the 'new energy source' is accepted - then too the there will be no further resistance to the possibility. It will become widely accepted and widely applied. And THAT's our real prize. Nothing else.
/...
continued/...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AM4. PW's queries about the possibly blown mosfet are important and have not been answered adequately by the claimant. The correct way to answer PW's points is to GET A KNOWN GOOD MOSFET, demonstrate that it is good, and then make the waveforms shown on the scope again. This would take 5 minutes to do, and is something like what I do all the time. Many times, someone has asked me a legitimate question or made a suggestion for a test or variation, and by the next day, sometimes within the hour, I make a video showing the results. The claimant in this case has produced NO NEW DATA OR TESTING since over a year ago, yet there are many questions that could be cleared up in moments, with a cooperative attitude and a video camera.
Nor will I. Any further tests done on our claim will be under conditions that make our arguments unassailable. And that will involve considerably more tests than those that you DEMAND that we perform for you. You seem to forget that I've already advanced evidence on prior tests - that were 'replicated' and then 'denied' by various members. I am not about to HOP SKIP and JUMP again - until we have some kind of contractual undertaking to not have our thread either 'flamed' or 'locked'. And that the evidence presented is then full and satisfactory proof of the claim. Which requires some homework. And when this is completed - then we will bore you all to tears with copious evidence.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AM5. The claimant constantly misrepresents and mischaracterises my work, lying about it even. Examples of this are on every page of this thread where the claimant has posted, especially in the last few days. One of my videos of the CVR trace was even commented on by the claimant when it was first posted.... and yet now the claimant, lying once again, pretends that they are new. Most of the "questions" from the claimant have to do with her own misrepresentations and lies about my work... witness all the accusations and ranting about "10 ohm" resistors yesterday when I said no such thing in the first place.
You CLAIM that we have misrepresented the inductance and the wattage on our resistors. I DENY THIS. You make a song and dance about it because you believe you can thereby FAULT our claim. It is IRRELEVANT to our claim. What you're trying to do here TK is capitalise on any possible error without actually first establishing IF it is an extant error - and IF that error would, in any event make any material difference to our claim. In other words you are using 'cheap shots' to underscore your points and to cast aspersions on our competence and on our claim. Let me remind you. Whether the resistance of those shunts are established at 0.25 Ohms or even 6 Ohms - or any value at all - the product of that NEGATIVE VOLTAGE MEASURED ACROSS THOSE RESISTORS WOULD STILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. That is the point of our claim. Again. Has this sunk in yet?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMOnce again, I say that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in the same testing.
IF your circuit is able to measure a negative voltage across your shunt - then you are INDEED in the right territory. And THEN we would acknowledge that you MAY have replicated our claim. Until then you MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT. You have only ATTEMPTED THIS. And failed.
/...
continued/...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMThis is my claim: If the NERD device is "overunity" then TB is too, by the same measurement methods and analyses.
WHAT measurements? WHAT analysis? Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis. And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMIs this a claim of "debunking" or "replication"? Tar Baby has already done everything that the claimant's device has ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN to do. It is time for the CLAIMANT to stop obfuscating, and start demonstrating. Let the claimant show that her device does something differently from Tar Baby.
Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests. I have been bitten. I know how you operate. Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMIf the claimant wishes to complain about what I'm doing with Tar Baby, the correct AND ONLY way to do it will be to show the NERD device doing something different than Tar Baby when tested in the same way. I have illustrated MANY possible tests and subtests.
So you keep telling us. The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity. I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS. Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk. Unfortunately.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMOne that I would like to see right now is a confirmation of the 110 nanoHenry value cited for the inductance of the claimant's 4 ordinary 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistors in parallel.... because my resistors of the exact same type measure 7 microHenry each. This is done on a meter that measures a known 1 microHenry inductor as 1 microHenry and a 1.5 millHenry inductor as 1.5 millHenry. In other words, the meter I used is accurate in the range used and with the measurement method I used, and I demonstrate this for anyone to see, try for themselves and refute if they find something different. The claimant claims that the shunt inductance of NERD is 110 nanoHenry. I question this because of readings I have made and I've asked the simple thing: for the readings to be repeated in an unequivocal manner. What is the response from the claimant? Post after post talking about some "10 ohm" resistors in her imagination and not a single responsive and substantive response. "Here's the part number of the special non-inductive resistors that look just like ordinary power resistors, and here's a video showing us measuring them on our fancy inductance meter, and here's the meter measuring a known inductance so you'll know the meter is being used correctly." That is the kind of response that a cooperative claimant would make, and that is the kind of response that I myself have made, many times. Checkable references, real data, repeatable tests, full disclosure.... these things are not forthcoming from the present claimant.
IT IS IRRELEVANT. The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance. And the impedance relates to the applied frequency. If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt. And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply. Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim. Do you even read my answers?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMA cooperative claimant would refute me with FACTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS in an afternoon. But all the present claimant can do is... claim. And this is just a single example of a subtest where Tar Baby and NERD could be compared.... if there was something that Tar Baby could be compared to.
To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame. One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy. Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.
continued/...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMI, as a builder and tester of claims, do not have to address random insinuating questions that the claimant tosses at me, I don't have to explain where I get my test equipment and I don't have to conform to anyone's schedule ... because I am not making extraordinary claims and I'm not applying for any monetary prizes based on my claims. IF I WERE.... then I would and SHOULD be expected to answer these kinds of questions and give these explanations. But of course the present claimant will not cooperate and instead wants to obstruct. Once again, my "claim" is that Tar Baby performs just like the claimant's device in all significant respects. If the claimant wishes to demonstrate otherwise.... that is up to the claimant, and the longer she delays the worse things look for her claims. I have demonstrated that Tar Baby does do everything that the claimant's device has actually been shown to do. It is LONG PAST time for the claimant to show that her device does something that Tar Baby cannot: heat a load without discharging its batteries.
You, as a builder and tester of claims - IF that's how you see yourself - need to get some fundamental schooling relating to power analysis - which is SORELY LACKING in your building and testing. We keep asking for evidence of this. You keep insinuating you have provided this evidence. Where? In those videos?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMAt the beginning of this thread I stated what it was about and what my goals and purposes are. When the thread was reopened I stated the conditions under which the claimant was welcome to post here. Among those conditions was that no claims be made WITHOUT EVIDENCE, references, data, checkable and external. Another condition was that the claimant stop misrepresenting and lying about my work. Yet the claimant has chosen not to respect these simple and reasonable conditions and has continued with her campaign of insult, non-cooperation and active hindrance of the work going on here, while at the same time making NO progress at all towards her own testing. It would take three days to determine unequivocally whether her batteries are discharging.... in other words it could have been done several times already, had she only stopped talking and started working.
My WORK has been cut out defending the insinuations that you have made related to my claim. When those insinuations stop then I will be able to devote more time to my own tests. Do NOT think that I'll sit back and let you misrepresent - malign - abuse - and discredit 10 years of our hard work - while you present one spurious argument after another that our claim is void. YOU have made this my full time concern. Not me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMThis is not the place to discuss the "theories" of RA. This is a thread about testing the Tar Baby and showing that it performs like the NERD device or doesn't. I've shown many tests and variations and I've shown that there are discrepancies in the data from the NERD device that I am comparing to. The correct way to deal with these is for the claimant to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong, if I am, by showing comparable tests and checkable, repeatable data. More talk, more claims without evidence, and especially reference to any "theory" or conjecture, is out of place and isn't helpful.
While I cannot reference our thesis then NOR is there in value in our evidence and our claim. This requirement is ABSURD and insulting to those many years and many hours of hard work applied to the thesis and to the proof of that thesis that is parcel of this CLAIM. How DARE you assume the right to determine the basis of our claim? Who do you think that you are that you can DENY the very foundation of our claim simply because you do not find it expedient? Without that thesis - there IS no claim. The experimental evidence was required to PROVE THAT THESIS. NOTHING ELSE.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 07:55:58 AMLet's see a simple photograph of one of the NERD resistors hooked up to an inductance meter reading 500 nanoHenry or less as the value, and another with the meter reading a known inductance correctly. For example. I've shown a reliable reading of 7 microHenry on an apparently identical resistor, which calls into question yet another bit of data reported by the NERDs. This issue could be cleared up in moments.... and would be.... if there only were a cooperative and knowledgeable and skilful claimant involved. Instead the claimant bloviates for pages, insults my equipment, makes innuendoes and aspersions, and NEVER addresses the issue other than to resort to an appeal to authority and more claims without evidence.
I've argued this AT LENGTH. Just go back and CHECK your facts. This obsessive interest in the inductance of the shunts is ABSURDLY IRRELEVANT to our claim.
Regards nonetheless
Rosie Pose
Let me list some of the real differences between Tar Baby and the NERD device.
1. TB has the same medium-duty anodized aluminium heatsinks on all 5 mosfets. These are commercial heatsinks designed for the TO-247 package and heat-transfer paste is used and the mounting bolt is torqued to spec.
The NERD has the Q1 on a small apparently improvised heatsink and the Q2s on much larger, also apparently improvised hunks of finned aluminium. I can't tell whether heat transfer paste or electrical isolation was used. Since the circuit is a common-drain circuit, electrical isolation from the heatsinks isn't necessary, but thermal paste should be used.
2. TB has sockets on both ends of cables to connect the mosfets to the motherboard. NERD uses soldered connections at the mosfet leads themselves (a potential source of damage) and clipleads terminating onto threaded rods for the Q2 connections (a potential source of noisy, high-resistance contacts) , and crimped automotive ring connectors for most of the rest of the circuit (ditto).
3. TB has 4, 1 Ohm, 10 Watt power resistors in parallel as the current viewing resistor (called the "shunt" by the NERDs). These are ordinary "cement" type wirewound ceramic-encased power resistors of the common type, ubiquitous world-wide and clearly marked. They have a reliably measured inductance of 7 microHenry each and a total stack inductance of slightly under 2 microHenry, which includes some small lead length. The NERD device uses what appear to be identical resistors... they are even marked the same, except for the manufacturer... and they are listed as such in the NERD table of materials. But the cited inductance in the NERD non-publications is given as 110 nanoHenry.... a seemingly implausibly low value, not explained or confirmed anywhere.
4. TB has a load inductance, including lead wires, of 74 microHenry. A commercial water heater load apparently comparable to the NERD load also has a measured inductance of 73-74 microHenry. The NERD device load has a stated inductance value of only a few microHenry.... also implausibly low. It is possible that this load is indeed "custom built" to achieve this low inductance value. Considering the NERD team's demonstrated difficulty with measurements and calculations, I would like to see this measurement repeated reliably and confirmed... as I just don't believe it.
5. TB has been shown to discharge its batteries when running in modes that produce measurable load heating. No comparable testing has been shown for the NERD device.
6. TB makes no claims wrt COP or overunity performance, other than that when analysed by the same methods as NERD, the same results will be obtained. NERD, on the other hand, claims overunity performance, COP>INFINITY, load heating without battery depletion, and experimental confirmation of a theory with energy coming from superluminal zipons.
7. TB can use either IRF830a mosfets or the IRFPG50. NERD is limited to the PG50 -- but I'll bet it would work just the same and give the NERDs the same results if they used the 830as.
8. TB can use a 555 timer to make a negative-going gate drive pulse and so does not need a function generator. NERD has never demonstrated running using a 555 timer, especially not in the negative-going gate drive pulse mode.
9. TB is built compactly and uses small lightweight batteries, hence could fit within the criteria of the Overunity Prize.... if it were applying, that is. The NERD device is large and uses lots of big heavy batteries, and the rules would have to be stretched (not to mention credulity) to allow it to compete in the first place.
10. TB uses a small piece of commercial circuit board material for its motherboard, with 0.1 inch hole spacing. NERD uses a much larger piece of white material that looks like thick pegboard, with 1/4 inch holes on a 1 inch grid.
These are real differences. Do they make the difference? Well... that is what side-by-side testing is designed to reveal. Unfortunately it is difficult to perform side-by-side testing when one side simply refuses to show up for the tests.
In sports... this is usually considered a default victory for the team that DOES show up.
If one measurement or value in a paper reporting an experiment is in error or somehow otherwise incorrect.... then every other measurement is also questionable. Ainslie has shown so many incorrect calculations, interpretations, misprints, typos, mistaken claims and outright lies that YET ANOTHER apparent discrepancy hardly counts. But what it does do is show the mendacity of the claimant, who has made many errors of fact and refuses to correct them.
The present insistence that they aren't claiming overunity performance, but only "measuring" it... when those measurements have been shown to be wrong (not by me, but by .99, in exquisite detail)... is another example of the prevarication that is Ainslie's trademark.
IF YOU ARE NOT CLAIMING OVERUNITY YOU CANNOT APPLY FOR AN OVERUNITY PRIZE. And IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR AN OVERUNITY PRIZE YOU ARE CLAIMING OVERUNITY. What is so difficult to understand about this simple fact?
And there are many places in these threads where you claim COP INFINITY or COP exceeds infinity or COP>INFINITY, even using the capitalization.
You have degenerated to the point where you cannot even maintain self-consistency.
And as for this slew of misrepresentations.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 08:21:50 AMOf course you can see that what she says in her reply to you is mostly garbage. Especially the part about "integration". The "integrations" that she has shown on the scope traces are incorrectly performed (not incorporating shunt value, not integrating the correct waveforms, not integrating over a suitable sampling interval, not accounting for probe skew, etc) and her values come from the data dumps to spreadsheet analysis, NOT live integration of proper waveforms to determine energy flows. Anyone who is familiar with the use of oscilloscopes for power measurements can confirm this, and the information that supports me is easily available from the scope manufacturers and others.
When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence. We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration. It's not difficult. Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this. The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples. You can't. You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope. And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT? HOW ODD?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 08:21:50 AMThe "power dissipation" claims she makes are also false. There is indeed more than one way to measure power dissipated, she does not use "standard protocols" at all, and so on. But of course you know this too.
We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests. Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 08:21:50 AMHer ignorance regarding the use of the Clarke-Hess sampling integrating power meter -- an "industry standard" instrument being used exactly as designed -- is a perfect example. Instead of focusing on a real limitation (the manufacturer's cited bandwidth of accuracy) she gets muddled about how it's connected in the circuit...even though it is connected exactly as an oscilloscope (with its own CVR) is connected. In other words, she again betrays her monumental wilful ignorance of proper standard power testing protocols, while at the same time proclaiming that she knows more than anyone else about it.
I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations. I've referenced it here.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 01:49:23 PMI think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts. Or unless that number now represents something else? You do not specify this..
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 08:21:50 AMI can easily accept that the readings of the CH may be off by a few percent due to the bandwidth accuracy limitation. However, it is being used correctly and it's monitoring the same circuit "input" point as the NERDs monitor, and in addition it also monitors something they did not: the power _delivered_ to the load. Stated another way, it is monitoring the power drawn by the load, or yet another way.... the power that must be dissipated in the load. The CH's accuracy in this regard has been rigorously tested USING A CALORIMETER-- a real one -- and the CH's readings of power dissipation by the load agree with calorimetric measurements. Call the bandwidth into question: OK, that is a real issue, an empirical one, and can be addressed by calibration against standards. Call the hookups and the basic methodology and basic accuracy into question -- that's just ignorant whining and is without merit.
Rigorous calibrations? Really? And then it's out by a small percentage? PLEASE? And let me re-iterate TK. Here....
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 01:49:23 PMI think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts. Or unless that number now represents something else? You do not specify this..
It's all SPIN. Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim. And even now you have NOT addressed our claim. Only something that you infer may be related to our claim. LOL. And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.
Rosie Pose
Now TK - I've taken the trouble to plow through the last two pages answering your questions. Have the courtesy to answer mine. Here it is again.
Hello TK,
Nice to see you around. I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to address this post. Then I'll move on to the other three video references. Because I KNOW how badly you want to keep your thread topical.
Rosie Pose
Your first video referenced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
. Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
. It's really easily managed. Yet you didn't see some need for this?
. Or is that display there? In the right hand corner at the top?
. Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
. But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
. ALWAYS
. And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
. When this would have got to the heart of the matter
. so easily?
. And that trick with the ground?
. And all that INSINUATION?
. Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
. Therefore the circuit is only finally open
. Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
. When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
. Shouldn't you have explained this?
. Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
. I'd have thought?
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'? Surely not? I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics. :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit. It's not your style. I see that now.
Regards TK
Rosie Pose
By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine. Is that a warehouse? Full of equipment? Did you officially register your loan of it? For that little video of yours? I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.
ADDED[/glow
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 09:11:33 AM
Then use a separate battery. And monitor it's voltage to determine the output. That's simple.
Our impedance was determined by measurements made by 'EXPERTS' on excellent and calibrated machines from well respected laboratories. And whether their inductance values are greater or less - will not make an ounce of difference to the negative value of the current flow determined from the voltage across those shunts. And it is that negative current flow that predominates each cycle that is of interest and is the entire substance of the claim.
We do NOT claim COP> INFINITY. We MEASURE COP Infinity. That's NOT the same thing. We argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source. Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY. What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source. THEN - there would be no further EVIDENCE of COP Infinity. But then we do not know how to measure the energy. Any more. Because those new protocols need to be forged by EXPERTS TK. Not by you. As it is you can't even get your head around this distinction. And to this end we have written that paper.
IF there is an alternate supply of energy that has, heretofore, NOT been factored into power analysis - then the EVIDENCE would be that we would have exceeded unity. The prize is offered for over unity. Therefore we would most certainly qualify for any over unity prize. Whether or not we demand that prize is immaterial. It's our qualification for that prize that's at issue. Because when the 'new energy source' is accepted - then too the there will be no further resistance to the possibility. It will become widely accepted and widely applied. And THAT's our real prize. Nothing else.
/...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 09:13:05 AM
continued/...Nor will I. Any further tests done on our claim will be under conditions that make our arguments unassailable. And that will involve considerably more tests than those that you DEMAND that we perform for you. You seem to forget that I've already advanced evidence on prior tests - that were 'replicated' and then 'denied' by various members. I am not about to HOP SKIP and JUMP again - until we have some kind of contractual undertaking to not have our thread either 'flamed' or 'locked'. And that the evidence presented is then full and satisfactory proof of the claim. Which requires some homework. And when this is completed - then we will bore you all to tears with copious evidence.
You CLAIM that we have misrepresented the inductance and the wattage on our resistors. I DENY THIS. You make a song and dance about it because you believe you can thereby FAULT our claim. It is IRRELEVANT to our claim. What you're trying to do here TK is capitalise on any possible error without actually first establishing IF it is an extant error - and IF that error would, in any event make any material difference to our claim. In other words you are using 'cheap shots' to underscore your points and to cast aspersions on our competence and on our claim. Let me remind you. Whether the resistance of those shunts are established at 0.25 Ohms or even 6 Ohms - or any value at all - the product of that NEGATIVE VOLTAGE MEASURED ACROSS THOSE RESISTORS WOULD STILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. That is the point of our claim. Again. Has this sunk in yet?
IF your circuit is able to measure a negative voltage across your shunt - then you are INDEED in the right territory. And THEN we would acknowledge that you MAY have replicated our claim. Until then you MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT. You have only ATTEMPTED THIS. And failed.
/...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 09:14:27 AM
continued/...WHAT measurements? WHAT analysis? Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis. And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.
Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests. I have been bitten. I know how you operate. Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim.
So you keep telling us. The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity. I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS. Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk. Unfortunately.
IT IS IRRELEVANT. The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance. And the impedance relates to the applied frequency. If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt. And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply. Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim. Do you even read my answers?
To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame. One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy. Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 09:15:03 AM
continued/...You, as a builder and tester of claims - IF that's how you see yourself - need to get some fundamental schooling relating to power analysis - which is SORELY LACKING in your building and testing. We keep asking for evidence of this. You keep insinuating you have provided this evidence. Where? In those videos?
My WORK has been cut out defending the insinuations that you have made related to my claim. When those insinuations stop then I will be able to devote more time to my own tests. Do NOT think that I'll sit back and let you misrepresent - malign - abuse - and discredit 10 years of our hard work - while you present one spurious argument after another that our claim is void. YOU have made this my full time concern. Not me.
While I cannot reference our thesis then NOR is there in value in our evidence and our claim. This requirement is ABSURD and insulting to those many years and many hours of hard work applied to the thesis and to the proof of that thesis that is parcel of this CLAIM. How DARE you assume the right to determine the basis of our claim? Who do you think that you are that you can DENY the very foundation of our claim simply because you do not find it expedient? Without that thesis - there IS no claim. The experimental evidence was required to PROVE THAT THESIS. NOTHING ELSE.
I've argued this AT LENGTH. Just go back and CHECK your facts. This obsessive interest in the inductance of the shunts is ABSURDLY IRRELEVANT to our claim.
Regards nonetheless
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 09:42:49 AM
And as for this slew of misrepresentations.
When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence. We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration. It's not difficult. Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this. The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples. You can't. You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope. And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT? HOW ODD?We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests. Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations. I've referenced it here.Rigorous calibrations? Really? And then it's out by a small percentage? PLEASE? And let me re-iterate TK. Here....
It's all SPIN. Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim. And even now you have NOT addressed our claim. Only something that you infer may be related to our claim. LOL. And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.
Rosie Pose
Look everyone on the content of all nonsense postings above that wasn't even directed towards Rosemary and are you also tired of getting a "NOTIFICATION" with each posting after posting on the same subject matter from Rosemary whom cannot put everything in one post.
This trash from Rosemary has been posted over and over again in the "LOCKED DOWN" thread http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/ with a couple things in common. Rosemary has only learned how to falsify documentation a YouTube video and cherry pick information to justify her THESIS.
Where are all the so called EXPERTS of Rosemary's or the authors of her falsified papers and YouTube video.
Rosemary the SUPER TROLL is nothing but another fraud like "MyLow" http://pesn.com/2009/05/19/9501542_Fish-line_discovered_in_Mylow-magnet-motor/ ..... plain and simple :o
If "BANNING" her is not a option for some odd unknown reason, Rosemary should have all her postings "moderated" to weed out her lies and force her to some how stay on topic.
FTC
???
I'm tired of this nonsense. Now she's comparing me to a criminal sociopath-- when HER endless series of lies and distortions leaves an indelible trail of slime behind her.
Rosemary has no right whatsoever to ask me any questions about what I'm doing with Tar Baby at all... since she denies it's a replication and I have also explicitly stated that it's not a replication... it's a duplication. Rosemary, on the other hand, has a clear OBLIGATION to address any and all issues about her work that might be raised, however and whenever and however frequently and by whom they might be raised... because it is SHE who is making the extraordinary claim on insufficient evidence.
She particularly has no right whatsoever to demand measurements from me that she has not performed or published herself, nor does she have any right whatsoever to dictate or question my scheduling of tests.
Neither does she have the knowledge or the right to criticise my video demonstrations, as each and every one of them is designed to address and illustrate one or two particular points that are clearly articulated and do not contain claims having to do with the Ainslie circuit ... they only _relate_ to it.
She most particularly does not have the right to fill pages of thread with irrelevant rants and continued lies and distortions.
Therefore...until further notice...
Further discussion of Tar Baby testing, NERD claims and discrepancies, and so on can continue.... on my YouTube channel, in the comment sections of the associated video demonstrations. If there's anything that doesn't fit into a comment under a video, you can PM me on YT.
In this thread... I will continue to say one thing: Ainslie will never show a definitive test of her claims. PROVE ME WRONG.
ETA: I am fairly certain that there are more people reading this website that would love to see ME fail and fall on my face in the dirt.... more people, in other words, who are against me in some way than are supporters of my viewpoint. There are probably more people that want Ainslie to be successful than want me to be. All right then... GET CRACKING, you lot. PROVE ME WRONG with your own demonstrations and tests. JUST DO IT, there will be plenty of people watching and egging you on. PROVE ME WRONG about what I assert with regard to TarBaby, instrumentation, oscilloscopes, power meters, Ainslie and her circuit, or the nature of gamma rays or the fire on the surface of the sun. PROVE ME WRONG.
Or stfu.
TK,
she is incapable of proving you're wrong and she has no supporters anymore that's why she keeps barking at you, on and on and on, the only power she has is Over Lunacy
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 03:32:16 PM
I'm tired of this nonsense. Now she's comparing me to a criminal sociopath-- when HER endless series of lies and distortions leaves an indelible trail of slime behind her. Rosemary has no right whatsoever to ask me any questions about what I'm doing with Tar Baby at all... since she denies it's a replication and I have also explicitly stated that it's not a replication... it's a duplication. Rosemary, on the other hand, has a clear OBLIGATION to address any and all issues about her work that might be raised, however and whenever and however frequently and by whom they might be raised... because it is SHE who is making the extraordinary claim on insufficient evidence.
She particularly has no right whatsoever to demand measurements from me that she has not performed or published herself, nor does she have any right whatsoever to dictate or question my scheduling of tests. Neither does she have the knowledge or the right to criticise my video demonstrations, as each and every one of them is designed to address and illustrate one or two particular points that are clearly articulated and do not contain claims having to do with the Ainslie circuit ... they only _relate_ to it.
She most particularly does not have the right to fill pages of thread with irrelevant rants and continued lies and distortions. Therefore...until further notice... Further discussion of Tar Baby testing, NERD claims and discrepancies, and so on can continue.... on my YouTube channel, in the comment sections of the associated video demonstrations. If there's anything that doesn't fit into a comment under a video, you can PM me on YT.
In this thread... I will continue to say one thing: Ainslie will never show a definitive test of her claims. PROVE ME WRONG.
ETA: I am fairly certain that there are more people reading this website that would love to see ME fail and fall on my face in the dirt.... more people, in other words, who are against me in some way than are supporters of my viewpoint. There are probably more people that want Ainslie to be successful than want me to be. All right then... GET CRACKING, you lot. PROVE ME WRONG with your own demonstrations and tests. JUST DO IT, there will be plenty of people watching and egging you on. PROVE ME WRONG about what I assert with regard to TarBaby, instrumentation, oscilloscopes, power meters, Ainslie and her circuit, or the nature of gamma rays or the fire on the surface of the sun. PROVE ME WRONG.
Or stfu.
Are you seriously proposing that I do not defend our work and my good name against an attack from you? Are you proposing that you are entitled to denigrate our work and our claim and my name - unchallenged? I'm not sure that you could EVER justify that TinselKoala - not EVER. And certainly not when you resort to slanderous comments and less than satisfactory scientific arguments. These are the options. You take my posts that are required for defense or your stop posting at a level that requires that defense.
Of course my challenges are unacceptable to you. They contradict your allegations with scientific argument. Repeatedly.
Rosie Pose
Again you lie, plain and simple.
Not once, not ONE SINGLE TIME, have you been able to refute me with a demonstration, a checkable reference, or actual data. NEVER NOT A SINGLE TIME.
Yet I have refuted you over and over and over. You have been wrong about many things you've said, and I and others have proved it.
And your "papers" have nothing to do with science at all. You have no idea what the scientific method consists of. You have never tried to RULE OUT your "hypothesis", you have only tried to prove it. And failed miserably, by the way.
How long did it take you finally to admit that your 25.6 million Joules calculation was bogus? Do you still maintain that One Joule = One Watt Per Second? When will you retract your conclusion that was based on the incorrect calculation?
When will you admit that you lied about the circuit diagram, several times? When will you admit to the many lies in the video demonstration?
When will you admit that NOBODY is coming to your aid in support?
When will you admit that you, right now, are LYING about "not claiming overunity or COP>infinity"?
WHEN WILL YOU DO YOUR TEST? Never, that's when.
WHEN WILL YOU STOP LYING? Never, that's when.
Wow, give me a mosh pit or give me a padded room!
Rosemary:
QuoteWe argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source. Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY. What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source.
There is no "second energy supply source." You are just an amateur little old lady with fantasies of zipons that can't punch her way out of a wet paper electronics bag.
Change your batteries for much smaller fresh and new batteries and do some load tests and finally kill this and put this nonsensical obsession to bed. This whole time you have never done any proper battery load testing and you have been tricked by an improperly done DSO measurement. You have also been tricked by the fact that you have been using very large batteries that you never load tested. Even the most expensive DSO in the world is only as good as the person using it.
QuoteMe: You never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.
You: There is only one way to measure power delivered and power dissipated. Well established measurement protocols. They can't be improved on.
Bullshit, your comment is garbage and you cling to it for dear life. You try to awkwardly deny the whole scientific method when you say, "They can't be improved on." Bullshit again, you and your whole team have been repeatedly exposed as borderline clueless rank amateurs.
There are only two possible ways I can see this ending for you:
1. You do a second round of tests and to your shock you confirm that the batteries are discharging. Shades of the
LEDs of DOOM. Then you fade into obscurity.
2. You do a second round of tests and no matter what you insist that you have "discovered a second energy supply source." Then you fade into obscurity.
Trust me, a woman that can't even understand the fact that power is dissipated in a resistor as long as there is current flow is never ever going to see one of her ridiculous papers published. Not in a million years.
There is no happy ending for you Rosemary because this is all nonsense.
MileHigh
Things she's said that aren't true: (I found so many in just this thread alone that I got tired of it before I was even halfway through.) Items in RED are direct cut-pastes from her posts.. in other words, her own words.
1. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each.
No...they aren't. They seem to be 50 or perhaps even 60 amp-hours each.
2. Joules = 1 watt per second.
Er.... no. One Watt is one Joule per second. One Joule is one WattSecond. Very different and not mathematically equivalent at all.
3. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
Er... do the math. This calculation is completely wrong in at least three different ways.
4. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
A nominal "12 volt" battery of the type used by Ainslie will indicate well over 13 volts when fully charged, and will not drop below 12 volts until nearly completely DISCHARGED. So the fact that the batteries are still OVER 12 volts is actually evidence that they are substantially DISCHARGED... or they would be over 13 volts each, not 12.
5. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.
Er... only if you use the bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure. Using the correct figure the battery could have performed 10 such tests without depleting its charge. Yet RA has never retracted this claim. Therefore... since she knows the 25.6 megaJoule figure is wrong.... it is a continuing and outrageous lie.
6. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
Read the explanation in Wiki again. One Watt is not One Joule and one Joule is not one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT interchangeable, and the WIKI explains it correctly and RA once again is distorting the reference and lying about her claim.
7. Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries.
But previously she said, "That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."
and
"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit." These statements cannot all be true... so one or more of them is a lie.
8. Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor. Or so you said in that video. And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR? And WHY did you identify it as the load? And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?
The real joke is this. You complained that we don't take voltages across the load. Explain this. IF YOU DARE.
I have never once taken the voltage "across the load resistor". In fact without isolated probes or a differential voltage probe, you cannot monitor voltage across the load, because it is "high-side switched" and doesn't connect directly to the negative common ground point. I never said in the video any such thing... what I ALWAYS say is that I am monitoring the common mosfet drains, on the transistor side of the load. And neither have I ever "complained" any such thing. I have said that they are not typically showing the mosfet common drain voltage... a very different thing altogether.
9. TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements.
This is false. I have posted many videos containing precise measurements of many quantities.
10. This is not clear. Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330? In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic. You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all. Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery? At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal? Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal? If the former - then the readings should be co-incident. If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim. And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing? To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output. In which case? On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery. Which is a negative voltage value. If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge. And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit. Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation. I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive. And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other. Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results. That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement.
This entire post is full of lies, distortions and inaccuracies. I have shown very clearly, before this post, where and how the CH is used in the circuit. I have indeed replicated the waveform on the batteries. And that part about my load "not sufficiently inductive" is a real howler... since my load is 74 microHenry and hers is CLAIMED to be only a couple of microHenry. And there certainly is consistency in my results. I can turn the system on and make ANY of the illustrated waveforms immediately...because I understand the circuit.
11. The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude. And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.
Two at once. Clearly my battery oscillations DO have the "same amplitude", as demonstrated in several videos, and clearly... my load resistor is 74 microHenry, which is MORE INDUCTIVE than the (unbelievable) 2.23 microHenry they claim to have used.
12. Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery. This results in a negative wattage. We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.
If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit. It's that simple.
False.
The unpublished, many times rejected draft document that RA calls a "paper" has many errors in it. The data and measurements are full of errors. RA does not show any evidence of what she claims, she shows errors in data collection, analysis and interpretation. There is no experimental support for her claims in the "papers". And I am not required to repeat her errors in order to replicate her circuit.
13. We do not claim over unity.
This is clearly false, as you have claimed overunity many times. In English, claiming that the batteries do not discharge while doing useful work is CLAIMING OVERUNITY. Applying for an Overunity Prize on an Overunity website... is claiming OVERUNITY.
That gets us up to about page 23 of this thread. There are more lies and false statements from RA yet to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some quotes from the demo video, said by the presenter with RA standing behind him:
Quotes from the video, the unnamed presenter speaking, words in red:
1) 0:20- "The circuit diagram before you is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup"
This is false.
2) 0:30: "What we have is 5 mosfets mounted in parallel"
This is false.
3) 1:59: "C represents the input to the gates of the mosfet" as he gestures to the board.
Another false statement. The function generator is seen to be connected to point F by the red alligator clip.
4) 2:05: "F WOULD BE THE DRAIN, THE COMMON DRAIN..."
Rosemary has claimed that the common drain voltage isn't shown in this video, and that the GREEN trace does not represent the mosfet common drain. But it is, and it does.
5) 3:09 (stuttering a bit and mumbling) "we can see the battery voltage mumble mumble roughly sixty two volts, BEARING IN MIND we have 5 twelve volt batteries so theoretically we should have'bout sixty volts but thats.... mumble."
That's another lie, is what he's trying to say.
Of course we know that a fully charged 12 volt battery of this type should measure well over 13 volts so the stack of five should be at about 65 volts if it were fully charged. The fact that the meter indicates 62 volts isn't as much of a mystery to me as it evidently is to the presenter-- as it actually indicates that the batteries are substantially DISCHARGED.. or they would have been over 65 volts.
6) 3:53: "AND THE GREEN of course the actual drain, drainback (mumbles) .. the the drain voltage."
Again... Ainslie has berated and castigated me several times for saying that the Green trace in this video is the common mosfet drain voltage.
Ainslie makes no corrections to the presenter's narration... and thus is responsible for the lies in the video demo.
QED: she lies and distorts my work, my data, her own data, external references, the things other people say and do... all of it. None of what she says can be trusted in any context. None of it.
Guys,
I suppose I need to comment on this post from MileHigh as well. I'll try and keep it brief as possible. It's only topical in as much as it's not scientific. Science has never been the issue on this thread.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 08:06:33 PM
Wow, give me a mosh pit or give me a padded room!
Not sure that this is relevant. Presumably you're commenting on your mental stability?
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 08:06:33 PMThere is no "second energy supply source." You are just an amateur little old lady with fantasies of zipons that can't punch her way out of a wet paper electronics bag.
Not sure that this is accurate. I'm not little. I'm 5ft 9" and then some. I have no 'fantasies' related to zipons. I have a proposal that requires the existence of these particles. And I'm managing to punch some serious holes in TK's arguments. The only accurate statement here is that I'm old and that I'm an amateur. I keep really good company in both categories.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 08:06:33 PMChange your batteries for much smaller fresh and new batteries and do some load tests and finally kill this and put this nonsensical obsession to bed. This whole time you have never done any proper battery load testing and you have been tricked by an improperly done DSO measurement. You have also been tricked by the fact that you have been using very large batteries that you never load tested. Even the most expensive DSO in the world is only as good as the person using it.
We certainly used batteries with exceptional capacity. And you're right. We have not tested these to their duration. BUT. There is no way that you, nor TK nor anyone at all can misrepresent the results from a good oscilloscope. Just can't be done.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 08:06:33 PMBullshit, your comment is garbage and you cling to it for dear life. You try to awkwardly deny the whole scientific method when you say, "They can't be improved on." Bullshit again, you and your whole team have been repeatedly exposed as borderline clueless rank amateurs.
This comment is slanderous, unqualified and unprofessional. Which also means that it is very much 'on topic' with this thread.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 08:06:33 PMThere are only two possible ways I can see this ending for you:
1. You do a second round of tests and to your shock you confirm that the batteries are discharging. Shades of the LEDs of DOOM. Then you fade into obscurity.
2. You do a second round of tests and no matter what you insist that you have "discovered a second energy supply source." Then you fade into obscurity.
This indicates that the thread topic now also includes the art of prophesy. Which makes it surprisingly appropriate - on a great many levels.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 08:06:33 PMTrust me, a woman that can't even understand the fact that power is dissipated in a resistor as long as there is current flow is never ever going to see one of her ridiculous papers published. Not in a million years.
I agree. Fortunately I am not such a woman.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 08:06:33 PMThere is no happy ending for you Rosemary because this is all nonsense.
I'm not looking for happy endings MileHigh. I'm looking for happy beginnings. And that's where our experimental evidence points.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Hi Rosemary,
TK is right.
You should have done the scope tests that he is now doing.
Until you are not able to show conclusive new data and battery charge status tests the Ainsley circuit is
in my view busted not to be generating additional energy.
Maybe TK can work out a simple circuit diagramm with an additional 9 Volts helper
battery and a pot to produce a negative bias voltage, so the circuit will oscillate all the time.
Then this can be used instead of the function generator !
Maybe this additional battery plus pot needs a sharp switchon voltage graident to get the oscillations to work,
but this should be no problem with an additional switch...
So Rosemary now it is your turn to replicate TinselKoala´s work and show that he is wrong.
And yes, he is right, 12 Volts lead acid batteries just sitting at just 12 Volts are almost discharged.
Fully charged they are about 13.8 Volts.
Just working on a thesis paper is not enough, if the technology behind it is only based on measurement errors...
Regards, Stefan.
Here is some more work on driving the Tar Baby with an internal timer rather than an external function generator.
Fig.1: The Tar Baby Revision C schematic reproduced again, showing the working, floating, externally powered 555 timer circuit that produces a strict negative-going gate drive pulse with oscillations, which I have been using for several days now.
ETA: The diagram shows 3 x 12 v main batteries, but I've been using 4, and of course with proper transistor heatsinking up to 6 batteries (72 volts nominal) can be used.
Fig 2: A 555 - based voltage inverter circuit that will allow the Fig.1 timer circuit to operate NON-floating and powered by the most negative battery in the main circuit's supply, with no external battery needed. This works but makes a bit of noise on the oscillations.... perhaps a filter stage to keep the oscillations from affecting the inverter itself may be needed.
Fig 3: The Voltage Inverter installed on TarBaby and powering the 555 timer board for testing. Input power at the top, power connections to the timer board can be seen clearly. Red is positive, black is negative.
(I didn't have any 470 microFarad caps so I used 2 ea. 220 microFarad 35 volt caps in parallel for each of the 470s. Obviously component values aren't too critical.)
HOWEVER: since the TarBaby (and NERD) need that negative bias current on the Q2 source pins in order to make the oscillations..... neither Rev C alone nor the Rev C + Inverter will work in the positive pulse mode. That is... they work fine to turn mosfets on in that mode, but since they can't also provide the negative bias current at the same time... no oscillations are made.
I explain this need for negative bias current in the latest video, and show why a simple 555 circuit isn't going to work for both modes without some means for providing that negative bias current.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkNDYaFVc7g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkNDYaFVc7g)
(I'm posting this here _provisionally_ .... if the noise in the thread continues, then I will carry on further discussion on the YT comments and PMs and leave this thread for the fishes.)
Hi TK,
why is a simple 9 Volts battery with a pot polarized inverted to the main batteries not enough to
put up the needed negative bias voltage ? If youi make the pot e.g. 1 Kohm you can
also drive a few milliamps as a negative bias current when needed...?
Then you would not need any floating circuit or any inverter to produce -12 Volts.
Regards, Stefan.
TK,
What is the current draw on your 555 circuit while the TB is oscillating?
PW
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 09:34:50 AM
Hi TK,
why is a simple 9 Volts battery with a pot polarized inverted to the main batteries not enough to
put up the needed negative bias voltage ? If youi make the pot e.g. 1 Kohm you can
also drive a few milliamps as a negative bias current when needed...?
Then you would not need any floating circuit or any inverter to produce -12 Volts.
Regards, Stefan.
The negative bias current needed to make the oscillations can be as high as 200 mA or even higher. An external 9v battery will run down well before the main batteries begin to deplete, unless it's a big stack of 9 volt batteries.
Essentially though, that is what the circuit in Rev C does. It's a normal 555 timer, but with its output leads simply flipped: the Pin 3 output goes to the "negative" FG input to the main circuit, and the 555 ground goes to the _Positive_ FG input. This is why its supply must be floated (external, not grounded to the main circuit.) This arrangement produces a pulse that is "more negative" than the main circuit's ground -- a 555 positive pulse, going into where the FG's "negative" lead usually connects to the main circuit.
The negative bias current must be "more negative" than the most negative pole of the main battery. That's why a simple pot or 555 timer circuit powered directly by the most negative 12 volt battery in the main stack won't work. This is where the FG is inserting its current into the system, and this is where some means of getting "more negative" than the main battery's negative terminal is needed.
Please see my video explaining function generator polarity and current flow, as well as the most recent video linked in the post above. When the FG is set to make a symmetrical positive and negative pulse, and the "negative" output lead of the FG is connected to circuit ground (on either side of the shunt), then when the FG's pulse goes negative, the FG's "positive" output lead will actually be "more negative" than the circuit ground. That is, the FG's "negative" output lead is now positive with respect to the FG's "positive" output lead. Confusing, isn't it. That's why I recommend watching the two videos.
In the latest video the amplitude and offset values of the FG are used to illustrate that, with the positive going drive pulse, there must also be a negative offset (not usually even visible on the scope trace) in order to make the circuit oscillate.
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 10:28:32 AM
TK,
What is the current draw on your 555 circuit while the TB is oscillating?
PW
200 mA is not unusual, but in the "quiescent" mode with no or minimum oscillations it's a few tens of mA. The 555 gets hot, depending on operating mode, hence the heatsink.
I'm still not completely sure about this; there is massive potential for groundloops in this circuit and test arrangement.
Yesterday my _BNC probe connectors_ at the scope were heating up at one point... I realized the whole system was actually getting its power from one probe's ground lead at the neg batt terminal, up to the scope, thru the connectors, to the other probe's ground lead, and down into the circuit, because I had forgotten to hook up the main power negative battery lead to the ammeter at the right place.
I'll be doing more measurements on this later on, but I've got to do some "real work" today so I won't get to it before late tonight.
ETA: OK, here's a quick measurement. The above values were without the Voltage Inverter feeding the clock. So by increasing the voltage on the supply to the clock, I could get the oscillations to grow larger and the system could draw more current.
Now I've inserted the Voltage Inverter, and still using a regulated supply, I can take the input to the Inverter up to 15 volts (as high as I dare for chip protection) and I get about 55 mA draw indicated on a good moving-coil meter in series with the regulated supply. This only gives me about 90 mA indicated on the main inline DMM ammeter at the main battery, and appears to produce only a little load heating. So the Inverter isn't allowing the required current to flow through the clock, apparently. I still get nice oscillations (in the negative gate pulse mode) but not of sufficient amplitude to allow much load heating, apparently. I've not yet taken current readings when the Inverter is powered by the most negative main battery. That will have to wait, I've got to get real here for a while.
Hey TK:
I only skimmed the recent postings because I am at work. I saw your little capacitor-diode trick to get a negative output pulse. I have to assume it does induce negative oscillation mode but it's a kludge.
I can suggest two possible 'clean' solutions for everyone to consider. If you have a five battery set, then just put a sixth battery in series with the set to give you the -12 volts (or -6 volts if you want). So you can run your 555 on ground and -12 (or -6) volts. The only load on the sixth battery is to power the timer and support the current drain from the NERD circuit in negative oscillation mode.
The other solution is to purchase a real DC-to-DC converter with +12 volts in and -5 volts out. As long as the DC-to-DC converter can power the 555 and support the current drain from the NERD circuit then you are fine. Assuming a five battery set, then the "bottom" battery in the voltage stack would have an extra load on it, the DC-to-DC converter.
But then of course if the bottom battery drains then Rosemary has a "Get out of Jail Free" card that she can play about the double-load on the bottom battery.
Personally I would go with adding the extra battery and then just "ignore" that battery when you do the testing. Then run the load testing with a light bulb and prove that the batteries actually discharge and then it's game over for the NERDs.
MileHigh
MH,
I do not believe it is acceptable to ignore the current draw from whatever is used to bias on Q2.
Regardless of whether an FG or a 555 circuit, etc is used, something must provide the current necessary to bias Q2 on and if ignored, represents an error term in the final power calculations.
A pair of center-tapped batteries or an isolated DC to DC converter could be used to power the 555, but the current necessary to bias Q2 on has to come from somewhere.
Even with an efficient isolated DC to DC converter operating off the main battery string, the converter will have to draw both its quiescent current and the Q2 bias current from the batteries. Without that current, Q2 cannot be biased on and the circuit will not oscillate.
Personally, I would consider using an FG as OK, if its power contribution was both measured and calculated into the final power calculations.
PW
TK:
A small addendum. PW caught me on this one before.
Since the 555 is emulating the function generator, it also has to support the current sinking requirement of the function generator. The 555 output stage might not be able to do that all by itself. So you might need to a simple transistor arrangement to do that.
A good old NPN driven by the 555 timer with a 50-ohm resistor at the collector would emulate the function generator current sink. In this case "high" from the 555 output would become "low" on the output. We wouldn't want any Joit-inspired mass confusion again. But I am only addressing one of the output polarities.
Here is where I will defer to you guys, the "EXPERTS," for the best transistor configuration to act as a buffer with a 50-ohm output impedance between the 555 output and the NERD circuit. All that is getting a bit foggy for me!
Sadly in a way, the glory days of the discrete transistor are long gone.
MileHigh
PW:
QuotePersonally, I would consider using an FG as OK, if its power contribution was both measured and calculated into the final power calculations.
Indeed, I agree with you. And I was composing my last posting as you were composing your posting. The first go round when I forgot about the current draw requirements to bias the Q2 array I felt dumb, like I was slipping.
Like anything as you get older, if you don't exercise the brain cells, then they start to atrophy. When I first looked at the free energy forums, it had already been 15+ years since I worked as an engineer.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 12:18:12 PM
MH,
I do not believe it is acceptable to ignore the current draw from whatever is used to bias on Q2.
Regardless of whether an FG or a 555 circuit, etc is used, something must provide the current necessary to bias Q2 on and if ignored, represents an error term in the final power calculations.
This seems to be getting confusing. Q2 does not require any significant "bias" to turn it on. It's a MOSFET remember guys? What IS needed is a relatively low impedance AC path for the MOSFET SOURCE and GATE legs to ground.
The real DC bias and AC paths can be completely separated, as I have done with my design. This circuit is not that complex. You give the MOSFET a lot of stray inductance on its leads, a little forward DC bias, and off she goes.....oscillation.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
This seems to be getting confusing. Q2 does not require any significant "bias" to turn it on. It's a MOSFET remember guys? What IS needed is a relatively low impedance AC path for the MOSFET SOURCE and GATE legs to ground.
The real DC bias and AC paths can be completely separated, as I have done with my design. This circuit is not that complex. You give the MOSFET a lot of stray inductance on its leads, a little forward DC bias, and off she goes.....oscillation.
No, perhaps we aren't being clear. We are not talking about turning Q2 on. We are talking about supplying a negative potential to the Q2 _source_ pins, with sufficient oomph to put 200 mA in there, to induce and maintain the oscillations.
As Stefan has inquired and as I have just confirmed with live circuitry, this can be done with a 9V battery and a pot, no switching just continuous oscillations. This has to be "negative" though: the positive from the pot/battery has to go to where the "negative" FG lead is connected to the NERD circuit: the gate of Q1 and the sources of Q2. And the negative from the pot/battery goes to where the "positive" FG lead connects to the NERD circuit: the gates of Q2 and the source of Q1. Thus, no mosfet sees a positive gate potential at all, but the source bias causes the oscillations and allows some current through the oscillating mosfets... and the source bias _source_ is contributing significant power to the system, at anywhere from 60 to 200 plus mA.
I've got to hit the road, so I won't be able to post again until later this evening. Thanks for your comments, and there is a new video up with a bit of a puzzler that I could use some help with.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
This seems to be getting confusing. Q2 does not require any significant "bias" to turn it on. It's a MOSFET remember guys? What IS needed is a relatively low impedance AC path for the MOSFET SOURCE and GATE legs to ground.
The real DC bias and AC paths can be completely separated, as I have done with my design. This circuit is not that complex. You give the MOSFET a lot of stray inductance on its leads, a little forward DC bias, and off she goes.....oscillation.
.99,
Are you sure about this? In the common gate configuration, I agree there will be very little gate current once biased on (as with all MOSFETS), but by holding the gate at ground and having to supply a negative voltage to the source, whatever is used to bias on Q2 must be able to provide the bias voltage "for" Q2 at the bias current "of" Q2.
I too would consider placing the gate of Q2 above ground as you do in your burst osc schematic, as switching the gate voltage would be a very low current point to do the switchng (and eliminates the need for a negative voltage source). Try placing your gate at ground in your sim circuit and providing -10V to the source thru 50R. What would the sim say regarding the current on the -10V?
If we are to adhere to RA's original circuit, and if the source is to be brought to say -10V relative to the gate via 50R, and if Q2 passes 150ma. at that applied voltage, then I would think that a constant supply of -10V at 150ma. would be required to keep Q2 biased on.
PW
.99,
I have suggested a few times that a 50R be placed in the source leg of Q2 and that the gate be biased at a positive voltage to keep Q2 operating (similar to your circuit). A 1meg pot across the first Batt+ with the wiper tied to the gate circuit (AC decoupled) would allow the operating bias of Q2 to be set/varied. This would only draw 12-14ua. from the first battery (depending on its voltage). Alternately, the gate coud be tied to the first Batt+ directly through a series resistor/cap to ground (for decoupling) and only the decoupling cap and gate leakage current would be drawn from the first battery. The value of the 50R at the source could be modified to set the Q2 operating (bias) current.
PW
Hmmm... I think I'm understanding this a bit more now.
The negative potential on the Q2 source pins effectively increases the potential difference between the gate and the source, with the gate being more positive... even though it's held at "zero" volts by the gate drive pulsation baseline. When the negative potential on Q2 source becomes great enough-- 4 or so volts negative wrt the gate at "zero" volts.... the mosfets begin to conduct a little and the oscillations start. Once the oscs start they provide a rising and falling potential difference between the Q2 gates and sources.... in other words, feedback oscillations.
In other words, PW and .99 seem to be describing the same thing, from different sides of the coin, if I am understanding correctly.
Is the power from the negative bias source being mixed in with the main battery power being partially switched by the mosfets during the oscillations? How does this happen if it does? Is it coupled capacitatively through the gate-drain capacitance?
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 02:22:35 PM
.99,
I have suggested a few times that a 50R be placed in the source leg of Q2 and that the gate be biased at a positive voltage to keep Q2 operating (similar to your circuit). A 1meg pot across the first Batt+ with the wiper tied to the gate circuit (AC decoupled) would allow the operating bias of Q2 to be set/varied. This would only draw 12-14ua. from the first battery (depending on its voltage). Alternately, the gate coud be tied to the first Batt+ directly through a series resistor/cap to ground (for decoupling) and only the decoupling cap and gate leakage current would be drawn from the first battery. The value of the 50R at the source could be modified to set the Q2 operating (bias) current.
PW
I agree, this would be a good way to make stable and adjustable oscillations, better than the simple battery-pot idea (which does work but is kind of twitchy). But if this is done, obviously the power contribution of the bias source is eliminated. Is it then a NERD circuit any more? This is why I didn't pursue the optocoupler idea earlier. I think now I could get it to work, but again... the isolation defeats the functioning of the NERD circuit.
This is also my objection to MH's LEDs of Doom. The LED is a diode after all, rectifying what it sees ... and inserting it into the circuit, even bidirectionally, might interfere with the "normal" current paths and thus void the warranty.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 02:27:51 PM
Hmmm... I think I'm understanding this a bit more now.
The negative potential on the Q2 source pins effectively increases the potential difference between the gate and the source, with the gate being more positive... even though it's held at "zero" volts by the gate drive pulsation baseline. When the negative potential on Q2 source becomes great enough-- 4 or so volts negative wrt the gate at "zero" volts.... the mosfets begin to conduct a little and the oscillations start. Once the oscs start they provide a rising and falling potential difference between the Q2 gates and sources.... in other words, feedback oscillations.
In other words, PW and .99 seem to be describing the same thing, from different sides of the coin, if I am understanding correctly.
Is the power from the negative bias source being mixed in with the main battery power being partially switched by the mosfets during the oscillations? How does this happen if it does? Is it coupled capacitatively through the gate-drain capacitance?
TK,
Hey, I thought you had "real work" to do today!
Your questions are good ones. Regarding the bias source, that is why I asked what your 555 circuit's supply was drawing when it has Q2 oscillating. If your Q2 bias is 150ma. for example, I would think your 555 supply will be showing a total current draw equal to the 150ma bias current plus 555 quiescent current.
For DC, the current path is through whatever is providing the turn on bias supply for Q2. For AC, the path is through both the bias supply and the Ciss of the MOSFETs. When the FG was used, its Rgen=50R was a lesser path for AC than the Ciss of the MOSFETs. With your 555's 10R source, the 10R is probably close to an equal path for AC, as the 10R is close to the Ciss reactance at 1.5MHz.
PW
TK,
If you look at the first paper's schematic, it at first appears that the only path for AC at the source of Q2 is through the FG. But, if you draw in the gate to source capacitance, Ciss, you will see that the Ciss is effectively across the FG terminals and therefore allows a portion of the AC current to bypass the FG. The Ciss of a single IRFPG50 is somewhere around 2800pF. Four Q2's in parallel make the total Ciss around 11,200pF, and at 1.5Mhz, this represents a fairly low impedance path around the FG's 50R.
I am still considering how the drain to gate capacitance, Coss, comes into play. Coss will allow an amount of AC to be applied to the CSR, and hence thru the FG and Ciss, effectively be negative feedback. Add some phase shift (inductance) and negative feedback can easily become positive feedback, i.e., an oscillator.
The amount of negative feedback at AC that Coss provides is a bit complicated, as the inductance of the CSR, the DC resistance of the CSR, the reactance of Ciss, the Rgen, and any stray inductance/capacitance would all come into play in dividing the negative FB and setting the Q2 AC gain or alternately, and/or as well, providing the phase shift necessary to cause the oscillation. That is how I see it anyway.
.99 could probably be more quantitative in this regard with his sim probing.
PW
Just to clarify one point;
"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.
So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.
I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 03:33:29 PM
.99 could probably be more quantitative in this regard with his sim probing.
PW
If you want to see something specific on any of the circuits, simply ask. :)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 03:34:03 PM
Just to clarify one point;
"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.
So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.
I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.
.99,
I agree with the comments above, however, the gate is a very high impedance node for DC, while the source is a low impedance node for DC.
In your sim work, if you insert a -12V battery in series with 50R in the Q2 source leg (using the grounded gate configuration and connecting the battery/resistor where the FG is normally connected), wil not the -12V battery have to provide an amount of current equal to whatever DC current is flowing thru Q2?
Personally, I have no problem with the alternate bias method. Tie the gate to the first Batt+ through some decoupling and insert a 50R at the source. I would indeed be impressed if that circuit "ran forever".
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
In your sim work, if you insert a -12V battery in series with 50R in the Q2 source leg (using the grounded gate configuration and connecting the battery/resistor where the FG is normally connected), wil not the -12V battery have to provide an amount of current equal to whatever DC current is flowing thru Q2?
Yes, whatever is in the SOURCE will have to pass the Source current. That goes without saying. However, that current has nothing explicitly to do with biasing the MOSFET in a partially ON state. In this instance, the FG (if you will) is providing two functions; V
GS bias, AND AC/DC path to ground.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 03:34:03 PM
Just to clarify one point;
"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.
So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.
I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.
.99,
To further clarify, yes, the bias voltage or Vbias is the voltage applied to the gate relative to the source, i.e., Vgs. But, but the bias current, Ibias, is the quiescent DC operating current that Q2 passes when, in concert with its source resistance and Vds, Vbias is applied.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 04:17:18 PM
Yes, whatever is in the SOURCE will have to pass the Source current. That goes without saying. However, that current has nothing explicitly to do with biasing the MOSFET in a partially ON state. In this instance, the FG (if you will) is providing two functions; VGS bias, AND AC/DC path to ground.
.99,
I would rather say "two functions; Vgs bias, the only DC path to ground and a partial AC path to ground", the other AC path being Ciss.
Regarding the bias source in the Q2 source leg, if we connect a 15 volt battery in series with 50R between ground (CSR) and the source of Q2 (batt+ at CSR), the measured drop across the 50R will be around 10.5 to 10 volts (the 15volts minus Vgs). That means there is around 200ma flowing as Ibias thru Q2, and as well through the battery. If the battery is a 200ma/Hr battery, does this not mean the battery will last only 1 hour?
PW
(corrected batt- to batt+)
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 03:08:36 PM
TK,
Hey, I thought you had "real work" to do today!
Your questions are good ones. Regarding the bias source, that is why I asked what your 555 circuit's supply was drawing when it has Q2 oscillating. If your Q2 bias is 150ma. for example, I would think your 555 supply will be showing a total current draw equal to the 150ma bias current plus 555 quiescent current.
For DC, the current path is through whatever is providing the turn on bias supply for Q2. For AC, the path is through both the bias supply and the Ciss of the MOSFETs. When the FG was used, its Rgen=50R was a lesser path for AC than the Ciss of the MOSFETs. With your 555's 10R source, the 10R is probably close to an equal path for AC, as the 10R is close to the Ciss reactance at 1.5MHz.
PW
Thanks... I think I get it..... maybe..... So the bias power is "mixed in " with the main power from the batteries and must be dissipated in the load and mosfets (I suspect in the mosfets mostly). Hence the load heating and current viewing resistors are giving an inaccurate picture of the power flows in the circuit.... is that right?
(I know this has been covered before; I just want to hammer it home somehow if it is correct.)
I'm running so late that there's no point in making the drive. So here I am, stuck in Mobile with the Memphis blues again.
Anyway.... I tried the 50r/pot/cap/main battery thing and I can't get it to work. And yes, I've confirmed that the pot is good and is adjusting the voltage properly, tried with three different valued pots.
This _does_ work just fine with the external battery (no decoupling cap), but using the running battery I can't get it to work. External 9v gives beautiful nearly perfect sinusoidal oscillations on the common drain when the 10 k (not 1 meg; I also tried 100 K, no luck) pot is set right, and the "voltage floor" still shows up: the negative voltage on the gate drive signal floors at about 4 volts negative indicated on the scope trace.
I think you really do need to provide a potential that is more negative than the negative battery terminal....
I just made another video... chaotic but the points come through I hope. It's uploading now.
Is the 200 mA really a DC current ?
What about the AC component flowing while the oscillations are happening ?
If we would use just a 9 Volts battery with a pot and put on the oscillations,
then we would pronbly only have an AC current, right ?
Or will we have an AC current superimposed on a DC 200 mA current ?
Maybe TK can measure this and show it on a new video ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 04:39:21 PM
Thanks... I think I get it..... maybe..... So the bias power is "mixed in " with the main power from the batteries and must be dissipated in the load and mosfets (I suspect in the mosfets mostly). Hence the load heating and current viewing resistors are giving an inaccurate picture of the power flows in the circuit.... is that right?
(I know this has been covered before; I just want to hammer it home somehow if it is correct.)
I'm running so late that there's no point in making the drive. So here I am, stuck in Mobile with the Memphis blues again.
Anyway.... I tried the 50r/pot/cap/main battery thing and I can't get it to work. And yes, I've confirmed that the pot is good and is adjusting the voltage properly, tried with three different valued pots.
This _does_ work just fine with the external battery (no decoupling cap), but using the running battery I can't get it to work. External 9v gives beautiful nearly perfect sinusoidal oscillations on the common drain when the 10 k (not 1 meg; I also tried 100 K, no luck) pot is set right, and the "voltage floor" still shows up: the negative voltage on the gate drive signal floors at about 4 volts negative indicated on the scope trace.
I think you really do need to provide a potential that is more negative than the negative battery terminal....
I just made another video... chaotic but the points come through I hope. It's uploading now.
TK,
I would decouple the wiper of the pot, or just use a 10K resistor from the first Bat+ to a cap and tie the other end of the cap to real ground (not the CSR, althogh you might want to try both ground points). Then, to the junction of the resistor and cap, connect another resistor, 1Meg or so, and connect the other end of that high value resistor to the MOSFET gate. You may have to add a bit of wire length between the end of the 1Meg and the gate to add some inductance to get the osc. Possibly you will have to add some inductance (wire) in series with the 50R at the source as well.
PW
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 04:39:56 PM
Is the 200 mA really a DC current ?
What about the AC component flowing while the oscillations are happening ?
If we would use just a 9 Volts battery with a pot and put on the oscillations,
then we would pronbly only have an AC current, right ?
Or will we have an AC current superimposed on a DC 200 mA current ?
Maybe TK can measure this and show it on a new video ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan,
If a 9 volt battery was placed in the source leg of Q2 with a series resistor, let's say 50R, then the DC bias current would be around 100ma plus or minus 30-40ma or so. When oscillating, there would be this DC bias current passing through the 50R and 9volt battery and a separate AC current. My assertion is that the AC current would follow two paths, one being the through 9 volt battery and 50R in this instance, and the other AC path being the gate to source capacitance of the MOSFETs.
PW
I don't think we want 200mA of AC current flowing through our bias battery, that's why I isolated it.
With isolation, the battery supplies only a tiny DC current to slightly bias the MOSFET ON, and the AC path is provided capacitively, which bypasses the DC bias network.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 05:07:03 PM
I don't think we want 200mA of AC current flowing through our bias battery, that's why I isolated it.
With isolation, the battery supplies only a tiny DC current to slightly bias the MOSFET ON, and the AC path is provided capacitively, which bypasses the DC bias network.
.99,
Yes, but in TK's set up using the 555, and in the NERD circuit using the FG, the 555 or FG must provide that 200ma of current at whatever negative voltage is used to keep Q2 biased on. Only by by applying the bias voltage to the gate can a "tiny DC current" be needed from the bias source.
Also, I am only estimating the Q2 Ibias. In the RA paper it was mentioned the FG was set to full negative offset in at least one test. I am assuming a maximum of -14.5 from the FG open circuit and an Rgen=50R. The voltage at the source of Q2 will always be Vgs from the gate, which is ground in this case. At -14.5V open circut at the FG, then there would be around 10V across the internal Rgen of 50R. 10V divided by the 50R is 200ma. This will vary a bit due to Vgs characteristics and device to device differences, so I believe I said some time ago I would "guess" Ibias to be around 150ma plus or minus 30ma or so. Likely the circuit could be "played with" to get it to osc at a lower bias current. Without knowing the open circuit voltage versus in circuit voltage of RA's FG, we cannot claculate Q2's Ibias.
PW
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 04:39:56 PM
Is the 200 mA really a DC current ?
What about the AC component flowing while the oscillations are happening ?
If we would use just a 9 Volts battery with a pot and put on the oscillations,
then we would pronbly only have an AC current, right ?
Or will we have an AC current superimposed on a DC 200 mA current ?
Maybe TK can measure this and show it on a new video ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
There appears to be a DC current. The "ac" can be measured wherever you hook a probe in the circuit. It's an RF oscillation that I can even hear on my FM radio.
I've posted a video showing the circuit with a 9v battery and pot.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 03:34:03 PM
Just to clarify one point;
"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.
So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.
I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.
Yes, and the behaviour of Tar Baby bears that out as well. That's why I said that the two of you are in violent agreement on this point, I think. The problem arises when you try to have that bias supply connected to the main battery. This is going to put one or the other of the bias supply rails at the circuit ground potential, in other words, no longer floating, unless some circuitry like the voltage inverter is used, I think.
I have still not been able to make consistent oscillations using a simple hookup to the main battery for bias. External supply: no problem as long as it's floating.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 05:07:03 PM
I don't think we want 200mA of AC current flowing through our bias battery, that's why I isolated it.
With isolation, the battery supplies only a tiny DC current to slightly bias the MOSFET ON, and the AC path is provided capacitively, which bypasses the DC bias network.
.99,
I've re-read the above and I am now not quite sure what you are saying.
Regarding the method used to bias on Q2, AC current was not being discussed, other than its two paths. From the RA first paper, much more than 200ma of AC current is indicated, but the present discussion was related to DC bias.
What is under question is if in the hypothetical situation I gave using a 200ma/Hr battery in series with a 50R at the Q2 source leg, and if the Q2 bias/quiescent DC current were 200ma, then the battery would last only around an hour, correct? The question relates to whether or not the FG/555/battery in the source leg must provide 200ma to maintain Q2 biased on in the common gate configuration (or provide whatever the Q2 current is at DC). If TK's 555 power supply is providing a supply current equal to or a bit more than the Q2 drain current, then the answer is yes, the FG/555/battery will have to be capable of supplying 200ma for the duration of any tests, hence any battery used as a bias supply must be sized accordingly. I think TK's need for a heat sink on the 555 demonstrates this as well. Again, bias current may not need to be as high as 200ma, I am only using that as an example.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 04:47:48 PM
TK,
I would decouple the wiper of the pot, or just use a 10K resistor from the first Bat+ to a cap and tie the other end of the cap to real ground (not the CSR, althogh you might want to try both ground points). Then, to the junction of the resistor and cap, connect another resistor, 1Meg or so, and connect the other end of that high value resistor to the MOSFET gate. You may have to add a bit of wire length between the end of the 1Meg and the gate to add some inductance to get the osc. Possibly you will have to add some inductance (wire) in series with the 50R at the source as well.
PW
I think we are starting to lose the thread here. Whatever we do, I think it must terminate "as if" it were a dropin replacement for the FG in the NERD circuit. That means one terminal of it must connect to the point marked "FG +" and the other terminal must connect to "FG -" and if possible it must be capable of making both the negative-going drive which produces the oscillations without turning on Q1, AND it must also be able to make a positive drive voltage, turning Q1 on and _with enough negative_ to allow oscillations to occur. Please watch the video where I show this fine point using the function generator.
At least this is what I'm striving for, and I think this would be the fairest test for the circuit.
"The Gate" in your post is ambiguous at this point. The "FG+" connection goes to the Q1 gate and the Q2 sources. The "FG-" connection goes to the Q1 source and the Q2 gates. Are you saying I should hook the 1M to the "FG+" connection, and nothing to the "FG-" connection? Perhaps a drawing would be helpful.
But... I still don't see the difference between that and what I've already tried, but I'll try it anyway as soon as my head clears a bit.
There is a lot going on and I find myself in a strange position. I feel like I am doing what the NERDs should have done, a long time ago, and I feel that I am not only testing but I am actually developing and designing circuitry for them. And yet... look at how I am treated. All of this, in spite of RA's allegations, is on my own dime and my own time, and my "controllers" don't even know about it.
At any rate: I have attained several of the primary goals. I have shown the basic 555 timer circuit that can run in place of the FG for the negative going pulse mode, and I know why it won't work for the positive going high-heat mode. I've developed a floating supply that can be used with the main battery and the 555 timer to operate in the low-heat mode. I've also shown that continuous oscillations can be made with the external battery.
I'm very sure that these same things will also work with the NERD device... so I expect them to begin their testing any day now.
Don't I?
TK,
By "gate" I was referring to the gate of the four Q2's only, and all discussions using the positive voltage to the gate of Q2 have been with regard to Q1 being out of circuit. Sorry, I thought we were just considering the osc portion of the circuit, I should have been more clear.
You are right, of course, in that if the circuit deviates substantially from the NERD circuit, it will be argued that those modifications are responsible for any less than stellar observations during a run down test.
The only alternatives I can see would be to build an equivalent FG circuit running off an isolated DC to DC converter fed from the main batteries or use two batteries in series with their center taps tied to ground. I would probably use low power opamps (for higher than the 555 rail voltage) configured as an astable and an output buffer with NPN/PNP emitter followers in the FB loop. As stated, the supply could be a pair of batteries or an isolated DC-DC converter fed from the main batteries. Though minimal, the added current draw on this circuit if operated from the main batteries would likely be questioned. Even if the separate battery or batteries are used to operate the circuit, would that/those battery(s) going flat be considered proof of lack "over unity"?
If the "magic" happens during the osc phase, then I would focus only on Q2 as .99 has done in his burst osc as it should be possible to bias from the main batteries with very minimal current draw from those batteries using a similar circuit.
But, as you say, that is probably too different from the original circuit to be accepted.
As far as that goes, did not Rosemary say she already performed testing with this circuit using a 555 but was just having "stability" problems? Possibly her circuit could be improved upon...
PW
Well, I think that Rosemary is in over her head when it comes to using a 555. It's yet another bone to throw into the Bitches Brew.
(That's a homage to Miles Davis.)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 07:56:37 PM
Well, I think that Rosemary is in over her head when it comes to using a 555. It's yet another bone to throw into the Bitches Brew.
(That's a homage to Miles Davis.)
MileHigh
MileHigh. I was enjoying the exceptional professionalism that is a new characteristic of this thread. Are you trying to regress this back to the 'gossip' columns that you enjoy? Related as it is to allegation, insinuation and general malignment of both my name and our work? If you guys want an uninterrupted discussion - then I recommend that you keep 'on topic'.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
So how did you deal with the need for a negative voltage at the source of Q2/gate of Q1 when you performed tests with your circuit using the 555?
PW
Rosemary:
Do you have a plan or a circuit for having a 555 support both the positive and negative oscillation modes? Or are you listening here to try to learn how to do it?
MileHigh
MileHigh - it is well past my competence to put a 555 switch together. I have never done this. Nor could I. I am learning NOTHING except for the way you guys tackle a problem. It's circuitous but interesting. And I'm reasonably certain that you'll eventually get the point. And picowatt - I would not disclose how the guys put the circuit together - even if I could. It's not my circuit.
Regards,
Rosemary
Well I hope that you have 'backup' to help you.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 08:19:46 PM
Well I hope that you have 'backup' to help you.
No need for that 'hope'. There's plenty available. And all of it much required.
R
I'd rather not keep answering your interjections if you don't mind MileHigh. I'd prefer to see this argument progress.
Wait..... OK... so by applying a negative voltage to the _sources_ of the Q2s I am effectively applying a positive voltage to their gates. Effectively, right?
And with a floating supply there's no problem, except for the energy capacity of the supply and where this energy is going.
But the problem arises when one or the other of the points where the FG attaches... either the Q1 gate+2 sources, or the Q2 sources and the Q1 gate..... isn't floating but is tied to the circuit ground point at the negative rail. This happens when I try to use the most negative battery as the bias supply for the 555 timer directly, hence the need for the voltage inverter to give me a voltage that is truly more negative than the battery's negative pole.
If I just leave the "FG +" connection disconnected, and run a pot across the running battery's lowest unit, and take a wire from the wiper to the "FG -" point (Q2 gates, Q1 source) then I'll be effectively shorting that wiper back to the negative battery through the 1/4 ohm shunt. Like I said before, when I try this nothing happens. No change in the scope traces from flatline, I mean. Certainly I am sending a current through the pot and the CVR but this is a closed loop and the gates don't care about it, apparently.
Okay TK,
now with your new video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)
with just the 9 Volt battery and the pot
we have the perfect oscillation, just oscillations and no more
switching ! Well done.
So this is the most easy way to get rid of the function generator
and Rosemary and her team should be able to replicate this.
P.S. The second oscillation you have shown were probably just
some weird 60 Hz jammed overlay of your scope not triggering
as you did float one side of the pot so it was not a real voltage divider anymore...
So please can you show now via a shunt resistor, where you measure the 200 mA
in the 9 Volt battery case ?
Is that flowing through your 50 Ohms shunt ?
Can you please show a scope shot on this shunt resistor ?
Many thanks.
Regards. Stefan.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2012, 08:21:59 PM
No need for that 'hope'. There's plenty available. And all of it much required.
R
I'd rather not keep answering your interjections if you don't mind MileHigh. I'd prefer to see this argument progress.
Rosemary, MH first said that you are over your head when it comes to the 555. You then CHOSE to jump in and berated him, you insulted him and once again started your same old same old. Then.... you had to agree that he was RIGHT, you don't know a 555 from an op amp and won't be bothered to learn, not even from this thread.
Now... please go away, you are not helping at all, in fact you have once again diverted the thread from the topic and you HAVE NOT ANSWERED A RELEVANT DIRECT QUESTION.
And not only that but I am doing YOUR WORK FOR YOU and I resent your attitude. Please go away.
PW:
QuoteThe only alternatives I can see would be to build an equivalent FG circuit running off an isolated DC to DC converter fed from the main batteries or use two batteries in series with their center taps tied to ground. I would probably use low power opamps (for higher than the 555 rail voltage) configured as an astable and an output buffer with NPN/PNP emitter followers in the FB loop. As stated, the supply could be a pair of batteries or an isolated DC-DC converter fed from the main batteries. Though minimal, the added current draw on this circuit if operated from the main batteries would likely be questioned. Even if the separate battery or batteries are used to operate the circuit, would that/those battery(s) going flat be considered proof of lack "over unity"?
My gawd, I qualified you in perhaps less than 8 postings and you are really good. With op-amps fed by a 555, and a separate set of batteries and the NPN/PNP emitter followers it's like you are building a whole function generator. lol
When you think about it, if you have to rely on a separate power source to emulate the function generator, you may as well just keep the bloody function generator.
I think that there may some misconstrued attributes assigned to the function generator. In positive 'high power' mode, as long as the square wave frequency is fairly low, then the function generator is not really adding any power to the circuit and it is not recharging the batteries.
In negative oscillation mode, and assuming that the function generator is grounded before the current sensing resistor (and I am sill not convinced any of Rosemary's data captures were done like this), and knowing the open-circuit negative output voltage of the function generator itself, you can simply factor in how much the function generator is contributing to the powering of the circuit. In that sense the function generator is just an 'ideal battery' that never depletes.
And of course in negative oscillation mode the function generator is not recharging the batteries either. You can actually state that it's helping the batteries to discharge. And Rosemary is using the function generator as a de facto negative DC source in this case anyways. The NERDs were simply not aware of how the function generator fit into the circuit.
With that ground loop issue in mind, the function generator may have to be run off of an isolation transformer so the whole thing floats.
All this to discharge a bunch of batteries or to save the world. Such dilemmas! lol
MileHigh
Hi TK,
in your video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)
it is not possible that there are flowing 200 mA DC bias current,
as you have a 10 KOhm pot and you turn it up into the center and
then only the oscillations occure at around Minute 2:20 .
But then the pot has already around 2000 to 5000 Ohms in this position
so the maximal current then able to flow from the battery is only around 1.8
to maximum 4.5 mA at 9 Volts...
Just Ohms law...
So I don´t see the 9 Volt battery go flat very fast at this current level....
So a 200 mA DC bias current seems to be not required....
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 08:33:36 PM
Okay TK,
now with your new video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)
with just the 9 Volt battery and the pot
we have the perfect oscillation, just oscillations and no more
switching ! Well done.
Thank you. Unfortunately this will only work for the negative-going gate signal mode. Simply applying a positive battery voltage to the positive FG point results in hard turn on of the Q1 mosfet and, since there is no negative component there will be no oscillations. For the oscillations to happen, regardless of pulse polarity and mosfets switching or not, there has to be a voltage at the negative FG hookup point that is at least 4 volts more negative than the negative battery terminal, or if floating, than the other FG hookup point.
Quote
So this is the most easy way to get rid of the function generator
and Rosemary and her team should be able to replicate this.
Yes, one would think so. I imagine that if there actually is a "team" somewhere they are frantically trying to figure out why their batteries are now running down when they apparently didn't before. Otherwise... why haven't they shown a test already? I mean, how hard is it to hook up a battery and a pot? Even I could manage to do it.
However, the current drain on the battery will limit its lifetime, and the power it inserts into the circuit must be accounted for.
Quote
P.S. The second oscillation you have shown were probably just
some weird 60 Hz jammed overlay of your scope not triggering
as you did float one side of the pot so it was not a real voltage divider anymore...
No, it wasn't 60 Hz. The scope has a "line" setting on its trigger so it can trigger on the powerline frequency... the second oscillations were at about 25 MHz. The scope actually did trigger on it but the trace was so dim it was hard to see on the video.
Quote
So please can you show now via a shunt resistor, where you measure the 200 mA
in the 9 Volt battery case ?
I may be able to do so. I've been using a Hickock inline moving-coil meter and it is easy to peg it against the 100 mA stop.
Quote
Is that flowing through your 50 Ohms shunt ?
Can you please show a scope shot on this shunt resistor ?
I wouldn't call this series gate resistor a "shunt" exactly. And I've found that 50R is too much and limits the current to 45-65 mA. Using a 10R instead I am able to "just" peg the Hickock at a tiny bit over 100 mA max. With no resistor I can easily exceed 300 mA when the mosfets start turning on. So when the mosfets are on or oscillating hard, there appears to be a low impedance path around for the 9v battery's current. I don't know if this goes through the load and/or the CVR. I think it probably doesn't, and just heats the mosfets, but I'm not sure at this point. If I scope across this 10R resistor, I'll have to disconnect all the other probes because neither end is at the circuit's ground potential, I think. We shall see.
(ETA: I should mention that my 9v battery is about dead, it's only indicating 8 volts or so, so maybe with a fresh battery the 50R series resistor would work better.)
Quote
Many thanks.
Regards. Stefan.
You're welcome, I'm glad to oblige.
We still need to figure out how to make the positive gate drive, high-heat mode with the 555 or battery and still get oscillations, though. I was hoping the Voltage Inverter would work out for that, but at this point I can't even remember if I tested that mode or not.
TK,
Regarding your 9V battery video:
First, when you show the 9V across the pot and adjusted for oscillation. Do you still have your DC milliammeter in the loop, if so, at what current draw does the onset of oscillation happn? That 10K pot would drop much more voltage for a given Ibias then your 555's 10R or the FG's 50R unless you were very close to the end of the pot's rotation. Also, as your oscillation looks a lot cleaner than RA's, it does look like the circuit is being biased at a different operating point.
Second, as for hooking the first main battery across the pot, the best you would be able to do with that is turn on Q1. Have you looked at .99's burst osc schematic? I was referring to applying a positive voltage to the gates of Q2 and omitting Q1 altogether. Look at .99's schematic and you will see what I am talking about.
Third, regarding attaching the positive of the 9V to the main battery string negative terminal, I would think placing a 10R to 50R, possibly even 100R, between the 9V negative and the Q2 source terminal should start the osc. Possibly use the MOSFET end of the CSR instead of "real" ground for the 9V plus terminal connection.
If you think about it, the first and last part of the video are essentially the same, as in both instances the positive terminal of the 9V was tied to ground, but in the first part you used the MOSFET end of the CSR and not the battery ground.
Of most interest to me, is what amount of current are you having to pass thru the 9V to make the circuit oscillate? If you have the pot set so that the wiper resistance is very high compared to the FG's 50R (or your 555's 10R), your Ibias will be much lower than was likely used in the RA tests with the FG or with your 555.
PW
TK:
QuoteWait..... OK... so by applying a negative voltage to the _sources_ of the Q2s I am effectively applying a positive voltage to their gates. Effectively, right?
Exactly. Good old relativity. So as you pull the source of the Q2 array down, then current starts to flow out through the source and into the function generator. Obviously if a lot of current flows into the function generator (let's say it looks like a 50 ohm resistance going to a negative 12-volt 'ground') then the input resistance of the function generator will cause a voltage "bump up." If the voltage "bump up" is high enough to bring the voltage to the true ground potential, then the Q2 array shuts off. But if the Q2 array shuts off, then there is no current flow, and hence no "bump up" and the potential at the source node gets pulled down again by the 50-ohm resistor. Therefore the Q2 array starts to switch on, current flows, which causes a "bump up" which switches the Q2 array off and then the potential is pulled down yet again by the 50-ohm resistor and so on and so on and so on.
I am not saying that is the root cause of the oscillation but as you can see, since you are pulling the Q2 source down towards the negative potential of the function generator through a 50-ohm "damping" resistor, as the current starts to flow, it tends to make the Q2 array want to shut off - which then makes the Q2 array switch on. So the circuit is in a crazy kind of balancing act and it screams as a result.
Just delicious!
MileHigh
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 08:51:11 PM
Hi TK,
in your video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)
it is not possible that there are flowing 200 mA DC bias current,
as you have a 10 KOhm pot and you turn it up into the center and
then only the oscillations occure at around Minute 2:20 .
But then the pot has already around 2000 to 5000 Ohms in this position
so the maximal current then able to flow from the battery is only around 1.8
to maximum 4.5 mA at 9 Volts...
Just Ohms law...
No, perhaps I wasn't being clear. The oscillations _begin_ at a relatively centered pot, but the magnitude increases as the pot is turned further, and the "robust" oscillations happen near one end of the pot's travel, at this point. Even with other sources, there is that "voltage floor" that indicates that, over about 4 volts negative, there is suddenly a low impedance path activated and the current goes up. You have to enter this voltage area for the oscillations to occur.
Quote
So I don´t see the 9 Volt battery go flat very fast at this current level....
The 9v battery has indeed gone flat fairly fast during my testing today, and it's gotten warm, too. I have been trying for a setting that gives me right at 100 mA from the 9v battery, and that gives me about 190-200 mA indicated on the inline ammeter at the main battery, which I know will produce measurable load heating in a reasonable time. And will deplete my batteries in a reasonable time... although.... they are STILL over 12 volts each, and I haven't recharged them since many working days.
Quote
So a 200 mA DC bias current seems to be not required....
It depends on what you mean by "required". To get the oscillations of great magnitude, which indicate that the Q2s are partially conducting... hence heating the load.... I need to be able to supply substantial current, as far as I can tell. Since the magnitude of the oscillations is set by the voltage level, and the current then flows according to the voltage, I'm not sure if one can get oscillations without the current, just with the applied voltage. .99 and PW seem to think that you can, but I haven't had a chance to try all of their ideas yet. Certainly whenever I've been able to get oscillations, the current flow goes with, in lockstep. There has been one exception and that was when I cap-coupled the FG to the very early 2n7000 circuit. It oscillated fine, switched fine, and no DC current was able to flow in that gate drive loop.
So I think the bias source should be able to source 200 mA if asked to, but it's not always necessary to ask it to.
Quote
Regards, Stefan.
TK,
I was always curious about your cap coupled to the source early FG experiments. What did you use for a cap?
I would think the same Ibias would flow through the cap and would be seen as the voltage across the cap discharging when the FG is negative. You might not have noticed with faster/shorter switching periods, or with a very large cap, but that Q2 source DC current has to flow somewhere. If you AC couple the 9V battery, as you did the FG, you could "flip" the polarity once (to simulate FG switching) and having now charged the cap, the circuit will oscillate until the cap discharges.
Regarding the other bias circuit, again, that was with Q1 removed, a 50R placed across the FG terminal connection points (Q2 source to CSR), and then applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 instead of having it at ground potential. Without those mods, the use of a positive voltage from the main battery string can only be used to turn on Q1 (as you stated).
I would think that in your use of the 9V batery as in the first part of the video, the DC drain current, or observed DC current at the CSR, should be the same as what you would measure coming from the 9V. Possibly the oscillations are affecting an ammeter, particular if not perfectly symmetrical or sinusoidal?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 09:03:22 PM
TK,
Regarding your 9V battery video:
First, when you show the 9V across the pot and adjusted for oscillation. Do you still have your DC milliammeter in the loop, if so, at what current draw does the onset of oscillation happn? That 10K pot would drop much more voltage for a given Ibias then your 555's 10R or the FG's 50R unless you were very close to the end of the pot's rotation. Also, as your oscillation looks a lot cleaner than RA's, it does look like the circuit is being biased at a different operating point.
The problem with batteries is that they do run down. I realise now that that 9v battery is almost flat in that video, showing about 8.4 volts no-load. That's probably why I found that the 50R series resistor was too large and limited the Ibias to about 45-65 mA even when the pot was cranked to the stop. So I changed to 10R and this gives me just almost exactly 100 mA on the Hickock. Onset of oscillation happens at about 12 mA and increases in amplitude until the max pot stop is reached. Yes, my oscs seemed cleaner.... because of the flat battery and the lack of voltage. At more voltage the oscs become increasingly distorted from that nice sinusoid.
Quote
Second, as for hooking the first main battery across the pot, the best you would be able to do with that is turn on Q1. Have you looked at .99's burst osc schematic? I was referring to applying a positive voltage to the gates of Q2 and omitting Q1 altogether. Look at .99's schematic and you will see what I am talking about.
Yes, you are right and I have seen the schematic and sim results, and I know exactly what you are talking about, now that I know what "the gate" means. I guess you know that I've shown the oscs happening while Q1 is physically removed from its socket. But remember... there is another operating mode of the NERD device, one which turns on Q1 almost correctly, while still oscillating the Q2s in the usual manner. This is the one you've been asking about from their anomalous scope traces: the positive gate pulse which SHOULD show a current in their "shunt" but in some cases does not.... while in my system with known good mosfets and heatsinks, it always does.
Quote
Third, regarding attaching the positive of the 9V to the main battery string negative terminal, I would think placing a 10R to 50R, possibly even 100R, between the 9V negative and the Q2 source terminal should start the osc. Possibly use the MOSFET end of the CSR instead of "real" ground for the 9V plus terminal connection.
I'm not following you here. As soon as I touch the positive pole of the 9v battery to the negative pole of the main battery, the "second" type of oscillations begins, regardless of whatever else I have hooked up where, apparently. Are you thinking that making the connection you suggest will stop these 25 MHz oscillations and allow the other ones to be produced?
In the circuit I'm using, I'm putting the "FG -" point right where it is supposed to be by Ainslie in the schematic that she "has said she has said" is the correct one. That is, I am on the transistor side of the CVR. This is NOT how it was wired for the demo video, apparently, but after being asked repeatedly what is correct and having her not being responsive to the issue, fuzzytomcat and .99 and I seem to have agreed that the correct schematic is the one I'm using as posted below, with the "MOSFET end of the CSR instead of "real" ground for the 9V plus terminal connection" just as it is portrayed in the schematic... but I'd rather call it the "FG -" connection, even though in this case it is the +9v connection. I think. If there's another "official" schematic I can do that too.... and I'll be another increment pissed off.
Quote
If you think about it, the first and last part of the video are essentially the same, as in both instances the positive terminal of the 9V was tied to ground, but in the first part you used the MOSFET end of the CSR and not the battery ground.
Yes, I think that's right, and in the first case--- the case of the NERD schematic.... I think the current didn't go through the CSR but may have contributed to the power dissipation. Does it (the power from the bias supply) get to the load, or is it dissipated in the mosfets, or what? Where and how to account for it, if the hookup is made on the transistor side of the CVR?
Quote
Of most interest to me, is what amount of current are you having to pass thru the 9V to make the circuit oscillate? If you have the pot set so that the wiper resistance is very high compared to the FG's 50R (or your 555's 10R), your Ibias will be much lower than was likely used in the RA tests with the FG or with your 555.
PW
The circuit begins perceptible oscillations at about 12-15 mA on the inline meter. As the pot approaches the end of travel, the oscillations increase in amplitude, and the Ibias goes up. I've replaced your 50R with a 10R and this gives me 100 mA, about, on the Hickock with the pot fully turned. But my battery is weak so this will all change.
I do have some 78 series regulators in the box over there.
TK,
With as much as you've worked on this today, I guess you did indeed not get any "real work" done!
Your efforts are appreciated.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 09:39:17 PM
TK,
I was always curious about your cap coupled to the source early FG experiments. What did you use for a cap?
It was a little bitty ceramic cap that worked the best. I don't remember exactly but maybe 0.1 mF or even 0.01 mF. I do remember that bigger caps screwed up the waveshape. And I remember also that I couldn't get that same cap to work with the bigger mosfets, neither the 830a or the PG50, and when I tried bigger caps they didn't work well either. I don't have a cap substitution box... wait a minute yes I DO, I just remembered... where is that thing...... argh it will take me a while to dig it out if I can even remember which box it's in.
Quote
I would think the same Ibias would flow through the cap and would be seen as the voltage across the cap discharging when the FG is negative. You might not have noticed with faster/shorter switching periods, or with a very large cap, but that Q2 source DC current has to flow somewhere. If you AC couple the 9V battery, as you did the FG, you could "flip" the polarity once (to simulate FG switching) and having now charged the cap, the circuit will oscillate until the cap discharges.
Yes, I've seen that happen too. Perpetual oscillations until the gate was grounded to get rid of the charge, which may have been resupplied by capacitive coupling elsewhere in the circuit to keep it going.
Quote
Regarding the other bias circuit, again, that was with Q1 removed, a 50R placed across the FG terminal connection points (Q2 source to CSR), and then applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 instead of having it at ground potential. Without those mods, the use of a positive voltage from the main battery string can only be used to turn on Q1 (as you stated).
I would think that in your use of the 9V batery as in the first part of the video, the DC drain current, or observed DC current at the CSR, should be the same as what you would measure coming from the 9V. Possibly the oscillations are affecting an ammeter, particular if not perfectly symmetrical or sinusoidal?
Yes, that's right as long as the mosfets aren't very on. Once they start carrying current the DC drain current... what I'm looking at with the inline ammeter at the battery.... increases over the value indicated at the Ibias meter. 15 mA Ib on the Hickock gives me 10-20 mA on the inline DMM (resolution issues) and 100 mA Ib on the Hickok gives me 190 mA on the inline DMM.
I'm not trusting the absolute values given by the inline DMM but it is consistent and therefore useful nevertheless, even if its accuracy is affected by the RF.
Hi TK,
please set the 10 K pot to the oscillation setting at around -4 Volts,
then remove it and measure the resistances from
the center tap to the 2 ends of the pot.
I guess it is still at least 1 kOhm in this setting,
so at 9 Volts then a maximum of about 10 Milliamps
can only flow as a DC current from the battery...
( 1 Kohm parallel to 9 KOhm as the lowest resistance !)
Maybe the oscillations just flow as an AC current then due to the stray capacitance
via your loose wires setup so the battery is drawn flat from the AC currents ?
With the DC currents it can not go flat, if your pot is set to about -4 Volts what you said.
as this is about the center of the pot and then you have at least about 3 to 5 Kohm on each side of the battery,
so the DC current can not get bigger than 5 to 10 milliamps... It is just Ohms law...so 200 mA is wrong.
So if it gets flat it is either a bad old battery or the AC current sucks all the energy out of it....
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
TK,
With as much as you've worked on this today, I guess you did indeed not get any "real work" done!
Your efforts are appreciated.
PW
Thanks. I managed to walk the wild canine, but that's about all I've really gotten done today.
TK,
With only 9volts to work with, you will have to reduce the 50R as you did to get a similar bias current. My estimates were based on the FG at full offset approaching -14 volts and an Rgen of 50R. As I have been saying, 100-200ma of Ibias may not be required if other aspects are played with, i.e., changing wire lengths/layout for changes in inductance and strays.
I would think that the FG would act similarly to your 9V and be an additional "battery" in series with the main battery string and included in the whole loop. If 100ma DC is flowing, then I would think the battery, or FG, is acting like a "battery" and discharging a similar amount of current. As the overall available voltage is higher (i.e., the negative source in series with the main battery string) overall dissipation will increase a bit at the load due to the higher "loop" voltage.
Again, the required bias current may be much lower 150ma. I use FETs all the time biased in the microampere range, but I have never attempted such low bias currents with a power MOSFET. We do not know RA's FG settings so we cannot estimate the bias current in her tests. In reference to one test she indicated full negative offset with the FG, and that is what I based my 150ma plus or minus 30-40ma and a maximum of around 200ma estimates on. And that would be dependent on the Q2 device temperature as well.
With a fresh 9V battery, and its positive terminal tied to the MOSFET side of the CSR, a resistor of approx 30R between the 9V battery negative and the source of Q2 should give somewhere around 150ma of bias current (plus or minus 30ma or so). Again, the actual current will depend on the FET turn on variances and the temp of Q2.
The reason I always "push" for 50R is that it allows strays to act similarly to the NERD circuit. But as those are also not well defined, I would try to bias the circuit so that the oscillations look similar to the scope shots in the first paper (with regard to their symmetry and clipping).
PW
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 10:02:52 PM
Hi TK,
please set the 1ß K pot to the oscillation setting,
then remove it and measure the resistances from
the center tap to the 2 ends.
I guess it is still at least 1 kOhm in this setting,
so at 9 Volts then maximum of about 10 Milliamps
can only flow as a DC current from the battery...
( 1 Kohm parallel to 9 KOhm as the lowest resistance !)
Maybe the oscillations just flow as an AC current then due to the stray capacitance
via your loose wires setup so the battery is drawn flat from the AC currents ?
With the DC currents it can not go flat, if your pot is set to about -4 Volts what you said.
as this is about the center of the pot and then you have at least about 3 to 5 Kohm on each side of the battery,
so the DC current can not get bigger than 5 to 10 milliamps... It is just Ohms law...
So if it gets flat it is either a bad old battery or the AC current sucks all the energy out of it....
Regards, Stefan.
No, I think you are still not understanding me, or I am not understanding you. The minus 4 volts is some kind of "floor". The oscillations just begin at low amplitude when you reach this value, and the current from the 9v is about 15 mA. Now if you keep turning the pot, the voltage _Indicated_ stays at 4 volts... because you are now feeding a low impedance load somewhere, and increasing the pot setting just sends more current but the apparent voltage stays at -4 volts _indicated_. This is the "voltage floor" phenomenon that .99 mentioned from his sim and that apparently also occurs in the NERD device, since none of their negative going gate drive traces go more negative than this.
The oscillations grow in amplitude and the current from the 9v increases as you rotate the pot. With the combination of the partially depleted battery, the 10R series resistor and the pot set ALL THE WAY to one end, the current is 100 mA on the moving-coil meter, and could be much higher with a fresh battery and no series resistor.
The only way that the AC current---really RF---could suck the energy from the battery is by turning on the mosfets partially and allowing them to dissipate the 9v battery's power as heat.
There is no one "oscillation setting" of the pot. The oscillations start small and grow, until with ridiculous voltages like 15 volts _applied_ but not _indicated_ (the voltage floor) you are chancing exceeding the voltage limits of the mosfet gates-- but you have huge oscillations and the mosfets are passing a lot of current. 4 or 5 amps through the mosfets is easy to obtain if you have the main voltage up above 48 volts and can source 350 mA from the bias source-- and by Ohm's law this is telling us that the mosfets are completely or nearly completely on with that amplitude of oscillation, and of course the load heats very rapidly under that current.
My "10K" pot actually measures 11.2 K on the Simpson DMM, and the wiper is 380 ohms from the end that's connected to the negative pole of the 9v battery when the oscillations just begin and the Hickok meter is indicating 14 mA. Turning the pot so that the resistance is less, makes the current go up. And when the wiper is at the most negative end and the inline 10R is used, the current is 100 mA or slightly more. But my battery now measures 7,95 volts no-load, so all these numbers will change with a fresh battery or another current source.
@PW: Let's go for 100 mA bias current. This keeps it on the Hickok meter, and it makes nicely formed oscillations, and more importantly it gives me a stable and manageable 190-200 mA on the inline DMM which seems to reflect what the load is getting fairly accurately as far as I can tell so far. This produces easily measurable heat and fairly rapid battery depletion with my 5 A-H batteries, and should give manageable run times with NERD's batteries too... ten times longer but still manageable.
So with a fresh 9v, or with a regulated 12 volts input to the Voltage Inverter/Clock, or some other source... it seems that the 10R series resistor is minimum and 50R is a max... maybe I should put a nice wirewound 100R precision pot in there instead of the fixed series resistor.
I now see, where you get the high current from
the 9 Volts battery.
See enclosed circuit diagramm.
It is discharging through the Rshunt resistor !
So now here is the solution to avoid the
DC current draining of the 9 Volts battery.
Please TK let us know if you get it to work this way.
Many thanks.
Stefan:
The second schematic you posted has problems. The current flow from the Q2 array source is bypassing the shunt resistor so you are not measuring the current flow through the Q2 array.
The 10K potentiometer concept from TK is unfortunately fundamentally flawed. The impedance going through the 10K potentiometer is too high and it will choke off the normal current flow. There is supposed to be an impedance of 50 ohms at all times.
PW suggested a direct resistor connection between the 9-volt battery negative and the Q2 source node. It would be lower than 50 ohms, perhaps 30 ohms. This would allow approximately the same amount of current to flow through the circuit as compared to when you have a 50 ohm resistor connected to the function generator negative output. However, even this has an issue. This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.
Like I said before, I personally don't see any point in going this route. The function generator in negative oscillation mode injects power into the circuit, but it does not in any way inject power into the batteries. The batteries will still discharge with the function generator in the circuit.
MileHigh
TK,
That "floor" as you cal it is the gate to source turn on voltage. Once you are up and into the turn on knee of Q2, the voltage at the source will vary only a small amount around that 4 volts unless you try to get the bias current well in the amps range. If you look at the IRFPG50 data sheet at the turn on characteristics graph, the voltage observed at the source and the current measured will folllow that graph pretty much. But in the 50ma to 300ma range, you may only see .5 to 1 volt of change at the source.
The series pot would be OK, but a wirewound ,though great for handling the current, will add more inductance.
In Stefan's schematic he has the bias source connected to real ground instead of the CSR, which will not allow the DC bias current to be accounted for and calculated into total power draw. Also, even if Ibias is set to 25ma, the 9V will eventually drain even at that rate. A good alkaline might get you a bit more than 500mAh of use, so around 20 hours at 25ma. A 9volt lithium will provide around 1200mAh, so run time would be longer if used. The additional load from the 10K pot, at just under 1ma would also add to the battery drain.
I do like the series pot idea you mentioned, as it would allow you to set current while observing the waveforms. I would try to set the bias so that the oscillations resemble the clipped sines in the first paper FIG 4.
What's your "wild dog's" name?
PW
Stefan:
Sorry, the first diagram is wrong, there is no connection between the pot and the main battery negative, the whole 9v system is "floating", and you have the battery upside down .... and the second diagram is what makes the second type of oscillations as soon as I touch the positive of the 9v to the negative of the main battery, and these oscillations persist regardless of the other connection points until I remove the connection between the 9v + and the main --.
(I just discovered that the color code of the long red-black battery cable connector is backwards. The red wire goes to the negative battery pole. Sorry... it happened because I was using that cable as a "battery" to connect the power supply to the 555 timer, so I wired it backwards in the first place and forgot to change it when it got hooked up TO the battery, instead of AS the battery. The diagram below shows the correct polarities and hookups for the battery and pot, I've checked it several times and have it running right now behind me.)
The correct hookup for the negative bias pot-battery configuration....:
(ETA: I forgot to put in the Hickok moving-coil milliammeter. It goes in series with the 10R (or 50R etc.) and the pot wiper.)
Quote from: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 11:50:23 PM
Stefan:
The second schematic you posted has problems. The current flow from the Q2 array source is bypassing the shunt resistor so you are not measuring the current flow through the Q2 array.
The 10K potentiometer concept from TK is unfortunately fundamentally flawed. The impedance going through the 10K potentiometer is too high and it will choke off the normal current flow. There is supposed to be an impedance of 50 ohms at all times.
PW suggested a direct resistor connection between the 9-volt battery negative and the Q2 source node. It would be lower than 50 ohms, perhaps 30 ohms. This would allow approximately the same amount of current to flow through the circuit as compared to when you have a 50 ohm resistor connected to the function generator negative output. However, even this has an issue. This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.
Like I said before, I personally don't see any point in going this route. The function generator in negative oscillation mode injects power into the circuit, but it does not in any way inject power into the batteries. The batteries will still discharge with the function generator in the circuit.
MileHigh
MH,
That "bounce up" as you call it is negative feedback. And yes, changing the 50R with any other value will affect the amount of negative feedback (circuit gain) and the ability of inductances and strays to shift the phase of that neg. feedback (if phase shifted sufficiently, that negative feedback can become positive feedback, which will cause the circuit to oscillate). There are other feedback mechanisms as well related to the CSR and a couple other sources that occur relative to AC.
I have always suggested keeping the source resistor close to the 50R similar to the NERD circuit. A higher voltage battery could be used in place of the 9volt if 50R is used and a higher Ibias is desired (than a 9volt will allow). But, again, we don't really know the NERD bias current. I would temporarily go back to a bench supply and a 50R and vary the applied voltage (and therefore Ibias) until the waveforms have the same clipped appearance as in FIG 4 of the first paper, and then note the bias current/supply voltage. From that a suitable battery voltage could be selected to provide a similar operating bias point. With the bias current determined, the bias supply battery can be sized to provide the required run time.
PW
@ALL,
Wow, everybody jumped at the same time regarding that ground point connection...
I am just too slow.
TK's on the ball!
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
TK,
That "floor" as you cal it is the gate to source turn on voltage. Once you are up and into the turn on knee of Q2, the voltage at the source will vary only a small amount around that 4 volts unless you try to get the bias current well in the amps range. If you look at the IRFPG50 data sheet at the turn on characteristics graph, the voltage observed at the source and the current measured will folllow that graph pretty much. But in the 50ma to 300ma range, you may only see .5 to 1 volt of change at the source.
The series pot would be OK, but a wirewound ,though great for handling the current, will add more inductance.
In Stefan's schematic he has the bias source connected to real ground instead of the CSR, which will not allow the DC bias current to be accounted for and calculated into total power draw. Also, even if Ibias is set to 25ma, the 9V will eventually drain even at that rate. A good alkaline might get you a bit more than 500mAh of use, so around 20 hours at 25ma. A 9volt lithium will provide around 1200mAh, so run time would be longer if used. The additional load from the 10K pot, at just under 1ma would also add to the battery drain.
I do like the series pot idea you mentioned, as it would allow you to set current while observing the waveforms. I would try to set the bias so that the oscillations resemble the clipped sines in the first paper FIG 4.
What's you "wild dog's" name?
PW
Maggie is her name. She's a feral dog that was rescued as an adolescent puppy from a pack that was roaming one of the local large greenbelt parks. I think she's part coyote and part chow. She's the most vocal dog I've ever met, not so much barking but talking. And she is totally not motivated by treats, since she knows perfectly well how to scrounge grubs and garbage and hunt lizards and mice for her food. After a full year of constant contact with me she finally is beginning to act like a dog rather than a wily coyote.
The Paper 1, Fig 4 waveforms are typical of what I see if I use higher drive voltages.
Stefan's schematic is wrong, probably my fault for having the color code on the battery wires mixed up. The 9volt system is entirely floating, too, the way I use it. If I also connect the _positive_ side of the battery/pot to the circuit negative rail common ground, it makes only a tiny difference in the gate signal and none in the oscillations on the common drains. If I connect the _negative_ side of the battery/pot to the circuit common ground, it kills everything.
Your explanation of the "floor" is also what I came up with, once I realized the relationship between the polarities and the actual potential difference between gate and source. I was confused by the "negative" going floor... when it's actually a positive going ceiling, so to speak !! It all makes good sense to me now.
Damn carbon pots in my lab always seem to develop holes in the resistive layer from current surges and cause all kinds of problems. Even the one I'm using now has a burned spot in it. A little inductance more or less from a wirewound pot probably won't turn out to be the reason my batteries discharge, though.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 11:50:23 PM
Stefan:
The second schematic you posted has problems. The current flow from the Q2 array source is bypassing the shunt resistor so you are not measuring the current flow through the Q2 array.
The 10K potentiometer concept from TK is unfortunately fundamentally flawed. The impedance going through the 10K potentiometer is too high and it will choke off the normal current flow. There is supposed to be an impedance of 50 ohms at all times.
PW suggested a direct resistor connection between the 9-volt battery negative and the Q2 source node. It would be lower than 50 ohms, perhaps 30 ohms. This would allow approximately the same amount of current to flow through the circuit as compared to when you have a 50 ohm resistor connected to the function generator negative output. However, even this has an issue. This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.
Like I said before, I personally don't see any point in going this route. The function generator in negative oscillation mode injects power into the circuit, but it does not in any way inject power into the batteries. The batteries will still discharge with the function generator in the circuit.
MileHigh
MH,
I've always doubted the ability of the FG to charge the battery as well, unless some amount of charge pump action is going on. The body diodes and inherent capacitances may to some degree allow this action. A normal FG (not TK's, his is not "normal") can contribute around 2 watts max. At a DC bias of 100ma, and Vbatt of 48 volts, that's 4.8 watts, so although charge pumping may contribute, if it were happening, I don't see it as enough to keep the battery charged. Whether any charge pump like action is happening or not would have to be determined, but I lean towards agreeing with you.
Also, if the battery were being charged from the HF oscillation, I would think the AC at the battery would show evidence of clipping at closer to the battery voltage during the positive half of the cycle. That is why I questioned the SLA battery's AC impedance. I may hook up an FG to my vehice battery to see what the AC impedane of it is. It appears that the AC is not being loaded much by the battery impedance.
PW
TK,
Does Maggie have enough chow to have the purple tongue? Great dogs. I am trying to picture in the coyote. Around here the coyotes are a skinny, somewhat scroungey looking critter.
After all that "independence", your lucky she's taking a shine to you...
PW
PS.. you'll hve to have Maggie narrate a video!!
Quote from: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 11:50:23 PM
This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.
MileHigh
LMFAO! you just failed your own 'lingo litmus test'. bounce up... that's hilarious.
and turn on voltage is now the 'floor'... or 'ceiling'. ::)
pretenders to wisdom...
I agreed some time ago that the FG wasn't charging the batteries appreciably. I wasn't sure if it was contributing to heating the load much, though. Certainly it's not able to contribute much to the high-heat, positive gate drive pulse mode with Q1 mostly on. That's why I said it would be OK with me for the NERDs to go ahead and use the FG for testing, as long as they used the high-heat, positive gate pulse mode that showed some amps on the CVR trace. Run it like that for 72 hours, using a 72 volt battery pack. No fans or modifications to the Q1 heatsink allowed, though, and a mosfet failure counts as a test failure. Then, after 72 hours maintaining the +12 volt gate drive impulses-- or better yet steady state -- do the Dim Bulb trials.
Or, more realistically, since I know that the Q1 couldn't take the strain under those conditions... they can use the 48 volt pack as in the video. So use the FG if it will speed up their test schedule, by all means. If the batteries don't run down while using the FG and heating the load to high heat, perhaps there is something we've missed, and so then a plain battery bias or 555 circuit could be tried -- if necessary.
The Chet-monster speaks.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 20, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
LMFAO! you just failed your own 'lingo litmus test'. bounce up... that's hilarious.
and turn on voltage is now the 'floor'... or 'ceiling'. ::)
pretenders to wisdom...
Wilby,
His description of the action/effect was, however, quite accurate.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 12:47:24 AM
Wilby,
His description of the action/effect was, however, quite accurate.
PW
that's irrelevant to his lingo litmus test.
Quote from: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 12:40:11 AM
TK,
Does Maggie have enough chow to have the purple tongue? Great dogs. I am trying to picture in the coyote. Around here the coyotes are a skinny, somewhat scroungey looking critter.
After all that "independence", your lucky she's taking a shine to you...
PW
PS.. you'll hve to have Maggie narrate a video!!
Her tongue is about 1/3 purple. Her tapetums have a very odd color for a dog, more coyote or wolf-like when she stares at you in the dark with those glowing eyes.
We made a video called "dogs can't talk" that's on my channel underneath all the OU stuff somewhere.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 12:51:15 AM
Her tongue is about 1/3 purple. Her tapetums have a very odd color for a dog, more coyote or wolf-like when she stares at you in the dark with those glowing eyes.
We made a video called "dogs can't talk" that's on my channel underneath all the OU stuff somewhere.
TK,
I just watched the video. Maggie is a great looking dog. Love those ears and that tail.
And yes, she sure can talk!
PW
PW:
Yes thanks for reminding me that the "bounce up" is a form of negative feedback. I am getting a bit rusty in general. I never did much analog design or bench work but I took all the courses going on 30 years ago.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 01:06:13 AM
PW:
Yes thanks for reminding me that the "bounce up" is a form of negative feedback. I am getting a bit rusty in general. I never did much analog design or bench work but I took all the courses going on 30 years ago.
MileHigh
MH,
No problem, I knew exactly what you meant and your description was both intuitive and accurate.
PW
Tk,
okay, your last circuit diagramm
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/)
is not much different than mine, only that you connect the plus pole of the 9 Volt battery still
behind the shunt and I before the Rshunt resistor...
Okay, so the voltage on the Rshunt seems to matter...
Okay, so lets use your circuit from now on.
But in your circuit, when you have the pot tap at about the center there also can not
flow 200 mA !
At best about maybe 10 milliAmps as the 9 Volt battery then sees at maximum 5 Kohm resistance
if you don´t turn the knob on the pot almost to one of the ends... but as you said,
it needs -4 Volts it surely is in the center. so no low resistance for the 9 Volts battery...
ALso this Q1 and Q2 is mostly a multivibrator circuit in selfrunning mode (without LRC units, just the wire lenghts),
so you would only draw mainly AC from the 9 Volt battery.
Maybe you can show just the voltage on your 10R to 50R Ohm pre-resistor, then you will probably see,
that there is not flowing 200 mA !
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 11:09:08 AM
Tk,
okay, your last circuit diagramm
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/)
is not much different than mine, only that you connect the plus pole of the 9 Volt battery still
behind the shunt and I before the Rshunt resistor...
I guess there is still some misunderstanding going on. My corrected diagram (sorry about the wire colors in the video, it's been corrected now) has the battery polarity inverted from your diagram. This seems like a big difference to me... and I'm fully responsible for the error in your first diagram, because of my confusion of the battery wire color coding. But that's fixed now, as soon as I was aware of it. So the battery in my circuit is completely floating, yours has a connection to ground, and my circuit has the battery _positive_ connected to the "FG minus" point of the circuit, as noted. These may be small differences on paper but they make a "big difference" in the circuit.
Quote
Okay, so the voltage on the Rshunt seems to matter...
Okay, so lets use your circuit from now on.
But in your circuit, when you have the pot tap at about the center there also can not
flow 200 mA !
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But I thought further posts should have cleared this point up. The oscillations START at a relatively centered pot position, with about 12-14 mA indicated on the Hickok meter in series with the 10R inline resistor. As the pot is turned more toward the END of its travel, the oscillation amplitude increases and the current indicated increases, until _with the depleted battery of 7.9 volts AND the 10R series resistance AND the pot turned _all the way to one end_... the most "positive" end of the pot--- the oscillations reach a nice strong amplitude and the series meter reads around 100 mA. If I use a fresh battery or an external power supply, I can indeed reach 200 or even 350 mA by using more voltage from the potentiometer's slider. The position of the slider, hence the overall resistance, hence the current seen by any meters or CVRs, will of course depend on the voltage applied across the potentiometer's end terminals. Ohm's law still works, don't worry. It works especially well if you use the right numbers as input data.
I don't think I ever said anything about there being 200 mA with the pot centered, as you are assuming. If I did, I misspoke or perhaps you misunderstood. If you point out where I said it, I'll correct it right away.
This is not the case... unless you want to apply more voltage across the pot.
Quote
At best about maybe 10 milliAmps as the 9 Volt battery then sees at maximum 5 Kohm resistance
if you don´t turn the knob on the pot almost to one of the ends... but as you said,
it needs -4 Volts it surely is in the center. so no low resistance for the 9 Volts battery...
Once again.... as the pot setting is turned towards the positive side.... the _indicated_ voltage it is putting out goes more and more negative until it reaches a true -4 volts and the oscillations begin with about 14 mA from the bias battery. Now... further turning of the pot doesn't cause an APPARENT increase in the voltage to more than -4 volts... because the mosfets are now turning ON so the voltage stays LOW, and further "voltage increases" on the pot setting only send more _current_ into the system. If you set the pot at some value near the end, where you still read -4 volts on the oscilloscope channel or a simple voltmeter, and you have that big current flow like 100 mA.... and then you unhook the pot wiper from the main circuit and measure the open circuit voltage at the pot wiper... it will be much more negative than -4 volts. So with the pot IN CIRCUIT, you might read -4 volts at the wiper and the pot might be near the center, when the oscillations just barely start. But as you turn the pot to increase the amplitude of the oscillations, the _indicated_ voltage at the wiper, in-circuit, will stay at that "voltage floor" and will remain there _even when the pot is fully turned_ and you know you are applying the full 9v battery voltage, or that of whatever power supply you have there instead.
This is a "voltage drop" due to a heavy (low resistance) load being placed on the battery or other bias power supply like the FG output. My Interstate F43 FG will do 40 volts p-p into 50 Ohms, but even it is drawn down to only -4 volts _indicated_ when it should be putting out -20 volts... and if it's disconnected, at the same knob settings, it will read -20 volts.
Quote
ALso this Q1 and Q2 is mostly a multivibrator circuit in selfrunning mode (without LRC units, just the wire lenghts),
so you would only draw mainly AC from the 9 Volt battery.
I am afraid I don't know how to draw AC from a DC battery. So I suppose I am failing to understand just what you mean. The polarity of the current coming from the battery never reverses, at least I don't think it does. I'll check it again later, perhaps on a video, if I have time.
A rising and falling voltage or current waveform doesn't indicate "AC" unless the _polarity_ actually reverses at some point in the cycle. It's a common error though; I've even had to explain it to working electrical engineers. An "AC" or RF ripple on top of a large DC offset or constant voltage does not add up to "alternating current" as we normally think of AC, which means a net current flow in one direction, followed by net current flow in the other direction, in a repeating cycle. The ripple actually means that the _magnitude_ of the current, always flowing in the same direction, varies regularly at the "AC" or RF frequency. Think of it as a pulsating garden sprinkler. Even though the water is flowing strongly, then off, then flowing strongly again, then off, and so on... the water never flows back into the hose.
Quote
Maybe you can show just the voltage on your 10R to 50R Ohm pre-resistor, then you will probably see,
that there is not flowing 200 mA !
Regards, Stefan.
I am very sorry but I still don't think we are communicating, somehow. You still seem to be basing all your calculations on the assumption that the pot is centered when the 200 mA is flowing... and of course with 9v across the pot that can't be right. However your assumption is wrong: the pot isn't centered when that current flows, especially not with an almost-dead 9v battery, and with the depleted battery and the 10R series resistor, I can only get about 100mA max anyway. The 200 mA figure is what _can_ be attained without pushing too far, but of course using more than the voltage of a depleted 9v battery. 350 mA can be attained as well if you like, by using more voltage at the bias source, if you like to see a scope screen full of garbage distorted oscillations.
I have indeed looked at the voltage drop across the series 10R on the oscilloscope. If I did this right... it was late last night and I was pretty tired... the current flowing in this resistor is "always" in one direction --it is not AC. There is a ripple on top of the voltage drop corresponding to the oscillations, which can be seen at any point in the circuit.
The value of the voltage drop across the 10R (actually 10.3 ohms measured) indicates actually a bit _more_ current than is indicated on the Hickok meter -- but of course this is an "eyeball" reading of a small scope deflection viewed at high gain. I have also looked at a 0.3 ohm CVR in series with the negative output of the battery/pot system... and it also more or less agrees with the meter's reading. I'm glad I have that rugged Hickok meter in there, because I'm always pegging it against the 100 mA stop. The bias current is real, even if where it's going is still something of a mystery, and in the circuit as I have it wired, I don't think it can go through the main CVR so it wouldn't be taken into consideration by the NERDs as power input. But it is power input and should be so considered.
Please, if you have more questions, ask them and I'll try to answer clearly. And certainly, if you or anyone finds anything that seems to be a discrepancy, let me know so I can address the issue and correct my mistakes, or even, if necessary ... correct yours.
8)
Hi TK,
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/)
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/
are basically the same circuit, just you put the plus pole behind the Rshunt resistor and
I did put it before...
So the voltage drop at the shunt resistor seems to matter...
Just show us in a new video a scopeshot at your 10R - 50 R resistor
this will be interesting what current will be flowing there.
Please use a DC coupling on the scope so we can also see the DC current level.
and please show where the scope´s zero line is set and please show Volts per div.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 07:21:48 PM
Hi TK,
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/)
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/)
are basically the same circuit, just you put the plus pole behind the Rshunt resistor and
I did put it before...
Yes, I can see that now. Thanks... you are right, it's not as big a difference as I at first thought, but it does make a difference in the circuit's behaviour especially if there are probes hooked up here and there, I think.
Quote
So the voltage drop at the shunt resistor seems to matter...
Just show us in a new video a scopeshot at your 10R - 50 R resistor
this will be interesting what current will be flowing there.
I've just calibrated my Hickok meter (see video and photo below) against a known resistance using a regulated power supply and Ohm's Law. I've made a video illustrating the calibration, and it also shows the use of the oscilloscope to make a current reading in the calibration system... just to prove that one doesn't need numbers in boxes to make reasonably precise current readings on an analog scope. The test is a tough one too: I use a 0.3 ohm CVR and the scope is set to 0.005 volts per division, and less than one full division is used for the reading.... and I get within 5 percent of the true value. Twice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPVOkDQsXfs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPVOkDQsXfs)
Next, I'll do the demonstration you asked for, using both the Hickok and the scope across the 10R as a CVR. I've got a fresh 9volt battery too.
Quote
Please use a DC coupling on the scope so we can also see the DC current level.
and please show where the scope´s zero line is set and please show Volts per div.
Don't I always? How would it be possible to read a current value from the scope if I didn't do these things? Never mind, it was a rhetorical question.
(I think someone may have told you that I don't show quantitative measurements on my scope... but in fact I do, almost always. Sometimes I leave out the timebase setting, but I always try to show the coupling, the channel vertical amplifier settings, the probe attenuation, how the scope is triggered, and where the zero baseline is, and I do try to illuminate the graticle so the divisions can be seen. Things move fast in my videos; I encourage liberal use of the pause and rewind buttons.)
Quote
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
You're quite welcome.
-TK
Quantitative scoposcopy and Tar Baby's Bias Current
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Qvzumhhk
Tar Baby and the Coup de Grace
(main CVR measurement)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTcGFYqbF8
Waveform comparisons.
Figure 1: The Ainslie paper 1, Figure 4 waveform shot. Note the "shunt" and the "battery" waveforms and their vertical gain settings.
Figure 2: The Tar Baby "shunt" (CVR) and battery waveforms, taken with DC bias drive as shown in the latest video posted above.
QuoteThis is the only example required to show the oscillation
waveform detail as this frequency and phase relationship is
seen to persist in all variations to the offset, the duty cycle and
the and the (sic) applied voltage at the source. The evidence is that
the oscillation will persist with the provision of a constantly
applied negative charge at Q1. There is a precise 180-degree
anti-phase relationship between RSHUNT and Battery voltages
that is self-reinforcing, extending as it does, for the full
duration of the cycle while the signal at the gate of Q1 is
negative. The significance of this is more fully described
under Discussion and the evidence is that current is not, in
fact, being discharged by the battery supply during this
oscillation phase.
-- from the Ainslie Paper 1, page 4.
May I please have the OverUnity Prize now?
Oh....wait..... I have not yet proven that my batteries do not discharge, have I.
Hi TK:
Very nice waveform clip. You can see how it resembles the NERD waveforms and it does actually appear to look like that there is more power being returned to the battery.
I don't think you can make estimates of energy out and energy in just by multiplying out approximate total areas like you stated. Just like you use RMS when you look at an AC voltage going into a load resistor you have to factor in the fact that you are multiplying two variables together. So one variable is doing a "weighting" on the other variable.
For what it's worth the energy per "energy cycle" is: (out or in to battery)
E(out of battery) = (for t=0 to t=<end of power out>) Integral [ i(t) * v(t) ] dt
The NERD team DSO is doing that calculation.
A few thoughts:
When you look at just a few cycles the amount of current flow out of the battery is going to be approximately equal to the amount of current flow in. Just doing the crude "area integration by eyeballing it" it sure looks like that. So if you did your old trick where you photograph the waveform and then print it out on your printer, and then carefully cut out the "current out" and "current in" sections" and then weigh them - they will weigh approximately the same.
The reason for this is deceptively simple. The delta between current out and current in when you are looking at a microscopic part of the AC waveform is very small. It's so small that as a result it is hidden in the "background noise." Of course your analog meter or even the LEDs of DOOM should confirm that the batteries are actually discharging.
More to come, standard disclaimers apply.
MileHigh
It sure is quiet in here. Sort of like the stunned silence in a theater after some horribly moving and emotional movie has just ended.
At the time the photo of Tar Baby's traces was taken the load was at slightly over 51 degrees C. That's the temperature of the 250 mL of mineral oil that the resistors are submerged in. The specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 Joules per gram per degree C, and the density is about 0.83 gm/mL. I don't know exactly what time I started, but let's say it took 100 minutes to get the oil from ambient at 22 C to the 51 degree point. So that's a 29 degree rise in 100 minutes.
Doing the math..... there are 250 ml x 0.83 gm/ml == 208 gm oil in there. So 208 x 1.67 x 29 == a little over 10,000 Joules to heat the oil, plus any losses through the insulation during that period. So it took at least 10,000 Joules and probably a little more. What's the average power? Since a Watt is One Joule PER second, we take the number of Joules and DIVIDE by the number of seconds to determine the Joules per second or Watts. 100 minutes is 6000 seconds. And 10,000 Joules / 6000 seconds is..... about 1.67 Watts average power, if I did the math right. No big deal, the oscillations easily pass that much power, obviously.
Or.... to "Do The Math" the Ainslie way..... there are 5 A-H at 48 volts in my battery. That's 5 x 60 x 60 x 48 == 864,000 Joules. The test used... by her calculation method... since .... 10000 Joules per second x 100 minutes of the test period = 1,000,000 Joules...... in that test alone the battery capacity was far exceeded... and yet all the batteries still measure over 12 volts each.
QuoteSo. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
Of course this is wrong, and she has admitted that this is wrong, but she still hasn't corrected it or retracted the claim that the test used more than the battery's capacity.
Therefore.... as far as I can tell... ALL my evidence that can be compared to Ainslie's evidence directly indicates that Tar Baby is just as much overunity as Ainslie's device, just as I have claimed all along.
Of course, since Ainslie has not shown a Dim Bulb test... or any of a lot of the other tests I've performed... those are not fair comparisons and shouldn't be considered. Right?
So just going by what she HAS shown in real data...... I'm showing the same things, and so the same conclusions should be drawn about both devices, based on what's been shown and fairly compared.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 21, 2012, 01:26:14 AM
Hi TK:
(snip)
For what it's worth the energy per "energy cycle" is: (out or in to battery)
E(out of battery) = (for t=0 to t=<end of power out>) Integral [ i(t) * v(t) ] dt
The NERD team DSO is doing that calculation.
(snip)
Oh yeah... I seem to recall some dude on YT trying to explain all that stuff, some years ago. Clearly over my head, so I just do Dim Bulb tests now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeIVSiEZDnc
But is that _really_ what the NERDs are doing with that DSO? I think they are dumping the data...some of it.... to the spreadsheet and using a home-grown numerical integration approximation on it. Certainly, what they are _showing_ on their scope traces is garbage multiplied by noise and integrated over nonsense. I've certainly never seen a properly-obtained power trace integral that looked like theirs. Plus they forgot to put the value of their shunt resistor into the calculations on the DSO.
TK:
When I look at the voltage bump on the batteries when the current is reversed it makes me think that that AC battery impedance test that PW suggested would be interesting.
Let's play Devil's advocate and assume that if you did the number crunching based on your scope traces that it would show "more energy being returned to the battery." In other words, you have a SUCCESSFUL replication of the NERD circuit!!!
So let's assume that the LEDs of DOOM or your ammeter still show that the batteries are discharging. So right there you have some contradictory data.
PW suggested using a sine wave at a high frequency with voltage drops across resistors to determine the AC impedance.
I can suggest another test that might be useful. If with your signal generator you could somehow inject a current pulse train that is positive going only (meaning back to the battery positive terminal) with similar timing characteristics to the reverse current (i.e.; back to the battery positive terminal) that you see on your scope trace it would be interesting to see the battery's response. You could do this on a single battery only with very short wires to reduce inductance effects.
The desire would be to see how much that current pulse train raises the battery voltage every time it is hit with a short current pulse. You can assume that most of this increase in battery voltage is due to the charging input resistance of the battery. The delta-V component is therefore not "returned energy" but more akin to energy burned off inside the battery. So right there that would allow you to attach a weighting factor to the apparent energy returned to the battery.
So perhaps between voltage swings due to wire inductance and voltage bumps due to the battery internal resistance you can start to get a clearer picture of what is actually going on.
A possible scenario is that when you factor out the "return voltage bump" effects due to wire inductance and battery input resistance then the picture of the energy dynamics will change. Something like 100 units of energy flow out of the battery, and then it appears that 120 units of energy are returned to the battery. But when you factor in what was said above, in reality only 80 units of energy are returned to the battery.
Even if there is a resistor inside the battery itself, it's still a resistor just like a resistor in the regular circuit and it represents lost energy.
Don't forget the standard disclaimers! lol
MileHigh
@MH:
What you are describing is an interesting test.... one that should be done by anyone who claims that their batteries aren't discharging while usefully powering a load. Wouldn't it be nice if the CLAIMANT performed these comprehensive tests, before attempting to rewrite some of the basic laws of physics?
Besides, I've seen nothing in the behaviour of this circuit that leads me to believe for an instant that the batteries aren't discharging at a normal rate for the current they are sourcing.
Oh.... sure.... if I believed that a 12 volt battery is fully charged as long as its no-load voltage is over 12 volts, or if I believed that it was impossible to reach current spikes of 8 amps in the negative direction without _something_ unusual happening, or if I believed that One Joule is One Watt Per Second (the terms are interchangeable according to RA), or if I believed without question anything that a digital instrument tells me...... then things might be different.
I've given a lot here. A ten minute video takes at least an hour or more: setup, a basic check to make sure the demo will actually work, one or two false starts, an interruption by the dog, the actual demo, downloading from the camera, converting from the 1 GB high-res file into something that will upload to YT in a reasonable amount of time, the actual upload, reviewing to make sure it's legible, writing the description, posting a link.... all that takes time. Then there's the driving around getting parts, the time spent shopping, the actual _money_ spent on parts and supplies, the lost time from my actual paid job.....
I'm starting to want something back.
People have suggested all kinds of things I "should" or could do to test various aspects of the behaviour of Tar Baby..... just as if I were some OVERUNITY claimant who is trying to apply for a monetary prize and needs vetting. And I've performed and reported on many or even most of these suggested tests. But let's not forget something here: My only claim is that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects. If NERD, meaning RA, hasn't shown the results of some suggested test, why should I have to do so?
Much of what I've done should in fact have been totally unnecessary, but I had to do it because "some people" don't understand analog scopes, much less digital ones. They don't understand basic power measurements or the mathematics involved, they don't understand the basics of scientific experimentation, and worst of all they think that they know enough that they don't need to know anything new. Therefore I have had to establish "credibility" for my instrumentation and methodology, things which normally would not need doing.... and something, strangely, that has NOT been done by the NERDs.
All evidence... from their video demo and their "papers"... indicate just the opposite: they are not careful about facts, they make many errors in concepts and execution, and they clearly do not use their equipment properly or to full advantage. SO what am I doing proving MY credibility and instrument capability? This is the FIRST thing that should have been insisted upon in the case of the RA claims: they MUST correct all the obvious mistakes, typos, misrepresentations, incorrect schematics, blown mosfets, and get rid of the "theoretical" distracting musings. FIRST.
Show that the basic data leading to the claim is at least correct and properly obtained. THEN. Show a basic understanding of power, energy, and instrumental measures of the same. At that point, an unusual claim might deserve to be taken seriously and examined further.
But a mishmash of mistakes, errors, scoposcopy, instrument abuse, abuse of persons investigating the claims, and bloviating about some "papers" full of errors and a "theory" that makes no mathematical predictions at all..... this does not even deserve a second glance. Not UNTIL the claimant actually produces the needed evidence: batteries that will power a light bulb for just as long AFTER they have been heating up a load for some time, as they would BEFORE doing that work.
In other words, I want something back: I want to see the NERDs testing their claims, correctly and comprehensively, and SOON. I've even done their home work for them. I've shown that they do not need a FG or even a 555 timer to make the negative-going bias signal that produces the "lowheat" mode of operation.
Either that, or I want to see them formally drop their claim of overunity performance.
Actually, it appears that RA has backed off from this position: lately she claims that she ISN'T claiming OU performance at all... they only "measured" OU performance. Of course this is more prevarication from RA. They most certainly have been claiming OU and COP exceeding infinity. But if they want to officially retract those claims and stop applying for prizes and awards.... then they obviously will no longer be under the OBLIGATION to prove what they claim.
Well done on the wave forms TK.
Any idea why the difference in AC "battery" voltage?, i.e. 70Vpp (yours) vs. over 200Vpp (RA)
By the way...if there is anyone else out there doing this.... that potentiometer in the gate bias battery (or powersupply) circuit should be a 2 Watt or better pot.
The cheapo 1/2 Watt carbon film pots are too easy to damage. Last night after shooting the last demo I just let the thing run, at whatever current I had it set, 150 mA or something on the Hickok, to heat the load. After half an hour or so I looked over and the current had dropped to 30 mA or so, and no adjustment of the Power Supply proper (not the pot) could get it back--it was very unstable. So I moved the pot slightly and then readjusted the PS... stability reestablished and high current again. What happened was that the power through the pot finally burned another little spot in the resistance layer right where the slider was, and so the pot couldn't make good contact there any more. Moving the slider a little bit to an unburned location, then readjusting the input voltage to reestablish the correct current worked to reestablish stability... for a while.
So use a 2-watt pot here, of good quality. They are a lot more expensive than the generic Chinese 1/2 watt pots that are everywhere, but they will last a lot longer in this kind of service.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 09:25:25 AM
Well done on the wave forms TK.
Any idea why the difference in AC "battery" voltage?, i.e. 70Vpp (yours) vs. over 200Vpp (RA)
Thanks.
Could it have something to do with the fact that they are using a 72 volt (or 60 volt) battery pack and I am using a 48 volt one? Or perhaps that the bandwidth of their scope far exceeds that of mine? Or that they probably still have more lead inductance, especially inter-battery, than I do? Or the fact that I am using a limited bias supply voltage, and they have their FG cranked all the way to the negative offset stop? (Oscillation amplitude depends on bias current in this setup, as I have shown several times.)
I think all these things combine to account for that particular difference.
More importantly, though.... look at the current trace amplitudes in the TB and NERD. What accounts for the strong _similarities_ of the amplitudes here? The slight difference in waveshape can be a result of probe compensation and bandwidth. Wouldn't you like to see NERD and TarBaby tested side-by-side with the same instrumentation?
Look very carefully at the ascending slope of Tar Baby's current trace. You can even see the little "knee" there, right where NERD shows a fast spike. The bandwidth of the HP180 isn't fast enough to catch that little spike... but the knee is there and of course with a higher bw scope we'd surely see that same little spike. (At least I think I can see the knee there ... it shows up better at higher drives and timebase settings.)
Do you think that high-amplitude oscillations on the battery trace are going to be necessary for the NERD Effect to occur? If so... then there is no hope of success with a three-battery test, as you had been discussing with RA earlier.
But their Paper 2, Figure 8 shows oscillations on the battery trace with a battery evidently at 60 volts... and only a 100 volt p-p amplitude. This variable is strongly dependent on the bias current which in the NERD case will be determined by the FG's exact offset setting. At higher drives the waveform becomes increasingly distorted, so it is possible that they turned down the drive to get cleaner looking waveforms in that figure.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 10:00:48 AM
Do you think that high-amplitude oscillations on the battery trace are going to be necessary for the NERD Effect to occur? If so... then there is no hope of success with a three-battery test, as you had been discussing with RA earlier.
No. All you need is to show the two wave form traces as you have, and show their product p(t) as negative, all the while heating the load.
You're nearly there. Once you get use of the Tek scope back and show that negative power, you'll be able to claim your prize too. :P
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 10:08:15 AM
No. All you need is to show the two wave form traces as you have, and show their product p(t) as negative, all the while heating the load.
You're nearly there. Once you get use of the Tek scope back and show that negative power, you'll be able to claim your prize too. :P
But wait... is this going to be another story of needing to "replicate" an error in order to prove a point? That is, when I at first used a tight layout with mosfets mounted on very short leads right at the motherboard, and twisted pairs to connect the external components like the load, I got no oscillations, apparently. It was only when I read humbugger's report on OUR, combined with a comment from fuzzy, that I decided to "sloppify" the layout. Then I got the feedback, no problem.
So... if I do the things that I consider proper in making a power measurement (probes deskewed and calibrated, using proper sampling intervals and proper integral forms and constants, minimal inductance in leads, and so forth.... will it even be possible to show that negative power?
I don't recall just now exactly what changes you made in the sim to go from the "negative power calculation" mode to the more correct mode.
As far as I'm concerned the negative power measurement that the NERDs reported is an instrumental artefact, until THEY demonstrate otherwise. It's clear from the scope shots that they didn't do it right, and I have no idea what they did with the spreadsheet data to come up with their cited figures.
But of course I'll try it, when I have a chance.
TK and Poynt:
Looking good!
TK, your comments are well understood.
Negative computed power while the load resistor is producing heat followed by a battery dim-bulb test would be 100% conclusive. No need for the detailed energy audit trail.
TK can then claim another "Mylow Buster" prize! And of course we know he is the original Mylow buster! <cue the Star Wars music..... again!>
Now everybody's heard about a NERD!
MileHigh
TK,
I am fairly certain that if you just take those two traces and multiply them with the Tek math function, you will show a negative VV. Then you're pretty much done. ;) You'll have replicated most if not all the major points raised by Rosemary to equal their claim.
Preparing for the laborious process of manual multiplication and integration..... I got lucky and the scope shot was "perfectly" aligned horizontally and vertically in the camera frame !!
So I used mtPaint to overlay a rectangular grid on the traces, put in some reference lines, and started to identify time-synchronous values on each trace for multiplication and plotting in a spreadsheet.
This will take a while to complete, obviously, and I'll probably double the time resolution from what I show here, and I'll probably be able to do two complete cycles before I fkn freak out completely and go blind or something.
Horizontal purple line is the zero line for the top, current, trace and is the battery voltage for the bottom trace (the zero level is below the image frame), and the top is at 2 volts/div and the bottom is at 20 volts/div. The vertical grid is aligned fairly well with the graticle marks on the screen and is spaced at as close to double the screen marks as I could get it, so 10 volts per overlay grid division on the bottom trace and 1 volt per overlay grid division on the top trace.
TK,
Don't waste your time doing the integration. Most of Rosemary's shots are of an averaged (MEAN) p(t) of the product of those two traces. See the attached as a good example.
Just multiply x number of fine points and take the average. If the result is a significant negative number, you're done. In the attached example (same shot from the paper), the MEAN p(t) is -73.4VV.
Also, remember that you are multiplying DC values, not just the relative p-p values. I mention this, even though I know you are aware of this, because your scope shot does not show the zero line for the "battery" trace.
Happy crunching ;)
TK,
You have already spent a lot of time and effort on this, and I for one greatly appreciate it.
But, if I could trouble you for one more measurement:
With the circuit oscillating similarly, please post a scope shot similar to your #490 post timebase and with both vertical channels set as you did for Vbat, but with the scope probes on opposing ends of the load resistor. I would like to see just how much Vdrop there is at both DC, and more particularly, at AC. This should provide us with some idea of the battery AC impedance at Fosc.
If you need to get to that "real work", I will understand.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 10:33:42 PM
@PW: Let's go for 100 mA bias current. This keeps it on the Hickok meter, and it makes nicely formed oscillations, and more importantly it gives me a stable and manageable 190-200 mA on the inline DMM which seems to reflect what the load is getting fairly accurately as far as I can tell so far. This produces easily measurable heat and fairly rapid battery depletion with my 5 A-H batteries, and should give manageable run times with NERD's batteries too... ten times longer but still manageable.
So with a fresh 9v, or with a regulated 12 volts input to the Voltage Inverter/Clock, or some other source... it seems that the 10R series resistor is minimum and 50R is a max... maybe I should put a nice wirewound 100R precision pot in there instead of the fixed series resistor.
TK,
I remain a bit puzzled regarding more current measured from Vbatt than is measured at the bias battery. At DC, they should be the same. Possibly the assymetrial/distorted AC is being detected in the Ibat measurement and therefore inidicating a higher Ibat.
You might consider finding a convenient way to kill the oscillations like placing a ceramic cap across the gate/source, gate/drain or drain/source. I am not sure what it will take to stop the oscillations, but you could then measure the currents with the circuit oscillating and then kill the oscillations to get measurements of the DC quiescent conditions.
An alternative would be to place a fairly large cap across the terminals of the Ibat meter to temporarily bypass AC at that meter and see if the indicated current drops to something closer to Ibias.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 11:22:28 AM
TK,
Don't waste your time doing the integration. Most of Rosemary's shots are of an averaged (MEAN) p(t) of the product of those two traces. See the attached as a good example.
Just multiply x number of fine points and take the average. If the result is a significant negative number, you're done. In the attached example (same shot from the paper), the MEAN p(t) is -73.4VV.
Also, remember that you are multiplying DC values, not just the relative p-p values. I mention this, even though I know you are aware of this, because your scope shot does not show the zero line for the "battery" trace.
Happy crunching ;)
Actually the scope shot does show the zero trace, it just didn't make it into the crop above.
Here are the actual data points I'll be using for the computation. I've increased the vertical overlay gridlines and used 4 complete cycles. The vertical overlay gridlines have 7.5 lines per screen major division. So the scale becomes as follows: top trace, the CVR, is 2 V/div on the screen so it's 0.267 volts per gridline. The bottom trace, the battery voltage, is at 20 v/div on the screen so it's at 2.67 volts per gridline. The zero marker is shown for the top trace and the 48 volt DC battery level is shown for the bottom trace.
Quote from: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 11:22:31 AM
TK,
You have already spent a lot of time and effort on this, and I for one greatly appreciate it.
But, if I could trouble you for one more measurement:
With the circuit oscillating similarly, please post a scope shot similar to your #490 post timebase and with both vertical channels set as you did for Vbat, but with the scope probes on opposing ends of the load resistor. I would like to see just how much Vdrop there is at both DC, and more particularly, at AC. This should provide us with some idea of the battery AC impedance at Fosc.
If you need to get to that "real work", I will understand.
PW
The HP scope does not have isolated ground references nor do I have a differential voltage probe ... so if I'm following you correctly, I can't make that measurement across the load with probes back-to-back.
Or do you mean one probe on one end of the load, one probe on the other end, and both reference leads to the normal circuit ground point? That I can do, of course. But that's equivalent to what we've been calling "battery" trace for the one probe and the "common mosfet drain" trace for the other probe, isn't it?
Later... I have to get the dogs herded to the vet for annual vaccinations this afternoon.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 12:19:11 PM
The HP scope does not have isolated ground references nor do I have a differential voltage probe ... so if I'm following you correctly, I can't make that measurement across the load with probes back-to-back.
Or do you mean one probe on one end of the load, one probe on the other end, and both reference leads to the normal circuit ground point? That I can do, of course. But that's equivalent to what we've been calling "battery" trace for the one probe and the "common mosfet drain" trace for the other probe, isn't it?
Later... I have to get the dogs herded to the vet for annual vaccinations this afternoon.
TK,
Yes, I meant probe grounds to batt- and the probe tips at opposing ends of the load resistor. And yes, absent any interconnect inductance, this would be similar to Vbatt versus Vdrain. Your scope shot from post 490 was really clean, and a similar shot across the load resistor would be telling.
Dogs? (as in more than one?)
PW
TK:
I understand that you can't do everything and suggestions are coming at you from all angles. So I have another "make work" suggestion for you but don't let me break your stride.
The suggestion is for getting a more accurate manual integral calculation. I am going to give you an image-processing-based solution assuming that you may have some software. Also, I am going to give you a more basic way of doing it also. Here goes....
You take what you consider your best picture of your scope display. It would be preferable to have a pic with a faster time base showing one or two complete cycles, but the picture you are working with now will also work. My discussion will be based on a single cycle, but you may prefer to do it with two cycles.
You take your image and then you crop out a single cycle. Then you do a horizontal image stretching so that it has the same aspect ratio as an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper in landscape mode.
Now for some image processing software tricks. You invert the image so the trace is dark and the background light. [I am adding one more IP step from the original posting:] Then run a low-pass filter to soften the image to give it a "slightly out of focus" look. You are doing this step to make the next step, the image thresholding "cleaner."
Then you run image thresholding such that all pixels above a certain intensity are white and all pixels below a certain intensity are black. So at this point you should have a thick solid black line that represents the waveform on a white background. The line will not be clean may have some jagged edges, etc.
Then you run a few passes of an erosion filter and you erode the thick black line away until it becomes a thin black line. Then you superimpose a grid on top of that line so that you can make easy measurements. Finally you print that out in landscape mode on your printer.
I assume you can see the logic here. You stretch out the waveform so that you can extract more information from the more gradual slopes. You are doing a kind of interpolation.
Without the image processing functions you could pretty much do the same thing manually. Just invert the image then crop and stretch so that your full cycle will print nicely in landscape mode. You might want to increase the contrast in the image or change the gamma of the image.
Then you print out a stretched and fuzzy waveform, and you just do the "image processing" by eye. You take your pen and ruler (or curve fitting template) and draw a nice line down the center of the fuzzy waveform.
Either way, your manual crunching should be easier and more accurate, and obviously you can now reduce the delta-t and get more precision.
Another make-work project as part of the "New Deal" to invoke closure....
MileHigh
@MH: You must be crazy. 8)
Results for the first two cycles. I measured the distances off the screen at high magnification with a divider from my drafting kit. Then I used the yellow scale on the left to count the divider's width in gridlines. There are 7.5 gridlines per scope screen vertical division. The rest is just math.
ETA: IMPORTANT:
The first spreadsheet shot I posted had a formula error and the means weren't correct. Here is the correct mean calculation for the first two full cycles.
Sorry if there was any confusion.
Quote from: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 12:33:32 PM
TK,
Yes, I meant probe grounds to batt- and the probe tips at opposing ends of the load resistor. And yes, absent any interconnect inductance, this would be similar to Vbatt versus Vdrain. Your scope shot from post 490 was really clean, and a similar shot across the load resistor would be telling.
Dogs? (as in more than one?)
PW
Maggie, Murphy, and Mommadog. Momma is my housemate's old bitch, Murphy is another rescue from the park who has been here about a month now.
May I please have my Overunity Prize now?
:-* :-*
TK:
I will try to chill. ;D
Oh my gawd!!! Call Nature magazine! Ring up the New York Times! World saved!!!!!! The oscilloscope can't lie!!!
Rosie, can I get licensing rights for North and South America? I already have a factory I swear. The robots are being programmed as we speak. This is the Dawning of the Age of Zip-zip-ons!!! Zip-zip-ons!!! Zip-onn-onn-onns!!! :P
MileHigh
QuoteMay I please have my Overunity Prize now?
Woo-hoo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M&ob=av2n
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 11:22:28 AM
TK,
Don't waste your time doing the integration. Most of Rosemary's shots are of an averaged (MEAN) p(t) of the product of those two traces. See the attached as a good example.
Just multiply x number of fine points and take the average. If the result is a significant negative number, you're done. In the attached example (same shot from the paper), the MEAN p(t) is -73.4VV.
Also, remember that you are multiplying DC values, not just the relative p-p values. I mention this, even though I know you are aware of this, because your scope shot does not show the zero line for the "battery" trace.
Happy crunching ;)
Don't forget that in the NERD scope shots, they have NOT divided the CVR voltages by the value of the resistor. So that MEAN p(t) figure of -73.4 VV should actually be (-73.4)/0.25 == -293.6 Watts. I have a feeling that even the NERDs couldn't believe that value.
I know about the 0.25 division TK ;) I've been at this for quite some time.
I didn't feel it was necessary to mention; negative 74W is sufficient enough negative to see that it is negative. :o
Well done on your -43W. Congratulations!. How are we going to divy the prize between you and Rosemary then? Maybe based on the ratio of negative powers? :P
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 02:03:28 PM
I know about the 0.25 division TK ;) I've been at this for quite some time.
I didn't feel it was necessary to mention; negative 74W is sufficient enough negative to see that it is negative. :o
Well done on your -43W. Congratulations!. How are we going to divy the prize between you and Rosemary then? Maybe based on the ratio of negative powers? :P
PLEASE NOTE: that first spreadsheet shot I posted had a formula error. The means weren't calculating correctly. This one showing the results from the first two cycles should be correct... I hope.
No, I get the whole prize, since I'm ready to ship off to an independent tester NOW.
Oh... wait.... my batteries don't pass the Dim Bulb test. Boogers.
TK,
At the very least, you deserve a beverage of your choosing and a lizard treat for every dog!!
You must never rest.
(I would still like to see that 'scope shot across the load if and when you can find the time later on)
Well done!
PW
What do you mean by "cycle 1" and "cycle 2"?
Aren't you just adding up ALL the powers (from all the sampled cycles) and taking an average?
OK... just to review.
I've shown a calibration against a known measured resistance and Ohm's Law of the current measuring instruments and the oscilloscope "eyeball" method, and the scope method is within 5 percent of the true Ohm's Law value based on voltage and resistance.
I've shown that the TarBaby CVR and battery voltage traces look exceedingly similar to the NERD traces at the same magnification.
I've then done quantitative measurements on the photo of the traces to determine precise voltage values at 18 regularly timed points per cycle, over two full cycles.
I've used a spreadsheet to perform the multiplication point-by-point of those current and voltage values.
I've registered a negative mean power of over 100 Watts over the oscillation waveform.
And I've shown that my batteries do discharge, and I'll be repeating that test again later today, since now I have a full sequence: batteries used for many days testing and heating load, same batteries at the end of testing used to make the power computations, and then finally the Dim Bulb test against the two set-asides. If I have enough bulbs, that is.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 02:47:31 PM
What do you mean by "cycle 1" and "cycle 2"?
Aren't you just adding up ALL the powers (from all the sampled cycles) and taking an average?
I show four complete cycles of the waveform. There are 18 data points per cycle, roughly. Since I haven't yet entered all the points into the spreadsheet, I'm reporting results as they appear. The overall mean is of course the mean of all 36 so-far entered points, or the mean of the two cycle means that are on the spreadsheet shots. I'm happy to call it negative 100 Watts, since there are obviously sampling errors (of less than 5 percent.)
I did the average of what you had selected for all data points.
Average power = -110.56W
This is over 4 complete cycles. Usually, its good to do at least 10 cycles, but I think we see a trend here. ;)
You know that the rationalization and justification and name calling and aspersion-casting against me, my methodology, and my equipment is all about to begin, don't you?
That's one reason why I drew the process out in such detail. I don't think there is any room in what I've shown for mysterious manipulations or faked data. I've given enough excruciating detail at every stage of the process that even an intelligent eighth-grader (who paid attention in math class) could reproduce it for herself, given a good oscilloscope and a handful of magic mosfets.
Speaking of which..... there are the IRF830s yet to try. Any bets as to the "OU" outcome using those much less magic mosfets?
Ah, I thought you were using the 830's. :)
Well with the 830's, I suspect all will be very similar, except your Fo will go up between 2x to 4x.
Re. Rosemary, I think she's busy getting her tests together. Don't be surprised if you see a continuous oscillation version with a floating VGS bias. ;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 10:12:04 PM
Quantitative scoposcopy and Tar Baby's Bias Current
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Qvzumhhk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Qvzumhhk)
Ahhh the current flows the opposite direction of what I thought it would flow alike...
Okay, I see, the DC current flow through the 10.3 Ohm resistor is from the main battery through Q2 back to the main battery ground.....
I thought this current would come from the 9 Volts battery, but this is not the case...!
Then just try to put a 100 nF cap in series, so it blocks the DC current and will only pass the AC.
ripple.
The 9 Volts battery should then not be discharged so fast...
Will it then still oscillate ?
The other new postings I have to catch up next week.
Regards; Stefan.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 05:36:17 PM
Ah, I thought you were using the 830's. :)
Well with the 830's, I suspect all will be very similar, except your Fo will go up between 2x to 4x.
Re. Rosemary, I think she's busy getting her tests together. Don't be surprised if you see a continuous oscillation version with a floating VGS bias. ;)
No... what would have been the point of that? Another "surprise"? I haven't used the 830as since that video. I want it to be impossible for anyone to deny that Tar Baby is similar to NERD in all significant respects. I am even prepared to mount it on a piece of white pegboard if necessary. I draw the line at the clipleads to connect the mosfets, though.
Actually that _would_ surprise me very much. I still don't think she'll be showing any tests. Remember her conditions? She has to get two "academics" to agree to referee, and she won't be accepting anyone who hasn't read and in some sense agreed with her "papers". Do you know anyone with the requisite electronics knowledge who might fit into those categories? If they disagree with her they are incompetent idiots. We've seen that response from her how many times now?
In other words, not until a blue moon falls on the twelfth of Never will we see real tests from the poser.
TK,
Is your circuit "similar" or does it just "relate" to it?
PW
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 21, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
Ahhh the current flows the opposite direction of what I thought it would flow alike...
Okay, I see, the DC current flow through the 10.3 Ohm resistor is from the main battery through Q2 back to the main battery ground.....
I thought this current would come from the 9 Volts battery, but this is not the case...!
Then just try to put a 100 nF cap in series, so it blocks the DC current and will only pass the AC.
ripple.
The 9 Volts battery should then not be discharged so fast...
Will it then still oscillate ?
The other new postings I have to catch up next week.
Regards; Stefan.
I think I must still not be understanding you.
The "conventional" current, the one that works with calculations and right-hand-rules and all of that, is (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) assigned to be "out" of the positive pole of the source, around the circuit, and "into" the negative pole of the source.
Of course now that we understand things a bit better than Franklin or even Faraday, we know that what really happens is that _electrons_ carrying their negative charges bump into other electrons which bump into other electrons and so the _charge_ is transferred along the conductor from the Negative polarity to the Positive polarity. The electrons themselves bump along rather leisurely, but the _charge_ and whatever signal or power carried by it transfers at the speed of light in the conductor.
So in this video when I am describing the "conventional" and "anti-conventional" current directions, I am referring to the convention that Ben Franklin left us with, so that all the calculations make sense.
It doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of sign, and so the convention remains with us and continues to confuse freshman EE students every September.
So I'm not sure what you are meaning about the current direction, and I'm still not clear on your use of "AC". Where is the AC in the circuit from the 9v battery (or power supply) to the gate input? It's all DC with a slight ripple on top. If I put a cap in there, nothing will get through, will it? The only place I see true AC is across the CVR... that is, in the main circuit itself when it is oscillating strongly.
So I suppose I'm still not following your meaning.
Quote from: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 09:34:12 PM
TK,
Is your circuit "similar" or does it just "relate" to it?
PW
That's right, and I'm not claiming similarity, I'm just claiming to have _measured_ similarity.
8)
(By the way I've made a new video and I think it shows the scope traces you wanted to see. )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMthOsvbVU
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 09:35:30 PM
I think I must still not be understanding you.
The "conventional" current, the one that works with calculations and right-hand-rules and all of that, is (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) assigned to be "out" of the positive pole of the source, around the circuit, and "into" the negative pole of the source.
Of course now that we understand things a bit better than Franklin or even Faraday, we know that what really happens is that _electrons_ carrying their negative charges bump into other electrons which bump into other electrons and so the _charge_ is transferred along the conductor from the Negative polarity to the Positive polarity. The electrons themselves bump along rather leisurely, but the _charge_ and whatever signal or power carried by it transfers at the speed of light in the conductor.
So in this video when I am describing the "conventional" and "anti-conventional" current directions, I am referring to the convention that Ben Franklin left us with, so that all the calculations make sense.
It doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of sign, and so the convention remains with us and continues to confuse freshman EE students every September.
So I'm not sure what you are meaning about the current direction, and I'm still not clear on your use of "AC". Where is the AC in the circuit from the 9v battery (or power supply) to the gate input? It's all DC with a slight ripple on top. If I put a cap in there, nothing will get through, will it? The only place I see true AC is across the CVR... that is, in the main circuit itself when it is oscillating strongly.
So I suppose I'm still not following your meaning.
TK,
I believe Stefan is thinking that by placing a cap in series with the 9volt bias source, the 9volt battery will not have to provide a DC current and therefore not discharge.
I believe the correct answer to his question is, "no". The source leg of Q2 needs both a negative voltage AND a DC path back to the battery negative (or the CSR).
PW
A data point:
Are you finished now TK? Or are you still doing that battery discharge number?
Let me know when I'm allowed to comment. Or do you prefer it that we leave this 'gossip' untrammeled by the input of some real science?
Rosie Pose
TK,
Even if you figure in the < 1.5 watts from the Ibias source, you're still looking good.
Thanks for the video. I forgot about how your load is arranged making it difficult to probe right at the load. It looks like your dropping about 25VAC across the load, correct? It also appears that the phase is shifted about 90 to 100 degrees between the traces. Do you agree? Is this a reliable phase measurement or a possible triggering artifact? (it looked well triggered to me).
I wonder what would happen to the energy calculations (and the oscillation) if you were to place a cap suitable for high frequency across the battery connections at your board so that only DC is indicated at the battery terminals.
It looks like your Ibias and Ibattery ammeters are in much closer agreement than before.
Have you managed to get anything else done? Did the pups get their shots today?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 03:03:23 PM
I did the average of what you had selected for all data points.
Average power = -110.56W
This is over 4 complete cycles. Usually, its good to do at least 10 cycles, but I think we see a trend here. ;)
I didn't get quite that much. Perhaps we measured differently or I made an error somewhere, since the first two cycle means agree with yours, but my overall mean is a bit lower. Still solidly negative though.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 21, 2012, 10:02:06 PM
Are you finished now TK? Or are you still doing that battery discharge number?
Let me know when I'm allowed to comment. Or do you prefer it that we leave this 'gossip' untrammeled by the input of some real science?
Rosie Pose
You betray your attitude problem in two simple sentences. You cannot post here without insulting or denigrating something or somebody, and you have no possibility of understanding what's presented here, so you will deny its reality and its validity.
You have nothing of value to contribute here UNLESS and UNTIL you show your own testing.
And no, I am far from finished. In fact, I am just beginning.
Quote from: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 10:45:44 PM
TK,
Even if you figure in the < 1.5 watts from the Ibias source, you're still looking good.
Thanks for the video. I forgot about how your load is arranged making it difficult to probe right at the load. It looks like your dropping about 25VAC across the load, correct? It also appears that the phase is shifted about 90 to 100 degrees between the traces. Do you agree? Is this a reliable phase measurement or a possible triggering artifact? (it looked well triggered to me).
No, I don't see that phase shift _now_. I see a tiny one of just a few degrees that might be artefact. I realize now that in the video I was triggering on the wrong channel and so I think that shift in the video is artefact. (I can't imagine a physical reason for it, the load is only 74 microHenry.)
It's running behind me right now, triggering on the proper channel and showing only a teenytiny phase shift, and I can't reproduce that shift shown in the video. Now watch youknowwho take that ball and run with it. Since there's no possibility of applying an external trigger in this case I can't prove phase accuracy except by comparisons.
Quote
I wonder what would happen to the energy calculations (and the oscillation) if you were to place a cap suitable for high frequency across the battery connections at your board so that only DC is indicated at the battery terminals.
Probably the same thing that happened in .99's simulation. The illusory oscillations on the battery voltage would go away. But the sign of the power is still determined by the sign of the current, isn't it?
Quote
It looks like your Ibias and Ibattery ammeters are in much closer agreement than before.
Yes, and I still don't fully understand this detail. It's more than coincidence but I don't see how the same current could be flowing in both places. There must be some key element I'm not getting.
Quote
Have you managed to get anything else done? Did the pups get their shots today?
PW
Yep, dogs vaccinated, Murphy has no microchip so he's now officially our dog and not somebody's lost companion, heartworm test negative, started on preventative, everybody survived (but a Rottweiler bit a little rat dog at the vet clinic and there was chaos for 5 minutes).
8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 10:55:12 PM
I didn't get quite that much. Perhaps we measured differently or I made an error somewhere, since the first two cycle means agree with yours, but my overall mean is a bit lower. Still solidly negative though.
If this is intended as a measure of the wattage delivered - then you need to recalculate this as it's based on the resistance of your current sensing resistor which you keep referring to as a CVR
That's just for starters. Which shows us all that you have no CLUE. With the utmost respect.
I have a whole lot of comments on those videos of yours. All of them. All of them grossly flawed. But I see how you'll need to hold the floor for a little longer. Feel free. It's amusing to watch this nonsense.
Again and ever,
rosie
Rosie Pose
Another data point:
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 21, 2012, 11:16:21 PM
If this is intended as a measure of the wattage delivered - then you need to recalculate this as it's based on the resistance of your current sensing resistor which you keep referring to as a CVR
That's just for starters. Which shows us all that you have no CLUE. With the utmost respect.
You are a liar. You have no respect for anything or anyone going on in this thread. And it is you who "have no clue". Now... stop with your insults and distractions and GO DO YOUR OWN TESTS. If you can find any "academics" to referee it, that is.
Quote
I have a whole lot of comments on those videos of yours. All of them. All of them grossly flawed. But I see how you'll need to hold the floor for a little longer. Feel free. It's amusing to watch this nonsense.
Again and ever,
rosie
Rosie Pose
I'll put my "nonsense" up against yours FOR INDEPENDENT EVALUATION any time you are READY, Rosie Poser. You are ignorant of your topic and you choose to remain so, and for some reason you desire to flaunt that ignorance at every opportunity. Where are your supporters? Where is a SINGLE PERSON who still agrees with you? Where is a SINGLE PERSON who is qualified in electronics that will say that my work here is invalid?
Now go away UNTIL YOU HAVE TESTS OF YOUR OWN TO REPORT.
WHY are you reposting that link. I've seen it. It's WRONG. Your calculation of the amperage is WRONG. No other way to put it. I thought you were posing as the EXPERT?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 21, 2012, 11:29:03 PM
WHY are you reposting that link. I've seen it. It's WRONG. Your calculation of the amperage is WRONG. No other way to put it. I thought you were posing as the EXPERT?
Rosie Pose
Reposting what link? The one to your 25.6 million Joule calculation? The one to all the wrong things and lies you've made in the past three weeks?
How is my calculation wrong, Rosie Poser? Please enlighten us and SHOW YOUR WORK.
TK,
I was thinking that was quite a bit of phase shift. But, that is why one should always confirm measurements.
Regarding the Ibatt versus Ibias, unless your DC ammeters are responding to the AC component, which some DC ammeters might might do with clipped or assymetrical AC waveforms, the DC currents should be the same.
The only DC path for Rload is by way of Q2's source and the bias supply/resistor (other than a very small gate leakage current). At DC, the current should be the same measured anywhere in "the loop", unless there is a DC "sneak" path unaccounted for.
Have you ever attempted placing a cap across your Vbatt connections?
How do your dogs handle trips to the vet?
By the way, you sometimes do indeed provide a good chuckle...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 11:32:48 PM
Reposting what link? The one to your 25.6 million Joule calculation? The one to all the wrong things and lies you've made in the past three weeks?
How is my calculation wrong, Rosie Poser? Please enlighten us and SHOW YOUR WORK.
Do your own homework TK. If you can't work it out one assumes picowatt would. What's wrong with you all? There's error after error after error and NOT ONE OF YOU ever notices.
Rosie
@PW: They had fun. It's always an exciting outing and they usually get treats.
Apparently Rosemary doesn't yet understand how to measure current using a Current Viewing Resistor and an oscilloscope, even though I have posted the video showing exactly how to do it and comparing the reading with the Ohm's Law theoretical value as well as with two other meters.
Yet she refuses to say just exactly what's wrong with the method.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPVOkDQsXfs
The voltage drop across a current viewing resistor, Rosie Poser, is related to the current flowing through that resistor by Ohm's Law. I = V / R. So if you have a voltage across the resistor of 0.5 volts, and your resistor is 0.25 Ohms.... the current is I = 0.5 / 0.25 = 2.0 Amps. If you have a value of -2 volts, as you do in your scopeshot below, the current is -8 amps. That's the way it is, that's the way I calculated and once again you are wrong and easily refuted.
TK,
I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 21, 2012, 11:36:32 PM
Do your own homework TK. If you can't work it out one assumes picowatt would. What's wrong with you all? There's error after error after error and NOT ONE OF YOU ever notices.
Rosie
Show us and explain, Rosie. You are talking to at least one active electronics bench professional, another who seems to be a retired one, and a few brilliant amateurs who all know a lot more about the subject than you do.
So enlighten us. Step by step. You know I'd do it for you.
Quote from: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 11:48:54 PM
TK,
I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.
PW
And this is significant how?
And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?
Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 11:49:22 PM
Show us and explain, Rosie. You are talking to at least one active electronics bench professional, another who seems to be a retired one, and a few brilliant amateurs who all know a lot more about the subject than you do.
So enlighten us. Step by step. You know I'd do it for you.
OK. So. You now want me to engage? Is that it? No TK. I'll keep my counsel for now. You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions. Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts? I'm saving them up for when I get the floor. Can't be much longer now.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 11:52:12 PM
And this is significant how?
And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?
Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.
TK,
If your shunt is truly 1.75uH, it would be closer to 16 ohms at 1.5MHz.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 21, 2012, 11:56:56 PM
OK. So. You now want me to engage? Is that it? No TK. I'll keep my counsel for now. You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions. Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts? I'm saving them up for when I get the floor. Can't be much longer now.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
I for one wish you would "lighten up". It seems you never "discuss", you always just want to "argue".
It's not very pleasant nor professional.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 11:48:54 PM
TK,
I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.
PW
The only place in the "papers" where the CVR inductance is mentioned -- except for its implausibly low value in the table of materials -- is this passage from Paper 1:
QuoteAlso to be noted is that there is a measure of inductance on
the current-sensing resistor that begs some margin for error in
the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the
transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can
be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.
It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits
from the inductances that are measured over the circuit
components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive
and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the
indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily
established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical
amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into
the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the
oscillation, in the first instance. The potential for the circuit to
be used in a booster converter mode also begs the requirement
for more robust transistors than is available in the market.
There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely
quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to
the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element.
This was based on the fact that in all tests and,
notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset
adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from
the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in
temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as
being anomalous.
Note that last part especially. Here's the translation: "We didn't do the critical measurement to see if our conclusion is right because we know our conclusion is right so we don't have to."
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 12:02:32 AM
TK,
If your shunt is truly 1.75uH, it would be closer to 16 ohms at 1.5MHz.
PW
Yes, that's right. And there is no indication that Rosemary used any other type of resistor than the simple wirewound "cement" power resistors that are shown in the video and are listed in her bill of materials. Therefore, her very low inductance value is likely to be in error, and nowhere in any of her data is it evident that she did anything other than a direct multiplication of the voltage drop across the resistor with the battery voltage.
However, it makes no difference in the SIGN of the current through the resistor, just the magnitude, right? And the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive, isn't it?
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 12:06:17 AM
Rosemary,
I for one wish you would "lighten up". It seems you never "discuss", you always just want to "argue".
It's not very pleasant nor professional.
PW
My dear picowatt
If I ever needed any evidence of 'partiality' it's in this post of yours. I most certainly HAVE NOT BEEN either unpleasant or unprofessional. I think the most lenient of accusations would be to say that it is TK who has been excessively combative and entirely unprofessional. ANd I'm NOT even confining this comment to his work. And it is HE who has required that I don't engage. So. PLEASE. Exercise a modicum of reasonableness in your opinions related to this. It's GLARINGLY inappropriate.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 12:15:25 AM
Yes, that's right. And there is no indication that Rosemary used any other type of resistor than the simple wirewound "cement" power resistors that are shown in the video and are listed in her bill of materials. Therefore, her very low inductance value is likely to be in error, and nowhere in any of her data is it evident that she did anything other than a direct multiplication of the voltage drop across the resistor with the battery voltage.
However, it makes no difference in the SIGN of the current through the resistor, just the magnitude, right? And the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive, isn't it?
Actually no. It's still not right. But perhaps Poynty will enlighten you both. In due course. And far be it from me to capitalise on an error. Unlike you TK I would not charge through 20 pages referring to it ad nauseum in the hopes of thereby denying any competence to any of you. It's not my style. And nor do I need to. Your own lack of it is everywhere apparent. Fortunately there are those readers here who are well aware of it.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 12:15:25 AM
However, it makes no difference in the SIGN of the current through the resistor, just the magnitude, right? And the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive, isn't it?
And here's another error. We have examples where the battery indicates a negative voltage. Go figger!
Again,
Rosie Pose
OK... so here's a "correction" if indeed it is a correction. Note that the shape of the graph and the sign of the average power does not change, only the magnitude of the power level changes.
Any other problems?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 12:17:07 AM
My dear picowatt
If I ever needed any evidence of 'partiality' it's in this post of yours. I most certainly HAVE NOT BEEN either unpleasant or unprofessional. I think the most lenient of accusations would be to say that it is TK who has been excessively combative and entirely unprofessional. ANd I'm NOT even confining this comment to his work. And it is HE who has required that I don't engage. So. PLEASE. Exercise a modicum of reasonableness in your opinions related to this. It's GLARINGLY inappropriate.
Regards
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I am fully aware of the attitude issues between you and TK. But even in my discussions with you, simple questions always seemed to invoke an argument or confrontation from you, not a discussion.
So I will respectfully disagree, I believe it is VERY reasonable to wish you, as well as TK, would "lighten up".
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 12:06:43 AM
Note that last part especially. Here's the translation: "We didn't do the critical measurement to see if our conclusion is right because we know our conclusion is right so we don't have to."
Not actually. Here's what we're saying.
'Notwithstanding the measured wattage delivered there appears to be consistent evidence of a negative product. And a negative 'wattage' makes no sense. And no matter what we factor in for impedance - that negative wattage persists. So. Can you EXPERTS please explain this. Because that's why we're writing this paper.'
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 12:24:50 AM
And here's another error. We have examples where the battery indicates a negative voltage. Go figger!
Again,
Rosie Pose
Prove it.
Not in any of the scopeshots in your "papers" is a negative battery voltage shown during even the highest oscillations.
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 12:30:54 AM
Rosemary,
I am fully aware of the attitude issues between you and TK. But even in my discussions with you, simple questions always seemed to invoke an argument or confrontation from you, not a discussion.
So I will respectfully disagree, I believe it is VERY reasonable to wish you, as well as TK, would "lighten up".
PW
picowatt - with respect - there has been nothing that you have posted to me that has not been addressed respectfully. If you can show me any evidence to the contrary then I'll attend to it.
So. When you include my attitude with that of TK's again you're wrong. I do NOT resort to malicious invective nor traducement. And my comments are NOT slanderous.
Rosemary
TK,
You are indeed fast. I wish we had a part number for Rosemary's CSR resistors so that their inductance could be confirmed.
When you measured your CSR's inductance, did you measure them as paralleled or individually and then calculate their value?
In all the video blowups, has anyone seen a manufacturer logo on Rosemary's CSR's?
You don't need such high wattage for the CSR, I'll bet you could live with 4 to 8 half-watt carbons paralleled.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 12:34:05 AM
Prove it.
Not in any of the scopeshots in your "papers" is a negative battery voltage shown during even the highest oscillations.
There is ample proof in our final test. Take a look
Rosie
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 12:30:14 AM
OK... so here's a "correction" if indeed it is a correction. Note that the shape of the graph and the sign of the average power does not change, only the magnitude of the power level changes.
Any other problems?
LOL. I'd say it does change. Golly. By a HUGE factor.
Rosie Posie
:-*
Extra special non-inductive shunt resistors, wired so as to minimize overall inductance?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 12:40:54 AM
Extra special non-inductive shunt resistors, wired so as to minimize overall inductance?
I have NEVER claimed to have non-inductive resistors. Why would I bother? We're not talking marginal values. There's nothing that can't manage a generous error margin and STILL show the required evidence.
Rosie Posie
8) added a required signature
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 12:36:55 AM
TK,
You are indeed fast. I wish we had a part number for Rosemary's CSR resistors so that their inductance could be confirmed.
You can see them in the photo I just posted, and I know you have dozens just like them on your bench. And you can see how they are listed in the bill of materials. Would you not have mentioned the fact that you used special noninductive resistors?
Quote
When you measured your CSR's inductance, did you measure them as paralleled or individually and then calculate their value?
Both. I thought I showed this in a video. I measured some known commercial inductors to establish the accuracy of my inductance meter and its lead inductances, and then I measured one out-of-circuit resistor, then I measured the stack in-circuit. The in-circuit measurement was under 2 microHenry and the calculated value based on the 7 microHenry individual resistor was 1.75 microHenry. I even showed the meter readings along a stack of series-wired 1 microHenry inductors to verify its accuracy at the bottom end. It's all in the video.
Quote
In all the video blowups, has anyone seen a manufacturer logo on Rosemary's CSR's?
No, they just appear to have the standard " 10W 1 U J " marking, where the U is actually an omega, in a single line. Mine are marked "XICON W" on a second line of text.
Quote
You don't need such high wattage for the CSR, I'll bet you could live with 4 to 8 half-watt carbons paralleled.
PW
Yes, you could.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 12:35:42 AM
picowatt - with respect - there has been nothing that you have posted to me that has not been addressed respectfully. If you can show me any evidence to the contrary then I'll attend to it.
So. When you include my attitude with that of TK's again you're wrong. I do NOT resort to malicious invective nor traducement. And my comments are NOT slanderous.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I do not believe I mentioned "respectfully" (or disrespectfully) regarding my discussions with you.
Please reread my post.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 12:36:55 AM
You don't need such high wattage for the CSR, I'll bet you could live with 4 to 8 half-watt carbons paralleled.
PW
No you couldn't. Not at the current levels we measure.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 12:43:57 AM
I have NEVER claimed to have non-inductive resistors. Why would I bother? We're not talking marginal values. There's nothing that can't manage a generous error margin and STILL show the required evidence.
Rosie Posie
8) added a required signature
Wire wound ceramic power resistors. One hundred and ten nanoHenry. Is that each, or for the parallel stack of 4?
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 12:49:10 AM
Rosemary,
I do not believe I mentioned "respectfully" (or disrespectfully) regarding my discussions with you.
Please reread my post.
PW
Forum guidelines require nothing more than respect. I am not obliged to answer your questions. Nor will I. Not until I see the required professionalism and impartiality associated with this science. And not until I see respect for both me and for our work. Both are lacking. Which is a gross understatement of the fact. And your own 'question' emphases have been based on erroneous assumptions - that having been addressed are then IGNORED. One would, under normal circumstances acknowledge that error of 'assumption'. I'm specifically referring to your very first question that dominated my own thread and that was then followed by 5 pages of pure calumny - 41 posts in one night - where you and TK et al - simply assumed that your 'emphasis' was correct. It was not.
Rosemary
TK,
I spent some time in the past trying to locate manufacturer data regarding a similarly packaged 10 watt resistor in a non-inductive design. I found several manufacturers that claim to make non-inductive resistors in that package but they do not seem to be "off the shelf" , nor was I able to locate any data sheets regarding them. Seems I always ran into "contact the manufacturer".
PW
"I have NEVER claimed to have non-inductive resistors. Why would I bother? We're not talking marginal values. There's nothing that can't manage a generous error margin and STILL show the required evidence. "
That's right, none of the objections apply to YOU, they only apply to ME.
The sign of my wattage values is the same as yours. The shape of my power curve is the same as yours. If objections about impedance and reactance and inductance apply to ME, then they apply to YOU as well. If I correct errors immediately... if indeed they are errors under the circumstances... then so should YOU. If inductances are helpful for YOU as you claim in your paper then they are helpful for ME as well. You cannot apply your usual double standard here and get away with it, poser.
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 01:06:47 AM
TK,
I spent some time in the past trying to locate manufacturer data regarding a similarly packaged 10 watt resistor in a non-inductive design. I found several manufacturers that claim to make non-inductive resistors in that package but they do not seem to be "off the shelf" , nor was I able to locate any data sheets regarding them. Seems I always ran into "contact the manufacturer".
PW
Well, among all the noise above we appear to have a clear statement that she did NOT use special non-inductive resistors.
So I still don't understand that 110 nH listing, because it certainly doesn't jive with my measurements of my OTS resistors.
I have an opinion about that number, though, and until I'm shown otherwise I'll just have to believe in my opinion.
But we are also assured that it doesn't matter in the least. So one wonders why MY inductance matters, if hers doesn't.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 01:06:49 AM
"I have NEVER claimed to have non-inductive resistors. Why would I bother? We're not talking marginal values. There's nothing that can't manage a generous error margin and STILL show the required evidence. "
That's right, none of the objections apply to YOU, they only apply to ME.
The sign of my wattage values is the same as yours. The shape of my power curve is the same as yours. If objections about impedance and reactance and inductance apply to ME, then they apply to YOU as well. If I correct errors immediately... if indeed they are errors under the circumstances... then so should YOU. If inductances are helpful for YOU as you claim in your paper then they are helpful for ME as well. You cannot apply your usual double standard here and get away with it, poser.
Since we KNOW that you're attempting to throw considerable levels of doubt on our work - I would think it would be advisable to present your own work in a reasonably realistic way. 100 watts or thereby is a HUGE value. Utterly unrealistic. I suspect you were hoping that no-one would notice. Or you had not yourself noticed. Or that it would be discounted precisely because of it's excess. In any eventuality - notwithstanding - it was intended for 'spin'. Hardly a professional and considered 'fact'. And then you follow this us with that clumsy attempt at sarcasm where you ask 'Can I now have my prize?' Are you capable of understating anything at all? Are you that one dimensional?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 01:13:30 AM
But we are also assured that it doesn't matter in the least. So one wonders why MY inductance matters, if hers doesn't.
It doesn't matter. Not in the least. What matters is that you did not refer to it's need - to be calculated into that wattage value that you presented with such an inappropriate flourish. That's where the 'spin' comes in. And if there's been some 'noise' as you put - since then - it's served its purpose. You clearly are NOT investigating anything at all. You're trying to present 'gross' evidence of a subtle principle that entirely eludes you. Even now.
Rosie Pose
Respect this:
Quote
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 01:00:37 AM
Forum guidelines require nothing more than respect. I am not obliged to answer your questions. Nor will I. Not until I see the required professionalism and impartiality associated with this science. And not until I see respect for both me and for our work. Both are lacking. Which is a gross understatement of the fact. And your own 'question' emphases have been based on erroneous assumptions - that having been addressed are then IGNORED. One would, under normal circumstances acknowledge that error of 'assumption'. I'm specifically referring to your very first question that dominated my own thread and that was then followed by 5 pages of pure calumny - 41 posts in one night - where you and TK et al - simply assumed that your 'emphasis' was correct. It was not.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
The only answer given regarding that question was that I (and others) do not know how to read a 'scope. Even using the somehow corrected readings you countered with (I believe it was +6 or so volts), Q1 should still have been turning on while it was indicated by the CSR that it was not. So no, I do not feel you addressed that observation, you merely tried to "argue" it away. I gladly admit when I am wrong, have you ever done so?
In any event, in reading the post quoted above, I rest my case...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 01:21:24 AM
Respect this:
LOL TK. That's exactly what I mean. By the same token I could keep on keeping on about your own rather 'gross' inaccuracies. Unlike you I have no such compelling need. They speak for themselves.
At last. I've had a laugh. Thank you.
Rosie Posie
Hi TK,
On the modified replication of the Quantum COP>17 circuit everyone made a big stink about the carbon .25 ohm resistor I used and there was a discussion on the wire wound resistor type which gave much more inductance into the circuit you could actually see with a scope, especially with large 10 watt wire wound resistors.
That's why I ended up using a "Caddock" (MP-930) 30 watt .25 ohm that was 10nh and then no one complained what was used for measurement purposes with my modified experimental device.
But for a replication .... you use what was specified if available which you are doing or as close as possible, unfortunately even if it was designed improperly for the application intended.
Cheers,
Fuzzy
;)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 01:21:10 AM
It doesn't matter. Not in the least. What matters is that you did not refer to it's need - to be calculated into that wattage value that you presented with such an inappropriate flourish. That's where the 'spin' comes in. And if there's been some 'noise' as you put - since then - it's served its purpose. You clearly are NOT investigating anything at all. You're trying to present 'gross' evidence of a subtle principle that entirely eludes you. Even now.
Rosie Pose
Show us where you ever referred to the "need" in your papers. The only passage is the one I've already quoted, and there is no indication anywhere that you did anything other than what I did.Especially in the shot below, where your "mean power" is very close to my ORIGINAL calculation.... which might not be an "error" at all.
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 01:23:32 AM
Rosemary,
The only answer given regarding that question was that I (and others) do not know how to read a 'scope. Even using the somehow corrected readings you countered with (I believe it was +6 or so volts), Q1 should still have been turning on while it was indicated by the CSR that it was not. So no, I do not feel you addressed that observation, you merely tried to "argue" it away. I gladly admit when I am wrong, have you ever done so?
In any event, in reading the post quoted above, I rest my case...
PW
LOL Again. INDEED. I ALWAYS admit when I'm wrong. Ask MileHigh. I take great pride in my readiness to do so. And where have you admitted error? I explained that you need to factor in values related to that zero crossing line that is appropriate to an AC value further qualified by the signal generator's offset.
TK is still referring to the 12V peak of that signal. And you have never acknowledged that the value needs to be adjusted by factors related to the coupling. There is NOTHING represented in that value that is INCORRECT. However, what I have subsequently learned is that I could have independently adjusted that coupling on Channel 3 to an AC value. I will show you ALL in our demonstrations. I'm still trying to find the correct forum for that.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 01:24:41 AM
LOL TK. That's exactly what I mean. By the same token I could keep on keeping on about your own rather 'gross' inaccuracies. Unlike you I have no such compelling need. They speak for themselves.
At last. I've had a laugh. Thank you.
Rosie Posie
You've seen what I do when I'm shown a "mistake". What do you do? You STILL have not posted a correction to that howler above and your conclusion, since the math is wrong, is WRONG. Where is your correction and retraction?
You do not even understand how you went wrong, so you CANNOT post a correct calculation.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 01:32:09 AM
You've seen what I do when I'm shown a "mistake". What do you do? You STILL have not posted a correction to that howler above and your conclusion, since the math is wrong, is WRONG. Where is your correction and retraction?
You do not even understand how you went wrong, so you CANNOT post a correct calculation.
My dear TK. If you need to pretend that there's been no retraction I fully understand why. Otherwise you will not be able to refer to this again and again. But don't let me stop you. It's comical. I thoroughly enjoy seeing your reliance on this. I'm sure as do our readers. And as ever, it shows how 'thin' is your arsenal. That's much required.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
Did you ever get around to asking your team about .99's annotated 'scope shot or my observation regarding Q1?
And again, even by your own +6 volt reading, Q1 should have been indicating, via the CSR, that current was flowing.
PW
(Added the second sentence)
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 01:37:01 AM
Rosemary,
Did you ever get around to asking your team about .99's annotated 'scope shot or my observation regarding Q1?
PW
I did indeed. My own scope has been sent for calibration certification. It should have been returned last Thursday. Now only to come next Thursday. The guy who's working on it will explain all to me. Then I'll let Poynty Point know. And then he can let you know.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 01:35:24 AM
My dear TK. If you need to pretend that there's been no retraction I fully understand why. Otherwise you will not be able to refer to this again and again. But don't let me stop you. It's comical. I thoroughly enjoy seeing your reliance on this. I'm sure as do our readers. And as ever, it shows how 'thin' is your arsenal. That's much required.
Rosie Pose
A simple link to your retraction would have been a much better... and valid... refutation. But you have made no correction or retraction. PROVE ME WRONG by linking to your post where you correct your calculation and retract your claim of exceeding the battery capacity with that one test.
Here's a post you made well AFTER you were shown your errors in the earlier 25.6 million Joule fiasco.
QuoteLet's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms. The source voltage is 220 volts. The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you. While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.
You don't know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. That is a real problem.
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.
Hi Tk,
If you go by the device schematic in Rosemary's BLOG site and two other locations that she claims is the wrong "Qray" whatever configuration .....
The shunt resistors R4, R5, R6 and R7 are shown to each have a inductance of 275nh
Cheers,
Fuzzy
;)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 01:42:03 AM
I did indeed. My own scope has been sent for calibration certification. It should have been returned last Thursday. Now only to come next Thursday. The guy who's working on it will explain all to me. Then I'll let Poynty Point know. And then he can let you know.
Rosemary
And when he does explain it to you... he will become another one of your former friends who now are classed as idiots in your mind ... because he will tell you the same thing PW has been telling you and you will deny it and claim that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
TK,
Your figures corrected for the CSR inductance are getting close to going the "other way". The fact that the oscillation is not a pure sine at 1.5MHz, i.e., it contains a lot of harmonics, that reactance value at 1.5MHz may not be accurate as well, and would still be too low regarding those harmonics.
You might try making a measurement using a non-inductive or less-inductive CSR for a comparison.
It is a shame that the manufacturer and part numbers are not listed in the papers.
PW
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 22, 2012, 02:00:05 AM
Hi Tk,
If you go by the device schematic in Rosemary's BLOG site and two other locations that she claims is the wrong "Qray" whatever configuration .....
The shunt resistors R4, R5, R6 and R7 are shown to each have a inductance of 275nh
Cheers,
Fuzzy
;)
And just where did those figures come from? That is a sim, right? Designed to mimic the behavior of the circuit?
4 resistors in parallel with 275 nH inductance each should total about 69 nH, isn't it?
FTC,
Deleted post, brainfade, it's getting late!
PW
TK, FTC,
Is that a sim from .99? If so, maybe he can tell us where those values came from.
TK, are you fairly certain of your inductance measurements?
All the others being discussed are much lower.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 02:08:35 AM
TK,
Your figures corrected for the CSR inductance are getting close to going the "other way". The fact that the oscillation is not a pure sine at 1.5MHz, i.e., it contains a lot of harmonics, that reactance value at 1.5MHz may not be accurate as well, and would still be too low regarding those harmonics.
You might try making a measurement using a non-inductive or less-inductive CSR for a comparison.
It is a shame that the manufacturer and part numbers are not listed in the papers.
PW
If I can be convinced that they took into account their inductance and did it correctly, and that their resistors have that low inductance... then I'll be happy to oblige. Right now, though, I am looking at this figure below, that I'm linking yet again, and that .99 posted to me showing the "average power" or average VV figure that I thought I was supposed to be emulating.
There is no evidence in their waveforms or settings that they have substantially different inductances than I do, as far as I can tell. Certainly not by a factor of nearly 20. I also am suspicious of their stated load inductance, which also seems implausibly low.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 02:08:48 AM
And just where did those figures come from? That is a sim, right? Designed to mimic the behavior of the circuit?
4 resistors in parallel with 275 nH inductance each should total about 69 nH, isn't it?
Hey TK,
That circuit is the same as paper #2 and your right the BLOG http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links is a sim circuit with those figures shown ... unknown where the those figures came from but the schematic is the NERD's not .99's
There is a prior blog post http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/120-revised-report.html#links with ....
Quote
5. SIMULATION
5.1 The circuit was setup in Simetrix version 5.4 ( Figure 7 ) and simulated in correlation with the above tests ( Figure 8 ).
Cheers,
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 02:19:20 AM
TK, FTC,
Is that a sim from .99? If so, maybe he can tell us where those values came from.
TK, are you fairly certain of your inductance measurements?
All the others being discussed are much lower.
PW
I am using a new meter. I did my best to qualify its readings at low inductances.
If I measure a marked 1.5 milliHenry inductor, and it measures 1.5 milliHenry on the meter, and then if I measure one 1 microHenry inductor, and it measures one microHenry, and then I measure two of them in series and it measures 2 microHenry, and then I measure three in series and it measures.... and I measure 6 in series and it measures 6 microHenry.... and then I measure the resistor and it measures 7 microHenry ... what am I to believe? It's a number in a box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D36aK5XHoHc
TK,
I have a few questions regarding that scope shot, particularly if the text is correct regarding the FG being at full negative offset.
In any event, I do not see how the CSR inductance can be estimated from that shot. As this is critical to power calculations, I assume it will be addressed with greater clarity in the future, or at least a non-inductive resistor used.
As for now regarding your circuit, and not being certain what resistors RA used, I do not know what to tell you. Possibly .99 has some suggestions.
I believe you said you checked your LCR meter against a "known". Are you fairly confident in your inductance measurement of the shunt resistors? Enough so that you do not feel it necessary to try an alternate meaurement of one of the ten watters with the FG, etc?
PW
Please watch the video.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 02:57:04 AM
Please watch the video.
TK,
I watched the video. What is the test frequency on your meter?
I would agree that the resistors do measure 7uHy. But, you could verify that they do indeed act like ca. 50R resistors at 1.2MHz with the FG.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 02:55:47 AM
TK,
I have a few questions regarding that scope shot, particularly if the text is correct regarding the FG being at full negative offset.
In any event, I do not see how the CSR inductance can be estimated from that shot. As this is critical to power calculations, I assume it will be addressed with greater clarity in the future, or at least a non-inductive resistor used.
As for now regarding your circuit, and not being certain what resistors RA used, I do not know what to tell you. Possibly .99 has some suggestions.
I believe you said you checked your LCR meter against a "known". Are you fairly confident in your inductance measurement of the shunt resistors? Enough so that you do not feel it necessary to try an alternate meaurement of one of the ten watters with the FG, etc?
PW
You do see the mean "VV" figure, though, don't you? Is there something wrong with that value in the scope shot?
And I'll be happy to show an alternate measurement of the inductances in my circuit.... when RA does so for her inductances. Are you thinking that my figures are implausibly high? They don't seem so to me. How do you explain the readings I obtain on marked commercial inductors in the video, then?
Did you watch the video concerning my quick meter qualification and measurement of the resistor's inductance?
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 03:14:06 AM
TK,
I watched the video. What is the test frequency on your meter?
I would agree that the resistors do measure 7uHy. But, you could verify that they do indeed act like ca. 50R resistors at 1.2MHz with the FG.
Did I argue or act surprised when you pointed out that the stack would actually be at around 16 ohms or so? Am I arguing about that now? There's no question in my mind about the inductance and reactance of my resistors. I have questions about RA's resistors though and the only answer we ever get is "look at the papers".
The manual says "about 200 Hz." I seem to recall that most inductance meters use 900 Hz, or at least the last one I had did.
So at what value does this "shunt" inductance cause the current measurement to change sign?
And what is so special about my resistors that makes them 16 times more inductive than RA's that look just the same but with only one line of text on them? Can ink really add that much inductance?
The least you could do is hold those goalposts still for a few minutes.
(And these are shunts. The current viewing resistor in the RA circuit could be called a "shunt" I suppose. Sensing? I don't think it senses anything, because it does not change in any way (except heating and temp coefficient of resistance) due to the current through it. Unlike a thermistor, for example, which does "sense" by changing its resistance in response to temperature. We use the current viewing resistor like a lens: we look through it with a voltmeter and look at what the _voltmeter_ senses. The CVR itself is passive.)
Well, I dunno.
Using the FG to set a frequency, the scope just to look at amplitude, and the Philips counter to read the frequency, I looked for resonance in the LC tank made by connecting a 10000 pF poly cap across the single resistor. Sweeping, I got a resonant peak at about 2252.9 kHz, and crunching the numbers gives me about 0.5 microHenry as the inductance. And when I did the same thing with a ceramic cap of measured 0.007 mF I got a resonance at 2698.7 kHz which also gives an inductance of about 0.5 microHenry.
L = 1/(C *(2*pi*f)^2)
So.... if that's the case.... then I don't understand why the meter reads differently on the resistor but gets the other inductor values right.
Also... if the inductance really is that low, that also takes the AC reactance down as well, to about 5 or 6 ohms at 1.5-2.0 MHz, or about 1.5 ohms for the stack. Right? So now we are moving back up.
So if my meter is right, my power is small -- but still averages negative -- and Ainslie's impedance values seem too low. If my meter is wrong in spite of the known inductor measurements, and our resistors are in fact about 0.5 microHenry each, hers and mine, then her 110 nH number makes sense ... and then my power levels go back up again and look even more like what she's reported.
I'm perfectly happy to accept the 0.5 microHenry value for the single resistor. That means the stack is 125 nH, close to the RA figure. And if I measure the load inductance by the same method, I get 1.2 - 1.4 microHenry, compared to the 70 or so mH the meter tells me. So fine, my new meter is junk and my shunt and load inductances are very close to Ainslie's stated values. Fine.
(Imagine... all this trouble just to prove that my batteries do discharge.)
TK:
I don't think I have ever used a capacitance meter or an inductance meter. It's funny I vaguely remember doing the engineering labs where you look at RC and L/R time constants to measure capacitance and inductance, "like a man." So I kind of frown to myself when I hear about capacitance and inductance meters.
I think we are back to the always interesting issue of the limits for your measuring apparatus. What I did on the bench with a scope had it's limits. Similarly for both capacitance meters and inductance meters, eventually the values you are trying to look at get so low that either the measurement device was never designed to go that low, or the values that you are trying to measure fall under the "background noise level" and the capacitance and inductance of the leads of the instrument are larger than what you are actually trying to measure.
You mentioned that most inductance meters use about 900 Hz. Right away I am thinking forget it, it will never be able to measure nanohenries, it was designed for milihenries and possibly microhenries. Any lower than that forget it. There is always "RTFM" but a lot of these commodity meters don't actually give you the real specifications. That's a Marketing decision to increase sales (or to prevent reduced sales). The Dark Side of Capitalism. They know that the average Joe Blow might not buy and say, "What? It can't measure picohenries??!!"
What I think PW may be suggesting is the following: I assume that your signal generator has a 50-ohm output impedance. Just solder your resistor array to a 1/2" length of coax connected to a male BNC connector and then jack it straight into your function generator. Then sweep up the frequency and observe the voltage across the resistor array. Assuming that the inductance dominates as you go up towards 1-2 MHz, you should see the AC voltage across the resistor array increase as you go higher in frequency. Obviously at lower frequencies you have 50 ohms in series with 0.25 ohms, so you should meaure a very low output voltage. But at 1.5 MHz if the impedance is 16 ohms you should see a higher AC voltage.
So I suppose that this method will work out to much higher frequencies. But there are limits of course. Eventually the inductance inside the function generator itself will start to come into play and the stray capacitance across the leads of the resistor array itself will come into play. As a certain frequency you should see a roll-off and the AC voltage across the resistor array will start to decrease again.
Somebody might correct me here but I think I am in the ballpark.
MileHigh
You know another interesting tidbit here is about when to use 10X attenuation on your scope probes. I think that some people might always defer to 10X attenuation thinking that it's better all the time. I believe it's preferable to use 10X attenuation if your signal is very high in voltage or you are looking at a signal that has a really high inherent impedance and you want your probes to be as high an impedance as possible to reduce the disturbance that they cause to the device under test. The trade-off is that your signal seen by the scope is weaker and it's own impedance is higher as subject to disturbance, and I believe that you lose some bandwidth.
So I would suggest that you don't keep the probes on 10X attenuation in this case. The signal source impedance is a very robust 50 ohms, and you won't disturb it with the normal probe setting and you will get a "clearer" signal and hence a more accurate measurement of the AC voltage across the resistor array. In other words, you won't have to worry about any possible frequency roll-off. I am pretty sure that there are no roll-off issues for 10X probes at 1.5 MHz but using non-attenuated setting just "feels better." I am sure you can relate to that.
Note one more thing. If you assume inductive wire-wound 10-watt resistors, they are wound like like little inductors. When four of them are in close proximity the mutual inductance between resistors may come into play. I am not really sure, but it implies that you could arrange 2 + 2 such that there is some self-cancellation, hence reducing the inductance of the array.
Again, I am not an analog guy so what I am saying may be subject to correction.
MileHigh
TK,
If you have another resistor similar to the ones you used for your CSR, try placing it directly across the FG terminals with the FG set to 1.2MHz (I am assuming an FG with a 50R output). Scope across the FG before and after connecting the resistor.
If they truly are 7uHy, and therefore close to 52R at 1.2MHz, you should see the FG output go down by 6dB (half). If the output drops much more than this, they are not 7uHy. You could sweep the freq to get an idea of what the resistor is "acting like" at higher frequencies as well. There are a few issues that make this method unable to tell if the observed reactance is inductive or capacitive, but should suffice for the way the resistors are to be used. If you have no spare, use the four in your circuit (you will have to free the connections at least on one end) and modify calculations/frequencies accordingly. You can calculate the equivalent resistance based on the observed drop at a given frequency (with the Rgen 50R as part of the divider) and calculate an inductance from there. There may be a capacitive component, so I would rather just say that at 1.5MHz, their ESR is the observed/calculated value
Possibly, the low resistance or some internal capacitance of the resistor are fooling the LCR meter.
The lower values your alternate inductance tests indicate are more inline with other values given.
I would want to know how the resistor performs at the fundamental and the second and third harmonic, as these are most prominent in the waveforms.
PW
I've done some work on the spreadsheet, incorporating power computations for various CVR reactances. This affects only the absolute magnitude of the power values, not the sign or the shape of the power curve of course.
All "positive" values of shunt inductances still yield NEGATIVE mean power values.
If anyone has a better idea as to the overall impedance of this CVR at 2 MHz please let me know so I can revise the spreadsheet again.
I am happy to use 125 nHy as the total inductance of the CVR based on my resonance measurement instead of the ProsKit meter.
The reactance at 2 MHz will then be
2*pi*f*L == 2(3.142)(2,000,000)(0.000000125) == about 1.57 Ohms,
and the impedance then is sqrt(1.6^2 + 0.25^2) == about 1.59 Ohms.
With that as the AC impedance at 2 MHz, the mean power shown on TarBaby's scopeshot appears to be about _negative_ 14 Watts.
Right?
Please feel free to check my work -- those of you with the knowledge to do so -- and go over the spreadsheet with a finetooth comb, so that I MAY CORRECT MY ERRORS AND POST CORRECTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, like a good little scientist should always do. This, after all, is a major reason why RAW DATA and computations are always made available to reviewers of experimental work.
TK,
If the values being used for the inductance/ESR are closer to the values your alternate measurements arrived at, you will have to crank up the FG output to get an accurate measurement of the drop with the FG's 50R. If they are closer to 1R at 1.5MHz, with your FG at 40volts (amazing!), you should be able to read the divided voltage fairly well.
PW
@MH: Can you or anyone else tell me the make and model of the inductance meter used to measure the Ainslie inductances? The information does not seem to be in the papers. In the Video Demo -- which only _relates_ to their claims -- they apparently are using an InsTek 800 series inductance meter, which is a sophisticated instrument that uses multiple frequencies for its measurements. Of course... the more complex the instrument, the greater chances of misuse and misinterpretation.
http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=39&mid=79&id=188 (http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=39&mid=79&id=188)
But as I said before, I am happy to accept the lower inductance values they claim, since that means that Tar Baby's inductances now agree closely with theirs.
Also, in the "references" to the "paper 1" there is listed the manual for a Velleman POWER SUPPLY. Yet this instrument doesn't appear in the paper's list of instruments used. Nor can I find any internet reference to a IsoTech GFG 324 function generator.
There is also this little TidBit at the end of "paper2":
QuoteSpecific Heat and Ikram Ebrahim for the donation of the
element and his support in supplying exotic resistors as
required.
Yet RA has told us that no special resistors were used. I wonder if Mr. Ebrahim is amenable to discussion of the issues.
TK,
With your new resonance measurements, I think you are in the ball park. I used all the stated inductance values in the sim, and the results are close to Rosemary's.
You are right about the CSR value, it is of little consequence when for starters one is obtaining a negative VV from the CSR and VBAT trace products.
Have you measured across ONE of your battery's terminals directly with the scope, while all other scope and FG leads are removed? If so, what did you see directly across the ONE battery?
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 01:30:53 PM
TK,
If the values being used for the inductance/ESR are closer to the values your alternate measurements arrived at, you will have to crank up the FG output to get an accurate measurement of the drop with the FG's 50R. If they are closer to 1R at 1.5MHz, with your FG at 40volts (amazing!), you should be able to read the divided voltage fairly well.
PW
The Interstate F43 is set to make a sine wave at 2.0 MHz (closer to the actual value of TB's osc freq) (actually 2001.86 kHz on the Philips counter) and 40.0 V p-p "no load". When I then hook a single 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistor across the FG's output, it drops to 10.4 Volts p-p.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 01:56:57 PM
The Interstate F43 is set to make a sine wave at 2.0 MHz (closer to the actual value of TB's osc freq) (actually 2001.86 kHz on the Philips counter) and 40.0 V p-p "no load". When I then hook a single 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistor across the FG's output, it drops to 10.4 Volts p-p.
TK,
Is that with the resistor connected directly to the FG terminals or are you using a test lead?
You don't want to be measuring any test lead inductance, so go for right across the terminals.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 01:12:08 PM
I've done some work on the spreadsheet, incorporating power computations for various CVR reactances. This affects only the absolute magnitude of the power values, not the sign or the shape of the power curve of course.
All "positive" values of shunt inductances still yield NEGATIVE mean power values.
If anyone has a better idea as to the overall impedance of this CVR at 2 MHz please let me know so I can revise the spreadsheet again.
I am happy to use 125 nHy as the total inductance of the CVR based on my resonance measurement instead of the ProsKit meter.
The reactance at 2 MHz will then be
2*pi*f*L == 2(3.142)(2,000,000)(0.000000125) == about 1.57 Ohms,
and the impedance then is sqrt(1.6^2 + 0.25^2) == about 1.59 Ohms.
With that as the AC impedance at 2 MHz, the mean power shown on TarBaby's scopeshot appears to be about _negative_ 14 Watts.
Right?
Please feel free to check my work -- those of you with the knowledge to do so -- and go over the spreadsheet with a finetooth comb, so that I MAY CORRECT MY ERRORS AND POST CORRECTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, like a good little scientist should always do. This, after all, is a major reason why RAW DATA and computations are always made available to reviewers of experimental work.
Hi TK,
This is exceptional work you've done the old school way, using a analog scope and some math that obviously you have done this method before !!
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98153/ ( TBCurrentflow1.xls )
The only thing missing is your Tar Baby "THESIS" of truthfulness, knowledge, hard work, dedication and mathematical skills. ;)
Cheers,
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 22, 2012, 01:44:39 PM
TK,
With your new resonance measurements, I think you are in the ball park. I used all the stated inductance values in the sim, and the results are close to Rosemary's.
Good. It's too bad that the ProsKit meter is useless... I purchased it more or less specifically for this little project. Oh well.... it was cheap, at least.
Quote
You are right about the CSR value, it is of little consequence when for starters one is obtaining a negative VV from the CSR and VBAT trace products.
Yep.... the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, not its magnitude, and although RA _claims_ to have seen negative voltages on a battery trace, I am not able to produce them (at least not with a mere 48 volts main battery) and none of the scope traces from Ainslie that I can find, either in the papers or the video demo, seem to show any negative component on the battery traces. The final shape of the sampled power curve that I obtained is of course virtually identical to the shape of Ainslie's VV traces, with the expected smoothing due to the lower bandwidth, and of course the lower resolution caused by my manual sample rate of 18 samples per cycle, which is a mere 36 megasamples/second at the approx 2 MHz osc frequency.
Quote
Have you measured across ONE of your battery's terminals directly with the scope, while all other scope and FG leads are removed? If so, what did you see directly across the ONE battery?
No, I have not yet shown this, although I have done the measurement of course. Which of the 4 series batteries would you like to see measured in this way?
Quote from: MileHigh on April 22, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
You know another interesting tidbit here is about when to use 10X attenuation on your scope probes. I think that some people might always defer to 10X attenuation thinking that it's better all the time. I believe it's preferable to use 10X attenuation if your signal is very high in voltage or you are looking at a signal that has a really high inherent impedance and you want your probes to be as high an impedance as possible to reduce the disturbance that they cause to the device under test. The trade-off is that your signal seen by the scope is weaker and it's own impedance is higher as subject to disturbance, and I believe that you lose some bandwidth.
So I would suggest that you don't keep the probes on 10X attenuation in this case. The signal source impedance is a very robust 50 ohms, and you won't disturb it with the normal probe setting and you will get a "clearer" signal and hence a more accurate measurement of the AC voltage across the resistor array. In other words, you won't have to worry about any possible frequency roll-off. I am pretty sure that there are no roll-off issues for 10X probes at 1.5 MHz but using non-attenuated setting just "feels better." I am sure you can relate to that.
Note one more thing. If you assume inductive wire-wound 10-watt resistors, they are wound like like little inductors. When four of them are in close proximity the mutual inductance between resistors may come into play. I am not really sure, but it implies that you could arrange 2 + 2 such that there is some self-cancellation, hence reducing the inductance of the array.
Again, I am not an analog guy so what I am saying may be subject to correction.
MileHigh
All of the probes I have here are old-fashioned, fixed attenuation probes, Tektronix P6047. I usually monitor the FG with no attenuation by simply plugging it directly into the scope with a BNC T-connector, but the probes are all 10x. You are right of course. Normally one wants to use the "lowest" amplification gain settings on the vertical amplifier and the least attenuation. But I'm stuck with what I've got here and I'm not going to be buying any more equipment for a while. This skipping dinners to pay for my hobbies is getting old.
And you are right about some arrangements of parts being a lot less or more inductive than others. Running wires antiparallel or putting resistors in a "hairpin" loop... even using tightly twisted pair wires for PS and load connections ... all will reduce intercomponent and wiring inductances, but might increase capacitances. It's a tradeoff. Take a look at the so-called "bifilar" coils that some people use, wound in a hairpin arrangement for very low inductances, or even Tesla's true bifilar coil primaries, which have current path always in the same direction but greatly increase inter-turn capacitance by the wiring arrangement.
TK,
If you are going to do .99's scope shots at the batteries, I'd like to see, as .99 stated, with all other probes disconnected, one probe ground at the Batt- and then a shot of the scope with the 'scope probe tip placed at each battery terminal starting with the positive terminal of the first battery terminal above Batt-.
This would provide some evidence as to the battery impedance at Fosc, and the effects of the interconnect lead inductance.
You have already done so much, I am reluctant to ask more from you.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 02:11:27 PM
Good. It's too bad that the ProsKit meter is useless... I purchased it more or less specifically for this little project. Oh well.... it was cheap, at least.
I found similar problems with my cheap $30 meter from China. When I sprung for the TH2821A meter (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=th2821a), things got a lot better.
Quote
Yep.... the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, not its magnitude, and although RA _claims_ to have seen negative voltages on a battery trace, I am not able to produce them (at least not with a mere 48 volts main battery) and none of the scope traces from Ainslie that I can find, either in the papers or the video demo, seem to show any negative component on the battery traces. The final shape of the sampled power curve that I obtained is of course virtually identical to the shape of Ainslie's VV traces, with the expected smoothing due to the lower bandwidth, and of course the lower resolution caused by my manual sample rate of 18 samples per cycle, which is a mere 36 megasamples/second at the approx 2 MHz osc frequency.
Actually in my sims, I found that it was indeed the battery voltage trace that caused the negative power computation. As you measure closer and closer to the battery, the product gets less negative until finally you get a positive product when looking directly across the battery(s), assuming the superimposed oscillation drops to negligible levels.
Quote
No, I have not yet shown this, although I have done the measurement of course. Which of the 4 series batteries would you like to see measured in this way?
Pick any single battery that is most convenient for you. I wish to know how much superimposed oscillation there is (if any) when looking directly across the battery terminals. Of course with all other probes and FG connections removed.
Tar Baby circuit schematic currently in use, with revised component inductances (until further notice!) and the DC bias supply shown.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 22, 2012, 02:35:02 PM
(snip)
Actually in my sims, I found that it was indeed the battery voltage trace that caused the negative power computation. As you measure closer and closer to the battery, the product gets less negative until finally you get a positive product when looking directly across the battery(s), assuming the superimposed oscillation drops to negligible levels.
(snip)
How can that be? How can a negative current value multiplied by a positive battery value be anything but negative? If the battery trace is always positive then the product will have the same sign as the current, no matter the magnitude of the oscillations, I think. Can you explain further? Are you seeing battery oscillations that go below the zero reference line? I haven't been able to make those in Tar Baby, no matter how much I drive it.
Ah... are you referring to the sign of the overall "average" power?
Certainly the _average_ power would change sign as the positive-going areas outweigh the negative going areas in the average... but a negative current sample times a positive voltage sample will still yield a negative power for that sample, yes? This is what I mean when I say that the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current.... I'm talking about the instantaneous sample power values, with battery oscs that don't go below the zero line.
Quote from: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
TK,
If you are going to do .99's scope shots at the batteries, I'd like to see, as .99 stated, with all other probes disconnected, one probe ground at the Batt- and then a shot of the scope with the 'scope probe tip placed at each battery terminal starting with the positive terminal of the first battery terminal above Batt-.
This would provide some evidence as to the battery impedance at Fosc, and the effects of the interconnect lead inductance.
You have already done so much, I am reluctant to ask more from you.
PW
Don't worry, as long as I get to eat once in a while to displace the coffee, I'll be fine. A bit "techy" maybe but fine.
I'll do the tests that you and .99 want to see on the batteries in a little while.
No, I'm not going to try to run any more heavy currents through my probe shield leads! That's the kind of thing that causes batteries to catch fire!
;)
Sometimes isolated ground references do come in handy; that's the major advantage of the Fluke-o-Scopes (ScopeMeter 123 and 199). And I sure could use a good highvoltage differential voltage probe.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 09:35:30 PM
I think I must still not be understanding you.
The "conventional" current, the one that works with calculations and right-hand-rules and all of that, is (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) assigned to be "out" of the positive pole of the source, around the circuit, and "into" the negative pole of the source.
Of course now that we understand things a bit better than Franklin or even Faraday, we know that what really happens is that _electrons_ carrying their negative charges bump into other electrons which bump into other electrons and so the _charge_ is transferred along the conductor from the Negative polarity to the Positive polarity. The electrons themselves bump along rather leisurely, but the _charge_ and whatever signal or power carried by it transfers at the speed of light in the conductor.
So in this video when I am describing the "conventional" and "anti-conventional" current directions, I am referring to the convention that Ben Franklin left us with, so that all the calculations make sense.
It doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of sign, and so the convention remains with us and continues to confuse freshman EE students every September.
So I'm not sure what you are meaning about the current direction, and I'm still not clear on your use of "AC". Where is the AC in the circuit from the 9v battery (or power supply) to the gate input? It's all DC with a slight ripple on top. If I put a cap in there, nothing will get through, will it? The only place I see true AC is across the CVR... that is, in the main circuit itself when it is oscillating strongly.
So I suppose I'm still not following your meaning.
Sorry, maybe I was just a bit sloppy in my explanation.
Yes, I meant the Benjamin Franklin current direction.
But I did expect the current to flow OUT of the 9 Volts battery .
But as your scope shots show, the current through the 10.3 Ohm resistor comes
from the Q2 transistor, when it conducts.
So just put an ampmeter or a shunt in series with the plus pole of the 9 Volts battery before the 10 K pot in your circuit
and you will probably see, that there is probably not the 155 mA flowing but surely a much lower DC current.
The 155 mA you measured probably only flow from the main battery plus pole over the heater and Q2 via the 10.3 Ohm
resistor and the almost shorted pot to the ground of the main battery.
Thus it showed a POSITIVE voltage on the scope and not a negative voltage, what I suspected...
Hope it gets now clearer..
Regards, Stefan.
Sorry, I was confused...
My last statement is not right.
I now see, that the current ala Benjamin Franklin direction
flows from the Plus pole of the main battery through heater -> Q2 -> 10.3 Ohm
shunt-> wiper of pot->negative pole of 9 Volts battery.
As the 9 Volts battery is in series via the Rshunt with the main battery and the minus pole
of the 9 Volts battery is the lowest voltage potential, due to Kirchoff´s law also the same 155 mA current
flows in the plus pole of the 9 Volts battery back via Rshunt to the ground of the main battery´s minus pole...
A bit hard to see with this not optimal drawn circuit diagramm...
Regards, Stefan.
I've been doing inductance measurements of the commercial marked inductors using the resonance method with known capacitors, poly, tantalum and good ceramic ones. I can get within 10 percent of the marked value.
Here's how I do it: I hook the cap and the inductor in parallel with the scope and the function generator set to sine wave output, then I sweep the FG until the resonance is found by the trace amplitude peaking. Then I very carefully tune the FG so that I am as sure as I can be that I am at the peak amplitude oscillation. Then I look at the FG's frequency using its synch output going to the Philips 6676 counter... that has a crystal timebase oscillator in it and always passes its selfcheck to eight sig digs. Then I "do the math" (tm RA).
1/L=C*((2*pi*f)^2) with L in H, C in F, and f in Hz. Sounds like some strange crew of freaks on parade... but it works out if you don't forget where the decimal points go.
So anyway, there is something about those resistors that the ProsKit meter just doesn't like. The resonance method agrees with the meter for the commercial inductances, but not for the power resistors used in the CVR. Since I confirmed the resonance reading with a couple of different capacitors and resonant frequencies, I guess I have no choice but to believe it, and call the inductance of the 1 Ohm, 10 Watt ordinary power resistors as 0.5 microHenry, which means the stack of 4 parallel would be 125 nanoHenry (although I have not measured this by resonance directly....yet.)
So the inductive reactance at 2 MHz will be XL = 2pi*f*L, or 2*3.142*0.000000125*2,000,000 == about 1.6 Ohms. Since the DC resistance is 0.25 Ohms, the total AC impedance at 2 MHz will be Z= sqrt(R^2 + XL^2), or sqrt(1.6^2 + 0.25^2) == also about 1.6 Ohms, closer to 1.62 Ohms.
I've reflected this new value in the updated spreadsheet I posted a bit earlier, and completed the power calculations using it. The mean power is _NEGATIVE_ about 13 Watts or so.
I'd still like to see another measurement of the Ainslie resistors made though, by the resonance method if possible... which I doubt.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 22, 2012, 05:40:21 PM
Sorry, I was confused...
My last statement is not right.
I now see, that the current ala Benjamin Franklin direction
flows from the Plus pole of the main battery through heater -> Q2 -> 10.3 Ohm
shunt-> wiper of pot->negative pole of 9 Volts battery.
As the 9 Volts battery is in series via the Rshunt with the main battery and the minus pole
of the 9 Volts battery is the lowest voltage potential, due to Kirchoff´s law also the same 155 mA current
flows in the plus pole of the 9 Volts battery back via Rshunt to the ground of the main battery´s minus pole...
A bit hard to see with this not optimal drawn circuit diagramm...
Regards, Stefan.
Ahh... this is starting to sink in now. I was having trouble understanding the coincident readings of the two current meters I'm using, one simply in series with the main battery at the negative terminal, and the other in line with the 9v battery between the 10.3R/pot wiper and the main circuit. But now I can see that if you are right it's actually all the same current and the two power sources are in series.
This does complicate the power measurement, because it does seem to indicate that the bias power is making it to the load. But does this "extra" voltage appear on the main battery? Where would be the appropriate monitoring point to see the Total Voltage, that is, the main battery plus the bias supply voltage? If they are in series there must be some place where the full voltage can be monitored.
ETA: What all that power does to pots: The Ainslie component-destroyer strikes again !
This is some kind of high-dollar pot called a "HotPot". It didn't withstand the concentrated power going through that tiny slider onto the resistive patch. See the burned spot? Most of the pots I've tried to use with the Ainslie circuits wind up like this in short order.
Hey TK:
Just some more cheering from the peanut gallery. You are doing an awesome job. Your replication is a breakthrough showing negative power and we all know that the batteries are discharging and you have already presented evidence of that fact. You expressed a desire to wrap it all up in a neat and tidy bundle. At your leisure, we know that you are working hard and spending money out of pocket for this.
It's not the time and the money, it's the glory! lol
Just out of curiosity, any chance one of your nice old analog scopes has the "Ch.1 - Ch. 2" pull-out knob? Perhaps you have a decent differential probe at your disposal but it just slipped your mind...
When you get bored you can go into "X-Y" mode and make some pretty Lissajous figures on your scope display with the Outer Limits TOS theme on in the background. lol
We can see there is one grumpy and disgruntled observer of the goings on, that's for sure. Whenever she drops the term "science" you know things aren't going too well for her. Her recent comments were all nothing but shameless spin doctoring in an attack against you in a vain attempt to prevent the ongoing erosion of her proposition. Me thinks that there erosion filter is being applied each and every passing passing day and her "island" will get tinier and tinier.
That's what good science is all about! Catch the wave!
You know a hero from our generation said, "And castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually."
Keep on trucking!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 22, 2012, 06:19:41 PM
Hey TK:
Just some more cheering from the peanut gallery. You are doing an awesome job. Your replication is a breakthrough showing negative power and we all know that the batteries are discharging and you have already presented evidence of that fact. You expressed a desire to wrap it all up in a neat and tidy bundle. At your leisure, we know that you are working hard and spending money out of pocket for this.
It's not the time and the money, it's the glory! lol
Yeah, gotta love that glory, it's great on a hot afternoon!
But..... _are_ my batteries discharging? I've been using them for it seems like many hours PER day for every working day for at least 3 or 4 days now, heating the load and osculating fack and borth..... held the load at over 60 degrees C for hours last evening.... and they STILL measure over 12 volts each. And these are the 5 A-H batteries, too.
;)
Quote
Just out of curiosity, any chance one of your nice old analog scopes has the "Ch.1 - Ch. 2" pull-out knob? Perhaps you have a decent differential probe at your disposal but it just slipped your mind...
Nope, not the HP180. No XY mode without feeding a separate horizontal amp to the display through its ext input. It can be done easily on the Tek RM503 up on the shelf, but that one has a power supply fault that I haven't fixed yet. The RM503 has exactly symmetrical X and Y amplifiers and the X amp can be taken off the timebase completely. I guess I'm gonna have to tear into it and sort it out pretty soon.
Quote
When you get bored you can go into "X-Y" mode and make some pretty Lissajous figures on your scope display with the Outer Limits TOS theme on in the background. lol
The 503 has the prettiest persistent blue phosphor too. This particular one came from the NASA Ames Blade Dynamics laboratory where it might have been used to develop who-knows-what-all interesting stuff.
Quote
We can see there is one grumpy and disgruntled observer of the goings on, that's for sure. Whenever she drops the term "science" you know things aren't going too well for her. Her recent comments were all nothing but shameless spin doctoring in an attack against you in a vain attempt to prevent the ongoing erosion of her proposition. Me thinks that there erosion filter is being applied each and every passing passing day and her "island" will get tinier and tinier.
That's what good science is all about! Catch the wave!
You know a hero from our generation said, "And castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually."
Keep on trucking!
MileHigh
Awww... shucks. I'm just an old warhorse with a burr under my saddle blanket, trying to shake it loose.
No amount of spin doctoring or, as I like to call it, frantic flailing about, can alter the truth, which, with cooperation and research, will eventually out. That's the great thing about the scientific method: one is actually allowed to make mistakes, right out in public, where they can be corrected so that everyone learns just what the real state of affairs really is. But this requires cooperation among the participants, as well as a willing attitude to learn and a certain humility in the face of hard data and facts. Not to mention a solid grounding in the basics of the subject matter, including the terminology and the underlying mathematical relationships involved. Otherwise... without common terms, how can one communicate? And without mathematical accuracy, how can one be credible when it comes to the _hard stuff_? Simple math is easy, compared to actually reasoning correctly about data.
But are you _really_ experienced?
8)
ETA Data:
Hi TK, I'm curious to know, do you guys actually think anyone with half a brain even believed Rosemary's claims ? Some claims are quite old. It is good to see the system
evaluated like this though. I still don't get it, why do people think they actually have a device when they are using function generators for signals. The energy consumed by the
function generators to run should be included as input. Tell her to come back with a system not connected to the grid. If a 555 timer is used to provide the signal then it's input is
considered input because it is part of the system. Rosemary's system has function generators as part of the system so all of the input to them is also input to the system. I think
that would instantly destroy her claims without much work. Does she include the input to the function generators from the grid as input to the device and include that into the
C.O.P. calculations. Imagine what she would say if a person turned up to evaluate the setup and the first thing they did was put a watt meter on the input to the function
generators so they could include their power consumption in the C.O.P. calculations. That would be the first thing I would do.
Now a better mark would be Thane Heins, although he has no credibility in my books he has more people believing him than Rosemary does I think. Some of us would be
prepared to donate money to have systems evaluated properly. And the glory would go to the one doing the evaluating. Why stop at Rosemary, busting her crazy claims won't
solve much.
By the way I like your Telsa coil TK, it's very nice.
Cheers
So with the NERDs stated CVR value of 0.25 ohms DC resistance, and an inductance of 110 nH, and an oscillation frequency of 1.5 MHz.... it turns out that the inductive reactance is almost exactly 1 Ohm and the AC impedance therefore is also close to 1 Ohm (1.03 Ohm is what I get). What this means is that by a strange coincidence the Ainslie NERD scope shots that show the math trace "VV" value from multiplying the voltage drop in the CVR times the voltage on the battery oscillations... is in fact very close to an actual Wattage reading, just as it stands.
I can't find anywhere in the Ainslie material where this simple analysis is done, though. But it does account for the fact that their wattage claims and the VV figure are awfully close. Is this just luck? I mean, the resistors are OTS common power resistors, the oscillation frequency is determined by the overall inductance in a distributed rather than lumped manner and the wiring of the Ainslie breadboard is definitely not deliberately "tight"... so I'm going to go with "coincidence" since it's pretty clear that it couldn't possibly have been designed with that in mind.
Stefan is right. The bias power supply, whatever it is, FG, battery or regulated PS, is in SERIES with the main battery pack (just in case anyone had any doubts before). Using a voltmeter with positive lead to the main battery positive and the negative lead to the negative bias source..... one sees the TOTAL voltage of the two sources.
This is sort of like making out with a girl in a dark room and then when the lights get turned on...you see that it's your own sister, or worse yet... her dog.
Video uploading now, of me making out with a dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9bAM96KDEg
I had to be a bit farther from the camera so the narration is a bit low-volume. But you should be able to make it out if you turn it up.
TKSteadyCam (tm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v__sdafi3nE
Well TK!!!
That clip was the Clip of DOOM. lol
I am laughing to myself and kind of bewildered. Bewildered because of the NERDS IN SPACE feeling I am getting. Like where where the NERDs during the umpty-nine months that they were experimenting with this setup? I can just feel it in my bones that none of these basic investigations were done. They had the excessively long wires between the battery setup and the pegboard and just played with the blinking lights on the DSOs in ignorant bliss with essentially the same setup day in and day out. At least that's what it feels like to me.
I take it for granted that this type of investigative work was all over Rosie Posie's head, so she was incapable of contributing to any serious circuit analysis at NERD Central in South Africa. But what about the NERDS and their EXPERTS? Lost in time, and lost in space, and meaning?
The interactive investigative process is fun, but even in the "Internet age" it's relatively slow, and your work load is tripled or quadrupled when you add the servicing of the forum, YouTube, making and editing clips, uploading clips, and trying to live at athe same time. The reason I am saying that is because if I had "free reign" on the NERD setup for two days unfettered, I would have done something similar to what is going on now though our LCD monitors. I would have scoped that sucker inside out and looked at each battery, followed the trail of the increasing pulse voltage, etc, etc.
Here is something I probably haven't said before but it is so apropos: What do you do when you have a switching circuit and a power supply that is remote from that switching circuit. I am talking on a PCB level here, my home turf, and it can easily be extended to the NERD circuit. The DUH! answer is that you add decoupling capacitors.
And that concept can be extended one logical step further. The "power entry point" for the NERD circuit should never have been a stack of mysterious batteries six feet away. Where the battery positive and negative wires make contact with the pegboard is where there should have been some fairly robust power decoupling - that's the true power entry point for the circit. The same old drill, one or two big electrolytic capacitors, perhaps a smaller electrolytic capacitor, and then your all-important very small ceramic capacitor. If you did a good job of it, you should get a steady DC voltage with a very small AC voltage on top of that.
So then you are talking about measuring the CVR voltage against the voltage at the power entry point on the pegboard. You ignore the spaghetti of cables that lead to the remote batteries. Now of course Rosie Posie will come back say that you "need" the long wires to get the "COP infinity effect" but she knows that that tired old argument is getting very stale as she watches all of her investigations get outclassed by a skilled person with a 1974 analog oscilloscope.
So you can expect that the crunch down on the CVR voltage and the voltage at the capacitor-decoupled power entry point on the pegboard would show that the NERD circuit was actually consuming power. OMG, you killed the delicious oscillations on the power supply and as a result you killed the COP infinity effect... NOT.
Like I said from the very beginning, this is all a misunderstanding. It's the mindless guppies swimming up against the fish tank glass effect.
MileHigh
It's worth mentioning that going back many months that Poynt went to the trouble of modelling the long wire interconnects in his PSpice simulation of the NERD circuit. He did the standard thing where you put a series inductor of a few nanohenries to account for every 10 inches worth of wire, etc.
Then Poynt moved some virtual voltage probes along the wires and measured the power at different points. He showed Rosie that the power you measure depends on where the voltage probe is placed. He also got negative power measurements. Rosemary simply dismissed Poynt's hard work about the moving probes and refused to listen to him or discuss it. TK has a term for that, Rosemary's willful ignorance. Too much willful ignorance equates to willful something else.
Poynt of course simulated the oscillations, which Rosie loved, and showed how you can measure negative power and he also showed the true positive power consumed by the circuit. I was pleased to see this because the data was absolutely compelling but.... guppies guppies guppies. Super guppies.
In the end, Rosie simply cherry-picked what she wanted from Poynt's PSpice work, and that was that the magic oscillations could be simulated in PSpice. (Thanks to the Renaissance and the invention of calculus and the modeling of circuit components with differential and integral equations and the application of matrices to solve for circuit variables using linear network analysis! lol)
Poynt deserves a lot of credit for that work, I just wanted to mention that.
Also, as far as power decoupling goes, anybody that has looked at a modern PC motherboard for a 95 or 125-watt processor can't help but notice this. Surrounding the CPU socket there is a bloody forest of decoupling capacitors and voltage regulators straining to "feed the beast" with relatively clean power. It's almost shocking to see how much capacitive decoupling there is around a modern processor compared to the 'old days.' Processors these days are screaming and plow through data at an alarming rate. If you were alive and tech savvy in the 80's then it's shocking! Enough to make you jump out of your skin! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: Farmhand on April 22, 2012, 07:15:15 PM
Hi TK, I'm curious to know, do you guys actually think anyone with half a brain even believed Rosemary's claims ? Some claims are quite old. It is good to see the system
evaluated like this though. I still don't get it, why do people think they actually have a device when they are using function generators for signals. The energy consumed by the
function generators to run should be included as input. Tell her to come back with a system not connected to the grid. If a 555 timer is used to provide the signal then it's input is
considered input because it is part of the system. Rosemary's system has function generators as part of the system so all of the input to them is also input to the system. I think
that would instantly destroy her claims without much work. Does she include the input to the function generators from the grid as input to the device and include that into the
C.O.P. calculations. Imagine what she would say if a person turned up to evaluate the setup and the first thing they did was put a watt meter on the input to the function
generators so they could include their power consumption in the C.O.P. calculations. That would be the first thing I would do.
Now a better mark would be Thane Heins, although he has no credibility in my books he has more people believing him than Rosemary does I think. Some of us would be
prepared to donate money to have systems evaluated properly. And the glory would go to the one doing the evaluating. Why stop at Rosemary, busting her crazy claims won't
solve much.
By the way I like your Telsa coil TK, it's very nice.
Cheers
Yeah, you're right about all the input power needing to be accounted for. But there certainly were some smart people suckered into trying to help RA for a while. Like I've always said, most of her actual data can be reproduced without a lot of trouble, even the nonsense scope shots and the blown mosfet traces. The problem arises when the smart people who have replicated her results still can't produce real evidence in support of her main claims. Many have tried and many have failed, and they are seduced into initial participation by the claims themselves, which are made with a superficial appearance of credibility, especially when companies with Letters For Names are supposed to have been involved. But when the smart people start looking deeper and asking for evidence that actually supports the main claims... and they don't get it... then Rosemary turns on them with claws bared and fangs dripping toxic honey. It's happened over and over again. FTC is a good example of this.
Thanks for admiring my TinselKoil ! I'm especially proud of it.
(Decoupling caps all over the place in there, plus some other caps like DC blocking and gate pulse driving. Note the trifilar toroidal gate phase transformers.)
ETA: I just realized something.... that looks like I actually have IRFPG50s in there ! They are the only transistors I can remember buying that are in the TO-247 case.
That third pic looks like what happens when you step into the Orgasmatron. 8) :-*
In case you aren't "in the know:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isrd7E5nzIQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isrd7E5nzIQ)
Big bonus, pass it on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAKWKfVcd04&feature=related
My dear TinselKoala,
This is a really happy day for over unity. You have applied your best skills at 'debunking' a claim PRIOR to the demonstration of that claim. I was relying on this. In the first instance it shows the 'arguments' that you rely on - and in the second it shows the 'thinness' of those arguments. I think this 'order of events' is precisely the best arrangement and this forum the best arena. So. Thank you.
But before you get 'drunk' on all the self-congratulation, here's the full extent of our intended demonstration. We will demonstrate and prove that our COP>17 claim outperforms its battery rating. Effectively we will show that the control battery depletes before the test battery has discharged even a fraction of a volt - under identical discharge conditions. And although not yet tested, I'm reasonably certain that we'll prove the same on our NERD circuit. Then I will argue why this result is both expected and required as it was predicted.
Meanwhile, presumably, your little thread here will be held up as an example of 'how to debunk'. Then I can show you all how to 'debunk the debunker'. Which will be a TRIUMPH for over unity.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary :)
Added
And I'm reasonably certain that Stefan will afford us every opportunity as not only does he he want to progress evidence of over unity - but he is aware of the crying need for vindication against your calumny, slander and misrepresentations against both my good name and our work. And that demonstration will be the only reasonable means of vindication.
Again
Rosie Pose
Rosie Posie:
Reading through that posting and reading between the lines it's quite evident that you are getting less and less comfortable with the whole deal. We know that some people can't deal with situations like this and can freeze up. I just watched a good documentary about how ships can sink on the US Public Broadcasting System network. They talked about the speculation that this happened with the captain of the Titanic and with the captain of the recent Costa Concordia that ran aground off the coast of Italy. Both simply froze up and didn't react.
What matters is the truth and TK is getting at the truth. The zipons are only in your head and the DSO can spit out garbage data if you don't understand the circuit that you are trying to analyze.
The TRUTH will TRIUMPH. Triumph of the truth, jackboots not wanted.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 01:12:16 AM
Rosie Posie:
Reading through that posting and reading between the lines it's quite evident that you are getting less and less comfortable with the whole deal. We know that some people can't deal with situations like this and can freeze up. I just watched a good documentary about how ships can sink on the US Public Broadcasting System network. They talked about the speculation that this happened with the captain of the Titanic and with the captain of the recent Costa Concordia that ran aground off the coast of Italy. Both simply froze up and didn't react.
What matters is the truth and TK is getting at the truth. The zipons are only in your head and the DSO can spit out garbage data if you don't understand the circuit that you are trying to analyze.
The TRUTH will TRIUMPH. Triumph of the truth, jackboots not wanted.
MileHigh
LOL MileHigh. You're still trying to 'analyse' me. Give up. You're ALWAYS wrong. And I'm not sure if you're referring to the 'real truth' 'or to the 'relatively real' real truth. Or even if you're referring to the 'truth' in a 'relative' way of speaking. Or if the reality is that it's 'your' truth which makes it real for you. Not so much for me. Or even if truth is a standard that has to be qualified by 'reality'. Or if reality has nothing to do with the truth. Or if reality is the truth. Are they one and the same? Entirely different? Let me know. I've been confused ever since I saw you apply the term. And doubly so every time you refer to one or the other or both.
Meanwhile - 'the show ain't over till the fat lady sings'. And I'm NOT fat. I'm relatively slim - in truth. ;D
Rosie Pose
edited
Took out a LOL lest MileHigh suspect that it's proof of anxiety and replaced it with a smiley. The ONLY thing that I'm anxious about it being denied our right to demonstrate our claim. That indeed justifies a LOL. LOL.
Rosemary:
Bring on your demo, the sooner the better. As long as you do it properly.
There is only one truth about your experiment whether it be demoed by you or demoed by TK. The batteries will not lie.
It looks like the more good and credible data that TK generates, the less and less you will acknowledge it. Just like you never acknowledged your nonsensical mistake about the resistor and power dissipation when there is current flow. There is a trail of dozens if not hundreds of times were you have not acknowledged your own gross errors. How you will react when you finally see the Mother of All Errors with your own eyes doing your own experiment is undetermined at this point. For your own mental health, you should just walk away from it when the news finally hits. Seriously, just switch everything off and walk away and forget about it, it would be the best thing for you. Ten years is enough, time to move on.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 01:45:51 AM
Bring on your demo, the sooner the better. As long as you do it properly.
There is only one truth about your experiment whether it be demoed by you or demoed by TK. The batteries will not lie.
It looks like the more good and credible data that TK generates, the less and less you will acknowledge it. Just like you never acknowledged your nonsensical mistake about the resistor and power dissipation when there is current flow. There is a trail of dozens if not hundreds of times were you have not acknowledged your own gross errors. How you will react when you finally see the Mother of All Errors with your own eyes doing your own experiment is undetermined at this point. For your own mental health, you should just walk away from it when the news finally hits. Seriously, just switch everything off and walk away and forget about it, it would be the best thing for you. Ten years is enough, time to move on.
MileHigh
I will not acknowledge TK's evidence. Or lack thereof. It's flawed. Grossly so. I invariably acknowledge my own errors. You know that well. I have no idea about any time that I denied power being dissipated or delivered as a result of current flow. And the question is this MileHigh. How will YOU react when we PROVE OUR CLAIM? Because your commitment to its denial is considerably more anxious than my own to its proof. And by reference to 'mental health' are you implying that I'm delusional? In which case, as I've mentioned before, these delusions are shared with many qualified electrical engineers, technicians and interested parties with or without qualifications, coupled with the delusions of our beautiful LeCroy. I'm proud to say that I am now about to take ownership of it - and just in passing a word of thanks. We all have a debt of enormous gratitude for that extended loan. Thank you again - Coast to Coast. It's a WONDERFUL piece of equipment.
And ten years is just a 'blink of the eye' in terms of time. It is ALWAYS a difficult thing to bring new evidence to bear on old prejudice. And in the words of your late President Kennedy. We do these things precisely because 'it is hard'. I'm up for the challenge. I LOVE IT. It's such a worthy cause.
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
edited. took out a pronoun and qualified another. Always trip up on this. It's my only fault. LOL (laugh out loud) Not (Golly I'm Anxious)
Yes it's so grossly flawed that TK has replicated your instantaneous power waveform with the negative average power. And you keep on trying to insist that he's got it all wrong. It's disturbing to read you post that.
All the contributors to TK's thread except you know that we are in the home stretch and you are on the run. I have to assume that the wider readership agrees with this assessment also. It's never been worse for your claim than it is now. You feigning the opposite is why I worry about your mental health.
Bring on your testing. We all welcome it with open arms.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 02:31:50 AM
Yes it's so grossly flawed that TK has replicated your instantaneous power waveform with the negative average power. And you keep on trying to insist that he's got it all wrong. It's disturbing to read you post that.
All the contributors to TK's thread except you know that we are in the home stretch and you are on the run. I have to assume that the wider readership agrees with this assessment also. It's never been worse for your claim than it is now. You feigning the opposite is why I worry about your mental health.
Bring on your testing. We all welcome it with open arms.
MileHigh
Indeed MileHigh. I most certainly WILL do that demonstration. And I hope to extend its exposure as widely as possible. And under conditions of proof that will be unequivocal - if I can manage it. And I think that all that's required then - is to evaluate the results of that demonstration. Let the chips fall whichever way they may. And any prediction to their outcome would be somewhat inappropriate - I'd have thought? Frankly I already know the outcome of the COP>17 test as we've done this against battery performance. The NERD circuit - not yet.
In any event. I take it that should I demonstrate the claim as being over unity - that you'll be delighted. I know that the majority of our readers will be. But our contributing members to this thread? Not so much. Sadly they'll be deeply disappointed - to a man.
Kindest again
Rosie Pose
Nobody is stopping you, Ainslie. Nothing at all has EVER prevented you from doing a definitive test of your claims except your own ignorance.
You could have proven your claim six times over in the time I've been doing this little exercise. And you are in an extremely difficult position logically. How could two circuits made from the same components and using the same schematic and tested in the same way and producing the same results including the MAIN DATA, over and over.... how could two such circuits fail to perform identically on a definitive test?
Go play in the street, poser. You have nothing, you never did, and EVERYBODY who has ever picked up a soldering iron knows it. Don't you think that even a child could have demonstrated COP > INFINITY with a handful of off the shelf parts if it was really true?
ONCE AGAIN: Tar Baby is RIGHT NOW available for side-by-side testing against NERD. I'll box it up and ship it off to ANYBODY STEFAN DESIGNATES, batteries included, as long as you do the same with NERD, and I'll allow ANYONE to test Tar Baby IN ANY MANNER AT ALL, just as long as NERD is tested in exactly the same way.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2012, 02:00:36 AM
I will not acknowledge TK's evidence. Or lack thereof. It's flawed. Grossly so.
Where and how? All my data is available for public inspection. If you have some real objection, state it with a reference to exactly where and how my evidence is "grossly flawed". You know I'd do the same for you... and I have done so, over and over and over, with references, citations, and demonstrations. All you can do is stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue... but you cannot demonstrate where and how I'm so wrong. Where, for example, is your OWN analysis of the inductive reactance of any of your components? Nowhere, that's where.
QuoteI invariably acknowledge my own errors. You know that well.
That is such a bald-faced lie that everyone who is reading here is laughing and shaking their heads. At the end of this post I will AGAIN list a bunch of things you have been wrong about and have NEVER CORRECTED OR RETRACTED.
QuoteI have no idea about any time that I denied power being dissipated or delivered as a result of current flow.
That's right at least... you have no idea.
QuoteAnd the question is this MileHigh. How will YOU react when we PROVE OUR CLAIM? Because your commitment to its denial is considerably more anxious than my own to its proof. And by reference to 'mental health' are you implying that I'm delusional? In which case, as I've mentioned before, these delusions are shared with many qualified electrical engineers, technicians
NAME ONE SINGLE ONE that we can contact and ask about your claims. Of course you will not.
Quoteand interested parties with or without qualifications, coupled with the delusions of our beautiful LeCroy. I'm proud to say that I am now about to take ownership of it - and just in passing a word of thanks. We all have a debt of enormous gratitude for that extended loan. Thank you again - Coast to Coast. It's a WONDERFUL piece of equipment.
It's a toy oscilloscope that makes pretty colored lines. You are like a little kid looking through a pawn shop window at a violin.... a quality instrument that you will never be able to play well enough to avoid embarrassing yourself in public with the screeching sounds and mangled tunes you will produce.
Quote
And ten years is just a 'blink of the eye' in terms of time. It is ALWAYS a difficult thing to bring new evidence to bear on old prejudice.
No, you poser. The difficulty lies with the Laws of Physics, which refuse to bend to your illogic and foot stomping tantrums. TEN YEARS, Ainslie. In that time.... look at all the technological progress that has been made in the real world. And you can't even get ROSSI to "publish" your nonsense "papers".
QuoteAnd in the words of your late President Kennedy. We do these things precisely because 'it is hard'. I'm up for the challenge. I LOVE IT. It's such a worthy cause.
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
edited. took out a pronoun and qualified another. Always trip up on this. It's my only fault. LOL (laugh out loud) Not (Golly I'm Anxious)
25.6 million Joules. Correct that calculation and retract the claim based on it. You have NEVER done this. Sure, you admitted that you may have been a "tad out".... but you never posted the correct calculation and never retracted the claim based on it. That single incident is sufficient to illustrate that you LIE in your first sentence of your post.... and here are some more:
QuoteLet's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms. The source voltage is 220 volts. The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you. While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
Things she's said that aren't true and hasn't corrected, in her own words, in red: (I found so many in just this thread alone that I got tired of it before I was even halfway through.)
1. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each.
No...they aren't. They seem to be 50 or perhaps even 60 amp-hours each.
2. Joules = 1 watt per second.
Er.... no. One Watt is one Joule per second. One Joule is one WattSecond. Very different and not mathematically equivalent at all.
3. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
Er... do the math. This calculation is completely wrong in at least three different ways.
4. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
A nominal "12 volt" battery of the type used by Ainslie will indicate well over 13 volts when fully charged, and will not drop below 12 volts until nearly completely DISCHARGED. So the fact that the batteries are still OVER 12 volts is actually evidence that they are substantially DISCHARGED... or they would be over 13 volts each, not 12.
5. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.
Er... only if you use the bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure. Using the correct figure the battery could have performed 10 such tests without depleting its charge. Yet RA has never retracted this claim. Therefore... since she knows the 25.6 megaJoule figure is wrong.... it is a continuing and outrageous lie.
6. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
Read the explanation in Wiki again. One Watt is not One Joule and one Joule is not one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT interchangeable, and the WIKI explains it correctly and RA once again is distorting the reference and lying about her claim.
7. Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries.
But previously she said, "That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."
and
"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit." These statements cannot all be true... so one or more of them is a lie.
8. Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor. Or so you said in that video. And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR? And WHY did you identify it as the load? And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?
The real joke is this. You complained that we don't take voltages across the load. Explain this. IF YOU DARE.
I have never once taken the voltage "across the load resistor". In fact without isolated probes or a differential voltage probe, you cannot monitor voltage across the load, because it is "high-side switched" and doesn't connect directly to the negative common ground point. I never said in the video any such thing... what I ALWAYS say is that I am monitorin the common mosfet drains, on the transistor side of the load. And neither have I ever "complained" any such thing. I have said that they are not typically showing the mosfet common drain voltage... a very different thing altogether.
9. TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements.
This is false. I have posted many videos containing precise measurements of many quantities.
10. This is not clear. Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330? In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic. You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all. Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery? At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal? Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal? If the former - then the readings should be co-incident. If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim. And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing? To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output. In which case? On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery. Which is a negative voltage value. If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge. And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit. Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation. I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive. And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other. Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results. That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement.
This entire post is full of lies, distortions and inaccuracies. I have shown very clearly, before this post, where and how the CH is used in the circuit. I have indeed replicated the waveform on the batteries. And that part about my load "not sufficiently inductive" is a real howler... since my load is 74 microHenry and hers is CLAIMED to be only a couple of microHenry. And there certainly is consistency in my results. I can turn the system on and make ANY of the illustrated waveforms immediately...because I understand the circuit.
11. The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude. And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.
Two at once. Clearly my battery oscillations DO have the "same amplitude", as demonstrated in several videos. On remeasuring my load resistor using a reliable method, our load resistors have nearly the same inductance.
12. Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery. This results in a negative wattage. We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.
If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit. It's that simple.
False.
The unpublished, many times rejected draft document that RA calls a "paper" has many errors in it. The data and measurements are full of errors. RA does not show any evidence of what she claims, she shows errors in data collection, analysis and interpretation. There is no experimental support for her claims in the "papers". And I am not required to repeat her errors in order to replicate her circuit.
AND I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE SAME NEGATIVE WATTAGE. It's that simple.
13. We do not claim over unity.
This is clearly false, as you have claimed overunity many times. In English, claiming that the batteries do not discharge while doing useful work is CLAIMING OVERUNITY.
That gets us up to about page 23 of this thread. There are more lies and false statements from RA yet to come.
None of these statements that Ainslie has made, and that are demonstrably false, have been corrected by her.
QuoteI invariably acknowledge my own errors. You know that well.
What a laugh. What a disgusting, mendacious, lying, vile, hypocritical egotistic arrogant poser you are, Ainslie.
Rosemary: The 'battery draw down' tests that TK did (two on video that I have seen, I'll bet he did it more than twice though...) is more 'proof' of your circuit than YOU have EVER given anyone Rosemary! Where are YOUR videos??
You continue to deny that TK has built and tested YOUR circuit. Those can't POSSIBLY your same scope traces... Yes, the MOSFETs are not the same numbers as yours but the scope traces DON'T LIE.
I agree with TK (with an addendum): You could have proved your claim TWO DOZEN TIMES since your 'discovery' (or even the NERD thread...).
Why don't you let someone who UNDERSTANDS ELECTRONICS 'prove' your circuit for you? Take notes Rosemary, TK is doing better science than now than you have EVER done. When someone doesn't understand or questions his results, HE DOES MORE TESTS!!! Imagine that...
Great job TK, keep it up!
PC
Quote from: PhiChaser on April 23, 2012, 09:30:24 AM
Rosemary: The 'battery draw down' tests that TK did (two on video that I have seen, I'll bet he did it more than twice though...) is more 'proof' of your circuit than YOU have EVER given anyone Rosemary! Where are YOUR videos??
You continue to deny that TK has built and tested YOUR circuit. Those can't POSSIBLY your same scope traces... Yes, the MOSFETs are not the same numbers as yours but the scope traces DON'T LIE.
I agree with TK (with an addendum): You could have proved your claim TWO DOZEN TIMES since your 'discovery' (or even the NERD thread...).
Why don't you let someone who UNDERSTANDS ELECTRONICS 'prove' your circuit for you? Take notes Rosemary, TK is doing better science than now than you have EVER done. When someone doesn't understand or questions his results, HE DOES MORE TESTS!!! Imagine that...
Great job TK, keep it up!
PC
Thanks, PC... but the mosfets are indeed the same. I haven't used the 830s since the "surprise" video. I have been using IRGPG50 mosfets for all the power measurement and load heating demonstrations for quite some time now. I'm sorry if I haven't made that clear.
ETA: I see that the EXIF metadata makes it through the conversion and resampling and stays with most of the photos I post... so if you download the photo and look at "properties" you can see the camera settings... and the date and time that the photo was taken.
Why are there five wires in my transistor sockets? Some of us know already and don't even need to worry about it.
But just for those who don't... the pin spacing on the TO-247 package is exactly double that of the TO-220 package. So these sockets allow me to use either the IRFPG50 or the IRF830a mosfets without doing anything more complicated than pulling one out and putting the other one in, making sure that the middle pin goes in the middle hole.
Oh... and of course this photo illustrates two more of RA's claims that are wrong and that she has never retracted: my wires are clearly color-coded and in a logical and consistent manner, which she has denied... since the Green Wire corresponds to the GREEN trace in RA's video as the common mosfet drains--- which she has also denied, falsely, and has never corrected her false statement in that regard.
I noticed these before. That's a great idea those sockets TK. Do you have a part number for them?
Thanks.
Hello TK
I'll answer you objections in full - later tonight. I've been dying to get my teeth into that post of yours. Right now I'm busy. But nice to see you're concerned.
Rosie Pose
:-*
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2012, 09:47:52 AM
I noticed these before. That's a great idea those sockets TK. Do you have a part number for them?
Thanks.
They are just ordinary molex cable connectors with spring contact inserts. They are made for cabling, but the inserts have a good strong springiness and even though they only contact the mosfet pins on one side, for this light-duty use they hold up well. My supplier has the shells in bins, they come in many different pin counts, and the contact springs themselves are packaged in blister packs by "Philmore" or other manufacturers. All my wires to these connectors are both crimped and soldered; I'm a belt and suspenders kind of fellow.
I have melted them down occasionally with severe service: you will note that in my TinselKoil I use screw-type terminal blocks to mount the transistors; no commercial transistor socket can take that strain, and a mere cable connector can't clamp down hard enough.
ETA: I consider mosfets as consumables, so I rarely solder them in place. I do tend to push boundaries sometimes.... and that's another reason I find all this Ainslie stuff so silly. Back in 2009 I tried to show Ainslie what properly-switched mosfets are capable of.... REAL large "overunity" performance. If the NERDs tested the TinselKoil with their analysis techiques.... they'd see massive OU numbers and no measly steam coming off a hot resistor.... they'll see power that's so great and concentrated that it burns the very air itself (that's what's making the white-yellow plasma in the arc photo-- nitrogen reacting with oxygen to make nitrous and nitric oxides, I believe.) Vaporise solder? Easy, I can even vaporize copper with this thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PXgksobjwc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PXgksobjwc)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2012, 09:48:46 AM
Hello TK
I'll answer you objections in full - later tonight. I've been dying to get my teeth into that post of yours. Right now I'm busy. But nice to see you're concerned.
Rosie Pose
:-*
I'm sure you will post something "full" all right. But I also know... and so do some of the rest of us... that you won't be answering my objections at all.
Do you realise that my involvement here -- this time around -- began with your insane ridiculous "So. Do the math." statement? If you only had not fought for TWO WEEKS or more, denying what I and OTHERS tried to tell you about that bogus calculation... you would have saved all of us a lot of trouble. Had you corrected your error and retracted the claim based on it at that point, I probably would have walked away and let you alone to hang yourself in peace. But NO....you did exactly what you ALWAYS DO in that situation.... you do NOT acknowledge or correct your errors, and you STILL HAVE NOT TO THIS VERY DAY.
So everything you are getting from me, this whole affair... is your own doing, because you are WILFULLY IGNORANT and overweeningly ARROGANT, plus you are a baldfaced liar to boot.
TK,
Thanks for the Vbatt scope shots.
If you have the time, I would suggest that you try to decouple across the batteries with whatever caps are required to show no AC across the full battery string. You could do this with a paralled electrolytic and ceramic(s) directly across the most negative and most positive battery terminals. Arrange the batteries so that the cap leads can be as short as possible. Use as many caps as necessary to eliminate all AC. If this squelches the oscillation, you may have to add a bit more wire between the Batt+ and your circuit board to add some inductance. Scope between ground at the batteries and the most positive terminal to verify you have all or most of the AC decoupled/bypassed. The object is to eliminate all observed AC at the batteries while maintaining oscillation.
If you can decouple the batteries as above and still maintain oscillation, do a quick check to verify you still have the negative wattage (current) component. Now, place a 1R resistor between the Batt+ and the decouple caps (the end of the added caps that went to the Batt+). Check again with the scope to make sure that no AC is observed at either end of the 1R resistor. If a bit of AC is now seen at the caps/1R junction, add more caps as necessary in parallel with the previous decoupling caps.
If all has gone well up to this point, place a DC voltmeter across the 1R resistor and note the indicated polarity/magnitude.
Hopefully you see where I am going here..
I know its asking a lot, but if all goes well the results could be quite interesting and much faster than rundown tests.
The usual disclaimer applies, i.e., you've already done so much I hate to ask more...
PW
@PW: Sure, I see exactly where you are going. My bulbs aren't quite _that_ dim !..... 8)
But today I'm going outside and setting up the TinselScope to take a look at old Sol. It's beautifully clear and might be so tonight as well. I've been missing some observing time at night because of all this present nonsense but if it's clear tonight I hope to get this season's first glimpse (for me) of Saturn. Mars, too, is presenting beautifully right now but is heading westward and will be setting earlier and earlier. The idiot city has started leaving lights on all night at the tennis courts at the park two blocks north.... and that kills my best galaxy viewing. I don't know how it will affect astrophotography yet... perhaps we'll see tonight if it stays clear and dry.
Stay tuned... when Rosemary wakes up there will be a lot more bold red stuff coming "with respect".
BTW.... has your "slow boat" full of mosfets arrived yet?
ETA: This test might have to wait until tomorrow. My running batteries have just now dropped a hair below 12 volts each no-load. So it's time for a Dim Bulb Test against the set-asides that were charged at the same time five or six days ago. Then I have to do a recharge and that will take overnight for all six batteries.
TK:
With some of your recent experiments with the oscillations running (let's assume 'negative' power) you had an in-line digital ammeter and an in-line analog ammeter showing that there was a net DC current flowing out of the batteries. Correct?
PW:
Assuming the above is true, what is the rationale for your proposed experiment?
Rosemary:
My suggestion is that before you embark on a big grandiose testing program that you do a few basic tests yourself first. Assuming that what I state above is true, then you should do the following: Get some small batteries like TK has. Get the oscillations going and show negative average computed power on your DSO. Then put a multimeter set to measure current flow inline with the circuit. What you should see is that the computed power on the DSO is still negative and the multimeter is clearly indicating that the batteries are discharging. I am assuming that the NERDs never did this simple test.
Then do your standard test: Charge all six small batteries. Put two aside and use the other four to run your setup in negative oscillation mode for a few days. Then do the dim light bulb test with all six batteries at the same time. Repeat the test two more times where each time you recharge and shuffle the batteries.
The digital multimeter set to measure current flow is showing you that the batteries are discharging, not withstanding that your DSO is computing negative average power in negative oscillation mode. If you did three test runs yourself before trying to engage academics and others you won't end up being embarrassed.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 23, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
@PW: Sure, I see exactly where you are going. My bulbs aren't quite _that_ dim !..... 8)
But today I'm going outside and setting up the TinselScope to take a look at old Sol. It's beautifully clear and might be so tonight as well. I've been missing some observing time at night because of all this present nonsense but if it's clear tonight I hope to get this season's first glimpse (for me) of Saturn. Mars, too, is presenting beautifully right now but is heading westward and will be setting earlier and earlier. The idiot city has started leaving lights on all night at the tennis courts at the park two blocks north.... and that kills my best galaxy viewing. I don't know how it will affect astrophotography yet... perhaps we'll see tonight if it stays clear and dry.
Stay tuned... when Rosemary wakes up there will be a lot more bold red stuff coming "with respect".
BTW.... has your "slow boat" full of mosfets arrived yet?
TK,
I believe Saturn is close to opposition, should be good viewing. What do you have for a 'scope of the "optical" kind"?
We have a new gas turbine electric plant closeby that lights the place up all night. I too used to have great viewing at my location, but the slightest haze is now lit up. Bummer.
On my screen, the red glow makes text all but unreadable, so I usually don't bother with it!
Still waiting on that boat.
PW
TK,
Great photos. Please tell me about you rig!
MH,
The reason for the proposed was to eliminate any abbiguity regarding the DC current measuremets. DC milliameters can produe false readings if they are having to deal with an AC component, particularly if the AC component is assymetrical or clipped.
PW
PW,
Thanks for mentioning the Vbat video. TK, you should do a better job identifying your video links as to what they will show. 8)
I completely missed this video, as it was not labeled.
Anyhow, it's good that you've confirmed some of my findings in the simulations TK. Now if you were to perform the average power computations with the Tek scope as you move along, you'll see a similar fall in negative power, then back up to a positive power. Exactly as I've shown in the detailed analysis6 document done 10 months ago. Here is a relevant excerpt from page 20:
Quote
If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of
charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to assume that each of the 6
batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to
measure and analyze the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain
the total power in the circuit.
In this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V
battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire
inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.
Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no
jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
When the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power
of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the
exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipaters a little while back, you will know
that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last
computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are
reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This
has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the
"powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.
Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any
one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single
12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1
Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything
other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x
(1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the
scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be
clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the
actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed
at a high frequency or not).
Computing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:
-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W
This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this
particular simulation.
Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using
just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR),
then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.
Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are
almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the
battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
PW,
Thanks for mentioning the Vbat video. TK, you should do a better job identifying your video links as to what they will show. 8)
I completely missed this video, as it was not labeled.
Anyhow, it's good that you've confirmed some of my findings in the simulations. Now if you were to perform the average power computations with the Tek scope as you move along, you'll see a similar fall in negative power, then back up to a positive power. Exactly as I've shown in the detailed analysis6 document done 10 months ago. Here is a relevant excerpt from page 20:
.99,
Does the AC observed on the Vbatt+ rail shift phase as you approach the battery?
PW
PW,
Regarding "where you are going", I've done a detailed analysis on using "averaging" to obtain an easy accurate measurement of input battery power. You might be surprised by a couple things. From page 42 and 43 of the attached document:
QuoteFor this next installment, let’s begin by reviewing one of the last simulation test runs. Referring to
schema07.png and the associated scope shot scope13.png, we see that when the oscilloscope
probes are placed directly across the terminals of one of the six batteries, the scope trace is
essentially a flat line at the 12V level, indicating the battery’s DC voltage reading. Providing that
the battery’s internal resistance is reasonably low (typically less than 0.01 Ohms when fully
charged), the scope trace will be reasonably, if not perfectly flat, with no ripple caused by the
circulating currents. In practice however, there will always be a finite internal resistance, and at
times when the battery is not fully charged, we may in fact see some small amount of ripple riding
on the flat 12V trace. Depending on the currents being drawn from the battery and the battery’s
state of charge (SOC), the amount of ripple might vary from a few millivolts, to several hundred
millivolts. In most cases, the ripple won’t exceed 1Vp or so.
Generally speaking however, when measuring the battery voltage on a loaded but charged
battery, the resulting trace will essentially be a flat line at the voltage level present directly on
the battery terminals. For all intents and purposes, this voltage is “pure DCâ€, and will be referred
to as “DC†from this point forward.
Reviewing the methodology involved in obtaining the measurement of average input power (Pin),
we have:
Pin(avg) = AVG[VBAT(t) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;
Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the instantaneous battery voltage,
and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.
For the moment, we will acknowledge that the CSR value will vary (due to the presence of 200nH
of parasitic inductance in series with the CSR, as shown) under the conditions of a high
frequency current through it.
Knowing that a properly measured battery voltage will result in essentially a flat DC trace, we can
slightly alter the above power equation to the following:
Pin(avg) = AVG[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;
Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the battery voltage (in DC), and the
scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.
From this we can see that the DC battery voltage is simply a constant multiplying factor that is
applied to the VCSR/CSR(t) factor in the power equation. There are no phase considerations
involved here because the phase angle between a DC voltage and any current (varying or not) is
0º. The COS of 0º is 1, and this means that the power factor associated with a DC source is 1. So
although still valid, it should now be obvious that an oscilloscope channel is NOT required to
properly obtain the required battery voltage for a DC INPUT power measurement! A digital
voltage meter (DVM, DMM) placed directly across the battery terminals is all that is
needed.
What if we don’t measure the battery voltage with the probes placed directly across the battery
terminals? Well, it turns out that if dealt with properly, this is not a huge problem at all. We know
that the battery voltage should be essentially a flat line representing the battery terminal voltage.
We also know that if we take a battery voltage measurement with the probes placed across two
points that include any amount of parasitic inductance (i.e. battery wiring), the measurement
points will show a considerable amount of ripple riding on the true DC voltage if observed with an
oscilloscope. No problem.
Because we know that the battery voltage should be “flatâ€, we are permitted to apply a significant
amount of filtering (or averaging) to the signal being measured across these two “displacedâ€battery measurement points. The result is a reading of DC voltage minus a small DC voltage drop
across the battery wiring resistance. In other words, this voltage measurement will be extremely
close to the same measurement made with the probes directly across the battery terminals.
Let’s look at this scenario with the simulation, and see how close the two measurements are:
Referring to schema01.png, note the green probe at measurement point 7 (ignore the CSR
probes for now). scope16.png shows the battery voltage as measured from nodes 7 to 4 (GND).
The peak to peak voltage is over 200Vpp, but after averaging, the value is a little under 71VDC.
The averaging is done with the built-in function in PSpice, however the same result is achieved by
measuring the same points with a DMM, with or without the utilization of a non-intrusive RC filter
in front of it. The six 12V batteries add to 72VDC, but some voltage drop is expected due to the
wiring resistance of 2 Ohms total.
So it has now been established that you can obtain a clean accurate battery voltage
measurement as part of the INPUT power measurement, by using a DVM and non-loading RC
filter (optional). Moreover, the battery voltage measurement can also be obtained using an
oscilloscope channel by applying a running MEAN function to the resulting trace, and as long as
averaging is performed on this measurement, the measurement probes do not have to be placed
directly on the battery terminals. This applies to both a scope and DMM measurement.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 12:39:54 PM
TK:
With some of your recent experiments with the oscillations running (let's assume 'negative' power) you had an in-line digital ammeter and an in-line analog ammeter showing that there was a net DC current flowing out of the batteries. Correct?
(snip)
Yes, that's right. The ultimate cheapo CenTech DMM, purchased on sale from Harbor Freight for 3 dollars each, battery included. I have 4 or 5 of them. The voltmeter was right on the battery terminals with the tiny clipleads, and the ammeter was in series with the negative supply lead with about 36 inches of wire total. The DC resistance of the ammeter is 1.8 ohms.
http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-multimeter-98025.html (http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-multimeter-98025.html)
And the ammeter was calibrated against Ohm's Law with a known resistance and regulated DC voltages, as I showed in a video. But of course.... there is the RF component, and it does make these meters go crazy at times. Even in the latest videos where I get my fingers close to the voltage reading you can see it fluctuate... this is because of the RF. I have a Fluke 83 that is less susceptible .... but I have lots of other stuff too. Who needs it? Why waste heavy artillery on soft targets?
And yes, I never saw a negative current reading. But I wasn't looking at it 100 percent of the time.... therefore aliens.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
PW,
Thanks for mentioning the Vbat video. TK, you should do a better job identifying your video links as to what they will show. 8)
I completely missed this video, as it was not labeled.
You mean the one that's "not" labelled "Electric OU: Oscillations measured at several places going upstream" ? OK, sorry, I'll try to do a better job.
Quote
Anyhow, it's good that you've confirmed some of my findings in the simulations TK. Now if you were to perform the average power computations with the Tek scope as you move along, you'll see a similar fall in negative power, then back up to a positive power.
Yes, that's right, and I'm not going to be doing that... on this oscilloscope... because it takes all day to do just one position. However.... there are other oscilloscopes in the world.
QuoteExactly as I've shown in the detailed analysis6 document done 10 months ago. Here is a relevant excerpt (snip)
Exactly. And as I recall Rosemary agreed with you about that simulation and the results from it... all up to the point where you showed their error. Calling something an instantaneous power curve representing the true power in the circuit, when it's not... and claiming COP exceeding infinity because of that alone.... is a pretty big error indeed.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2012, 01:03:49 PM
PW,
Regarding "where you are going", I've done a detailed analysis on using "averaging" to obtain an easy accurate measurement of input battery power. You might be surprised by a couple things. From page 42 and 43 of the attached document:
.99,
Interesting, I'll find the time to read the full document and give it further thought.
Apparently, you too have also spent a great deal of time on all of this!
I'd still like to see some heavily decoupled measurements for comparison (which as proposed is similar to your optional non-invasive RC filtering at the meter, only done via the supply decoupling instead).
PW
TK,
Your astrophoto rig???
PW
@PW: Ah... a fellow amateur stargazer!
I have three telescopes. The first is a Meade ETX-125, a great little scope that was my first real telescope and my introduction to AP. It's at the other location and I haven't used it in a year, unfortunately.
Next there are the primary visual and AP instruments. The rich-field refractor is a William Optics Megrez 90 apochromat with a TeleVue field flattener/reducer which gives me about f/4.8 or so. Then there is the Celestron 9.25 inch EdgeHD aplanatic SCT, f/10, the true "yard cannon". Both these are used on the fine Celestron CGEM mount, which I can control from inside the house over the wireless LAN with a laptop out in the TK ObservaYurt. The mount is guided by the Orion "AAG" guide scope using Stark Labs PHD guide software. I put a simple pier in the yurt a couple months ago, but all those photos are taken from the CGEM tripod. For photography I use a Canon EOS 400D, and an Orion Parsec 8300M monochrome imager, with filters to construct the RGB images like that of NGC891. The planetary stuff is done with a Celestron NexImage webcam thingy and lots of advanced processing. Images are processed with Nebulosity (paid for in full), DeepSkyStacker, RegiStax, PixInsightLE and the gimp, all free or shareware. PixInsightLE has 96-bit data paths and handles all astronomical image formats in full data resolution until the final jpegging for transport.
Now you know why I LOL whenever Rosie Poser comments about my poorly lit videos and shaky camera. The Rosette Nebula shot is well over four hours of exposure, for example. And most of those shots are taken from my backyard in the middle of San Antonio.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 23, 2012, 01:25:04 PM
You mean the one that's "not" labelled "Electric OU: Oscillations measured at several places going upstream" ? OK, sorry, I'll try to do a better job.
No, this one smarty pants :P
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 09:34:53 PM
I had to be a bit farther from the camera so the narration is a bit low-volume. But you should be able to make it out if you turn it up.
TKSteadyCam (tm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v__sdafi3nE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v__sdafi3nE)
If there is no description accompanying a video link, I usually don't click on the link.
Quote from: picowatt on April 23, 2012, 01:01:08 PM
.99,
Does the AC observed on the Vbatt+ rail shift phase as you approach the battery?
PW
No, there is no apparent difference in phase shift.
Reference the attached sim scope shot, the power computation becomes less negative as the battery p-p voltage drops. The reason? Looking at the unclipped peak, we are multiplying the VCSR peak (neg) and the VBAT peak (pos), so the higher the VBAT peak, the higher the negative product of the two. When averaged, the result is a larger negative average power.
It is not until the VBAT trace becomes almost flat that the true power computation is realized.
TK,
That is a nice list of gear and software. You must've skipped a few meals for all that!
With all that gear, I think I would rather be out looking at the red planet tonight, than red text.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2012, 02:02:25 PM
No, there is no apparent difference in phase shift.
Reference the attached sim scope shot, the power computation becomes less negative as the battery p-p voltage drops. The reason? Looking at the unclipped peak, we are multiplying the VCSR peak (neg) and the VBAT peak (pos), so the higher the VBAT peak, the higher the negative product of the two. When averaged, the result is a larger negative average power.
It is not until the VBAT trace becomes almost flat that the true power computation is realized.
.99,
What am I missing here?
As long as VCSR averages negative, won't any positive value for VBATT averaged result in a negative product?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 23, 2012, 02:13:08 PM
.99,
What am I missing here?
As long as VCSR averages negative, won't any positive value for VBATT averaged result in a negative product?
PW
.99,
I think I see it now. Will wait for your answer...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 23, 2012, 02:13:08 PM
.99,
What am I missing here?
As long as VCSR averages negative, won't any positive value for VBATT averaged result in a negative product?
PW
Who said VCSR average is negative? ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2012, 02:25:24 PM
Who said VCSR average is negative? ;)
.99,
I did, and it was an assumption/mistake.
PW
Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again. I'll not answer him. Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.
I am looking to spread the exposure of our demonstrations to more than just Harti's forum. This because I cannot run the risk of having the thread 'flamed' - the data 'deleted' - nor the thread 'locked' before those tests are completed. Harti's history in this respect has not been dependable.
I absolutely guarantee that we'll exceed battery watt hour rating by a considerable margin on the re-run of our COP>17 test. This to refute allegations of 'failure' by sundry replicators. And I will also run the similar test against our NERD Q-array test. This to test it's performance and thereby to test the allegations of 'failure' by TK.
While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this. The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure. While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test. Therefore both tests are required.
In terms of a 'time line'. Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early May. The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house. I need to set these tests up in our study. At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons. This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country. All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week. Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing. But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things. I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge. And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com. I've got lots of homework to do before I get started. And I won't be 'rushed'. I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past. Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence. And I've been well 'bitten'. I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented. That way the results will be unequivocal. It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'.
But I'll get there. Hopefully sooner rather than later. And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise. A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters. I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread. And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today. Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
No, this one smarty pants :P
If there is no description accompanying a video link, I usually don't click on the link.
Even when it's from me? I'm crushed. You missed the blown-apart mosfet, then. (Unfortunately a post-mortem, not live.)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again. I'll not answer him. Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.
I am looking to spread the exposure of our demonstrations to more than just Harti's forum. This because I cannot run the risk of having the thread 'flamed' - the data 'deleted' - nor the thread 'locked' before those tests are completed. Harti's history in this respect has not been dependable.
I absolutely guarantee that we'll exceed battery watt hour rating by a considerable margin on the re-run of our COP>17 test. This to refute allegations of 'failure' by sundry replicators. And I will also run the similar test against our NERD Q-array test. This to test it's performance and thereby to test the allegations of 'failure' by TK.
While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this. The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure. While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test. Therefore both tests are required.
In terms of a 'time line'. Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early May. The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house. I need to set these tests up in our study. At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons. This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country. All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week. Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing. But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things. I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge. And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com. I've got lots of homework to do before I get started. And I won't be 'rushed'. I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past. Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence. And I've been well 'bitten'. I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented. That way the results will be unequivocal. It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'.
But I'll get there. Hopefully sooner rather than later. And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise. A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters. I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread. And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today. Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
My condolences to you for your losses Rosemary.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 23, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
TK,
That is a nice list of gear and software. You must've skipped a few meals for all that!
With all that gear, I think I would rather be out looking at the red planet tonight, than red text.
PW
That's exactly right. I went literally without my usual gourmet dinners for many months. The Megrez 90, all by itself, is worth twice as much as the blue book value of my car. The whole rig, all inclusive, is probably worth around 15K or so.
Have you got a telescope or two too?
Quote from: picowatt on April 23, 2012, 02:25:00 PM
.99,
I think I see it now. Will wait for your answer...
PW
I had the same problem at first until I understood what he was saying. The instantaneous values of course are determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive. But because of the waveshape's asymmetry around the "neutral line" as the battery oscillations decrease the _average_ across several waveforms can change sign.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again. I'll not answer him. Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.
I told you so. Full of something, but no answers "in full" to my points. Once again she has claimed something that she has not fulfilled.
Quote
(snip)
Kindest regards
Rosemary
You hypocrite. Your "kindest regards" are dripping with venom and are neither regards, nor kind. And your weak kneed ploy for sympathy doesn't wash with me. Loved ones die all the time, Rosemary, and the world keeps on turning. You will be just as wrong in "three weeks" as you are today and as you have been for the past ten years... during which time I have also lost several loved ones myself.
I shed one tear for you.
:'(
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again. I'll not answer him. Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.
I am looking to spread the exposure of our demonstrations to more than just Harti's forum. This because I cannot run the risk of having the thread 'flamed' - the data 'deleted' - nor the thread 'locked' before those tests are completed. Harti's history in this respect has not been dependable.
I absolutely guarantee that we'll exceed battery watt hour rating by a considerable margin on the re-run of our COP>17 test. This to refute allegations of 'failure' by sundry replicators. And I will also run the similar test against our NERD Q-array test. This to test it's performance and thereby to test the allegations of 'failure' by TK.
While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this. The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure. While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test. Therefore both tests are required.
In terms of a 'time line'. Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early May. The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house. I need to set these tests up in our study. At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons. This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country. All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week. Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing. But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things. I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge. And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com. I've got lots of homework to do before I get started. And I won't be 'rushed'. I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past. Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence. And I've been well 'bitten'. I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented. That way the results will be unequivocal. It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'.
But I'll get there. Hopefully sooner rather than later. And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise. A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters. I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread. And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today. Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Look at that. Now she isn't even CONSIDERING testing the actual claim she's been making all this time. She's not even going to be testing THIS CIRCUIT but that other one claimed in the Quantum article, apparently. No simple battery drawdown tests of the so-called "Q-array" will be performed, JUST AS I HAVE PREDICTED ALL ALONG.
And she thinks that Stefan is "not dependable."
And you should see all the stuff that my house is stuffed with. I'll wager again that I have less room to move around in than poor old Rosie Poser.
Here's one more tear.
:'(
And good riddance to you, Poser. Good luck in finding another forum that will put up with your lies and ignorance.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 23, 2012, 02:39:55 PM
That's exactly right. I went literally without my usual gourmet dinners for many months. The Megrez 90, all by itself, is worth twice as much as the blue book value of my car. The whole rig, all inclusive, is probably worth around 15K or so.
Have you got a telescope or two too?
TK,
I wish. I did have a 12" homemade truss Dobs, a 4" homemade refractor, and an 8" SCT with my old Canon A1 film camera for photo. The 4" was a great planetary scope, but, believe it or not, the Dobs was my favorite for "just looking". I bought the SCT primarily for photo work.
I sold the scopes about 11 years ago prior to a biz related move. I wish now that I would have at least kept the Dobs mirror/mount and the 4" achromat. Recently, and now that the world is "digital", I've been thinking about opening the lid on that money pit once again. Somehow I managed to hang on to a set of eyepieces, but now, seems like 2" is the way to go.
Machine tools and test equipment always seem to be a priority.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 23, 2012, 02:33:48 PMWhile we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this. The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure. While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test. Therefore both tests are required.
Rosemary, if you say you will be demonstrating OU then that is claiming OU. How could you possibly say you will be demonstrating OU but not claiming to show OU. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Kinda like saying I will flap my wings and fly but I wont be claiming I flew.
You are either saying you will be showing OU, or you are not saying you will be showing OU. Which is it ? Please be clear.
Will you be showing OU ? Yes or No ?
Cheers
@PW: Do it! If you enjoyed AP with a film camera... you will be amazed at the difference digital equipment has made in astrophotography.
The Canon 350 or 400, available used for 3 or 4 hundred dollars, then modded by removing the IR cut filter over the sensor and replacing it with high-transmission glass (which I haven't done on mine), makes an excellent color imager, fully controllable by the computer, captures scheduled and automated by the program Nebulosity (free trial download available) or the high-end MaximDL or other programs.... then there's no film to mess with, you see your results instantly... it's a lot more rewarding and much less frustrating than film, and the quality might even be better than an amateur can obtain with sensitized film and filters.
And the dedicated, cooled chip CCD astro imagers like the Parsec 8300M are just amazing. I usually operate the chip at 35 degrees C below ambient and take 10-minute subexposures of deepsky targets and may stack 20 or 30 of these to make an image. The color shot of the Lagoon nebula was taken over 3 separate nights, using different filters. I'm just learning this process and I've only made a few color composites this way; most of the color work is done with the Canon. But I can only do 2 minutes max per subexposure with the Canon before chip noise gets too bad. The Parsec can do 30 minutes no problem before the noise builds up, especially in winter, but that's more opportunity for jiggles and airplanes and such so I usually do ten minute subexposures max.
Most any scope these days that you'd be happy with will have a 2" focuser, and your old EPs will work fine, and the scope will probably come with an adapter for 1.25 inch anyway. My current favorite eyepiece is the Baader Hyperion Mark III zoom, which has a 2" barrel. I use it the most, that's for sure.
Here's one from the Canon....
@Farmhand.... yep. And she is actually right about one thing... there is another power source, and we've identified where it is and how it works, and it has nothing to do with her silly unscientific "thesis" at all. It is the FUNCTION GENERATOR.
That hardly matters though. You can see that she's backing down from her claims and isn't even planning to do the definitive test of the current apparatus at all... she's going to be testing that other COP>17 device. And THAT device rests its claim on.... not only power measurements... but CALORIMETRY as well. In other words, she claims excess heat in the load over and above what the batteries supply.
And guess what... she might be right. The FG could be heating the load, since the COP>17 circuit is basically the same as this one except with (or is it without, Rosie?) a diode or two, and only has a single magic mosfet.
Note also that she says this:
QuoteI've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past. Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence. And I've been well 'bitten'.
But it's not really the "evidence" that we here are denying, is it. After all, we've produced EXACTLY THE SAME EVIDENCE that she has. In further fact, it is SHE who is denying OUR evidence, isn't it. And has there ever been a less open "open source" claimant than our dear Rosie Poser?
So this counts as yet another false claim, distortion, misrepresentation of our work. It is the CONCLUSION based on the evidence that we deny, and the evidence for THAT is right under her nose in those dead batteries in her closet.
ETA: In fact, there should be no need at all for her to charge those batteries BEFORE testing. Since they never run down, they must have been fully charged when she put them away. So I think, as a requirement for her tests to be considered valid, that she NOT be allowed to charge those batteries conventionally at all. Ever.
You know... CPUT is a university, with students. And students are sometimes bored and sometimes perform pranks. What better prank than to sneak in after hours and charge up the Ainslie batteries, without telling anyone but your mates over brews at the local?
More likely than zipons? Or not?
:P
Rosemary:
For what it is worth, here is your discussion about there being no power dissipated in a resistor if the "current and voltage are out of phase:"
QuoteI now see your Achilles Heel TK. You have NO CLUE how to do power analysis. And you have NO CLUE about phase shifts. I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER.
It's from posting #2139 in your thread.
Here is what you said in posting #2157 on the same topic:
QuoteNo MileHigh. You'll need to do your own research here. Just as a clue - the power output depends on the level of the phase relationship between current and voltage. The more out of phase - the less power dissipated. TK's waveforms are entirely out of phase.
My comment in post #2163:
QuoteRosemary, the fact that you are not thinking, and are refusing to take me up on my challenge to you to start thinking, is really most unfortunate. If you have current flow and there is a resistance associated with your load, then you have power dissipation. The current and voltage will always be in phase for the resistive component of the load. You are confusing the concept of capacitive or inductive reactance with resistance.
P = i-squared x R. You know this formula.
You never admitted that you were wrong. Will you admit it now?There is a reason for raising this issue about admitting that you are wrong, and it's a follow up on the recent discussion in this thread.
If you start doing your testing in your thread and you make gross errors, you simply cannot gloss over them and not acknowledge them. Nor can you be dismissive of them. This will simply not work and it is not good science.
I am anticipating that you
will make gross errors and they will have to be corrected. Otherwise you will be creating another mess, another ambiguous total shambles that will be inconclusive.
So Rosemary, if you are going to be doing your own testing
your best choice of action would be to start acknowledging and correcting your errors right now, before you get into the testing.
MileHigh
Might as well post these shots then too, if we are talking about "out of phase" signals.
She has never even admitted that THIS is wrong, either.
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
So one mile is the same as one mile per hour, the terms are interchangeable. And thirty students per class is the same as thirty classes per student, the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER.
Do the math.
But of course.... the definitions of units of Power and Energy and their relationship have got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of testing RA's overunity power claim.
Take a look at the blue, Gate drive trace in that last shot. Doesn't that look weird, to be coming from a FG set to make a square pulse?
What's going on here?
Also note that this is one shot where the battery voltage was indeed 72 volts nominal.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 23, 2012, 09:59:30 PM
Take a look at the blue, Gate drive trace in that last shot. Doesn't that look weird, to be coming from a FG set to make a square pulse?
What's going on here?
Also note that this is one shot where the battery voltage was indeed 72 volts nominal.
TK,
The CH3 trace is one of the questions I have about FIG4. The basic shape of the indicated signal makes sense. The negative going portion, that ends in a negative peak, is likely the Ciss being charged via Rgen and at the negative peak, Q2 is turning on. This time point (the neg peak) coincides with the gitch seen in the CH1 trace on its rising edge just past the gnd ref line. As Q2 turns on, current pulled thru Rgen causes the source of Q2 to be pulled positive, and this would be the positive going portion of the CH 3 trace as it rises from the negative peak. From that point, there are at least three events that happen related Q2 turn off, Ciss/Coss discharge, inductive collapse, and possible clamping or switching by body diodes that I have not yet fully "deciphered".
Looking at FIG 5 in the first paper, the AC signal on the CH3 trace, during the oscillation phase, is offset more negative than is indicated during a similar time in FIG4 (or its mate FIG3). This could be an indication that when the FIG5 trace was made, the FG common was connected at the non-battery side of the CSR. and that possibly the FIG4 trace was with the FG common to the battery side of the CSR (as video evidence supports).
If, as the text states for FIG3 and FIG4, the FG was at full negative offset, there may have been sufficient DC current flowing through the CSR to raise the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR slightly positive and account for the differences in offset observed between FIG4 and FIG5 regarding the CH3 traces during oscillation.
Keep in mind that FIG3 (and hence FIG4) indicates an issue regarding Q1 as well, so some of the differences may thereto be related. But more likely it is with regard to the FG common connection point.
What does does the signal look like at the source of Q2 in your circuit during oscillation?
If your Q2 source signal is much more negative than as indicated by FIG5, possibly you are having to bias on harder to get a similar oscillation. More length on the battery wire (or somewhere) might add sufficient inductance to allow you to get large oscillations at lower Ibias.
In order to replicate all the nuances of the AC indicated on the CH3 trace, I have also always suggested a 50R bias source.
PW
TK,
You would have liked my old Dobs. It collapsed down to a unit I could backpack into just about anywhere. Took about 20-30 minutes to set up and collimate. I used it a lot in the mountains of N. Georgia, E. Tennessee, western N. Carolina, Alabama (look on a light pollution map, you'll see where I took it!). I also set it up in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington and one trip to Colorado.
Being able to take a 12" to where there was no light pollution was a lot of fun. But then, I was "just looking", nothing serious, just enjoying the wonderment.
PW
Hello again MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 09:27:54 PM
For what it is worth, here is your discussion about there being no power dissipated in a resistor if the "current and voltage are out of phase:"
It's from posting #2139 in your thread.
Here is what you said in posting #2157 on the same topic:
My comment in post #2163:
You never admitted that you were wrong. Will you admit it now?
I don't understand you MileHigh. Phase shifts are the factors that qualify the amount of energy dissipated. Why don't you know this? If current flow is 180 degrees out of phase with the voltage across a load resistor then the energy dissipated is ZERO. It has NOTHING to do with the amount of energy delivered by the power supply. In TK's published shot - the picture that he showed us on his post - showed a current and voltage at 180 degrees out of true. Therefore - correctly - there should be NO energy dissipated at the load. So WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO ADMIT?
What staggers me is this. You guys flaunt a kind of pretended knowledge about power measurements. But the truth is that none of you have a clue. TK's trying to play 'catch up' and has at least shown us some competence in power integration - when he finally adjusted - as required - for impedance. But he still doesn't understand the significance of the phase shift in the shot that picowatt asked for. And he's given us a grossly inadequate number of samples. Not sure of the number of sampling points. But typically we use not less that 500 000 - that's half a MILLION - against not less than 10 switched cycles - and usually much more. And he seems to think that he has 'calibrated' his machines - when all he's done is standardise their measurements - one with another - without any true calibration of any of them. He expects that small battery of his that's powering the 555 - not to discharge - but takes the trouble to use a battery that is incapable of getting recharged in the first instance. Therefore IF there is any energy being returned to the switch - then it's never going to be measured. Then he claims that the input into the circuit is FROM that non rechargeable battery - which is unarguable. But nor is it shown to be sufficient to answer the amount of energy dissipated in the circuit. And this he does through the simple expediency of NEVER concluding the measurement of the amount of energy actually dissipated against the amount of energy actually delivered. He leaves that for everyone to 'infer'. And that's just touching on some of the many distortions. YET YOU ALL APPLAUD HIS EFFORTS. While those efforts are exhaustive - in truth - they're also utterly meaningless as they support no arguments at all - either for or against. And not you, no picowatt - nor farmhand - nor Phichaser - nor any of you - EVEN TURN A HAIR? NOT ONE QUESTION ASKED? EVERYONE APPLAUDING?
./...
And the entire lack of intellectual honesty in that paraded nonsense where he shows the battery depleting? Quite apart from his vulgarity of association - that 'making out with a dog' bit - is the vulgarity of its inconclusiveness. Which batteries were recharged? Which weren't? Where in God's name can he find a rechargeable lead acid battery or similar battery that can deplete to '3 VOLTS' - for God's sake? And at that level of charge - how does it 'skew' the evident voltages in all those batteries in series? He doesn't even disconnect them to establish their true voltage. Again. He gets that applause. Do you LIKE to see that display of vulgarity - that 'boomp boomp' nonsense. Do you seriously propose to take this as a serious exercise when it is grossly presented and utterly flawed? Is that your own 'bar' set to standards that YOU are happy with? Because if so - then I really want to disassociate from your standards. Lack of professionalism is the kindest thing that can be said about it. Which makes your support of it WHAT? Dependable? Deserved? I don't think so. And one day I'd be glad when any of you, that is you, picowatt, farmhand, Phichaser call him to question on that use of the Tek and the video that followed. Where he shows a negative net mean voltage AND YET KEEPS IT OUT OF FOCUS? Or OFF reference? Why exactly? And that's not even taking into account that it was probably on hand because it needed repair. Which makes TK a repair technician. How honourable is to NOT mention that there's a problem with that machine - if there is? And how come - as repair technician - does he NOT know the meaning of the term calibrate? I can calibrate my clock to Greenwich Mean Time. I don't calibrate anything at all - if I set my clock to be in synch with my neighbour's.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 09:27:54 PMIf you start doing your testing in your thread and you make gross errors, you simply cannot gloss over them and not acknowledge them. Nor can you be dismissive of them. This will simply not work and it is not good science.
Don't tell me this MileHigh. Tell TK. I will show you tests where the protocols are well defined and their significance explained - in FULL. I see the need of it. And I trust that our results will be conclusive. Either way. Those tests of mine are long over due. I acknowledge this gladly.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 09:27:54 PMI am anticipating that you will make gross errors and they will have to be corrected. Otherwise you will be creating another mess, another ambiguous total shambles that will be inconclusive.
I know the standards you require here MileHigh. They must be equal but OPPOSITE to the standards set by TK. INDEED - I have every intention of doing my very, very best.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 23, 2012, 09:27:54 PMSo Rosemary, if you are going to be doing your own testing your best choice of action would be to start acknowledging and correcting your errors right now, before you get into the testing.
Right of now I am correcting your errors of assumption and TK's errors of conclusion and evidence. Then when I've finished our own demonstration - and you see fit to argue the evidence based on inadequate proof or bad measurements - THEN ONLY will you need to call on me to correct anything at all. It's hardly deserved before the event.
Kindest regards MileHigh
Rosie Pose
edited wattage to 'negative net mean voltage'
Rosemary:
Oh my God, here we go again. I can feel it already in my bones. We have an upcoming fiasco to look forward to.
Your whole attitude in your postings is all wrong.
You are the
clueless newbie to electronics that can't string together more than six words about said subject without making a mistake and
we are the
EXPERTS. That is a fact, and it's a fact that is obvious to anybody that has been following this saga. And you should adjust your behaviour accordingly in respect of the reality all around you.
QuoteI don't understand you MileHigh. Phase shifts are the factors that qualify the amount of energy dissipated. Why don't you know this? If current flow is 180 degrees out of phase with the voltage across a load resistor then the energy dissipated is ZERO. It has NOTHING to do with the amount of energy delivered by the power supply. In TK's published shot - the picture that he showed us on his post - showed a current and voltage at 180 degrees out of true. Therefore - correctly - there should be NO energy dissipated at the load. So WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO ADMIT?
I told you twice what your mistake was and either you read it and ignored it or your read it and it flew over your head. The above is
mindless guppy talk and you are acting like a
hapless mindless guppy swimming up against the glass in a fishbowl.
QuoteAnd the entire lack of intellectual honesty in that paraded nonsense where he shows the battery depleting? Quite apart from his vulgarity of association - that 'making out with a dog' bit - is the vulgarity of its inconclusiveness. Which batteries were recharged? Which weren't? Where in God's name can he find a rechargeable lead acid battery or similar battery that can deplete to '3 VOLTS' - for God's sake?
For God's sake indeed. I am pretty sure that you are referring to TK's clip where he looks at the AC battery voltage and moves his probe from one battery to the next. On one of the batteries he observes 3 volts AC superimposed on the total DC output. And you interpret that as a "
battery that can deplete to '3 VOLTS'" like some
hapless mindless guppy that can't even follow a well presented step-by-step demonstration in a video clip.You can be so frustrating because you are hapless and clueless and arrogant all at the same time. You are just swimming aimlessly in a fishbowl Rosie Posie and I have very little hope for you. When you actually do your experiment you will listen to nobody and we all have to cross our fingers and toes that you do it right. You will also need a hefty dose of
blind luck to get through this.
And TK's work has been solid and honest. He will listen to feedback and work with the people on the thread. Your characterization of his work is totally wrong, just petty spin-doctoring negativity in a vain attempt to prop yourself up by trying to push him down. It's not working and you are making a fool of yourself.
Start trying to THINK Rosemary, put your brain in gear. *SIGH*
MileHigh
Rosemary, you are nuts, plain and simple. Don't you see your OWN scope traces there with exactly the same phase relationship (not a "shift") as mine that you don't like?
And the rest of your rant is similarly ridiculous. What battery did I ever "deplete to 3 volts"? You just make stuff up out of your head. None of those batteries have been recharged for days AS I SAID IN THE VIDEOS CLEARLY.
And you are waaay over your head if you can't understand what I am clearly explaining in my videos. As I have said many times before, an intelligent eighth grader who stayed in school and paid attention in math class would be able to follow me easily. But you can't because you don't have the basic knowledge that is a prerequisite.... you are wilfully ignorant and you are even lying to yourself.
Explain how your 180 degree phase differences IN EVERY SHOT YOU SHOW can produce load heating if mine cannot. And while you are at it explain how I am able to show LIVE ON CAMERA that the load does heat with those exact waveforms, if it's so impossible according to you.
Of course you won't because you cannot. Tar Baby does EVERYTHING that your NERD does... and how could it not, it uses the same schematic and components. Do you think that a white pegboard and clipleads are the secret that makes NERD overunity and Tar Baby not? I laugh out loud at your silliness.
Again.... I offer Tar Baby to ANYONE AT ALL that Stefan will agree to, who will test it side-by-side with NERD using the same methods. And it is ready to go, right now.
Rosemary,
At least TK is attempting a replication and responding to questions and requests for measurements from a circuit that also demonstrates a negative power measurement. He is spending both time and money in doing so. I am interested in gathering as much technical data as possible prior to an attempted replication. Possibly you too would receive applause if similar discussions could be had with you, and requested measurements made from an operating circuit as discussions evolved.
Instead of a technical discussion, most of your responses, as in the last, are emotion laden, defensive, and present a negative attitude towards most anyone who dares to ask a question.
If your next experiments are going to be similar to the past wherein you set up a digital 'scope and select or discuss only the data that supports your claims without attempting alternate methods of measurement, or entertaining requests for alternate measurements, I see little change on the horizon. Also, I respectfully recommend that you find a spokesperson with a bit more technical knowledge.
From what reading I have done on your other thread and in your papers, it appears you did not realize or understand that a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied from your FG, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG. I believe you statements regarding the circuit continuing to oscillate with the battery "disconnected" reflects your then lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates (no, there are not thousands upon thousands of ohms of resistance at an FG output). Hopefully, from the discussions in this thread, you now have a better understanding of at least how the circuit works, how an FG can pass/provide current, and how to read a 'scope's screen.
I originally engaged with you in the hopes of having a technical discussion with you, but from this side of the fence, it is just too difficult to do so. I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, or being misquoted, as a tool for use in an argument. As well, when I used the word "review" in the most casual way, you went off on a multi-post tirade. You constantly refer to and want your papers read, but apparently we are not to "review" them (or ask questions regarding them).
I for one can easily live without all the emotion and negativity. I don't watch soaps or reality shows either!
If I can get past all the attitude, I will reread your posts, but my first skim through saw no valid arguments against TK's circuit and data. The sample points issue will change nothing, that is easily proved, the phase shift in the scope shot I requested was only a triggering artifact, which I believed quite possible and is indeed why I questioned it. I do believe the circuit can likely be further optimized to oscillate at a lower Q2 bias current than TK's, which I may attempt to do with my replication.
But yes, all in all, my hat is off to TK for at least engaging the inquisitive and patiently making measurements if asked. If you were more forthcoming in a similar fashion, you too might receive similar gratitude.
Partial only to truth,
PW
QuoteAnd the entire lack of intellectual honesty in that paraded nonsense where he shows the battery depleting? Quite apart from his vulgarity of association - that 'making out with a dog' bit - is the vulgarity of its inconclusiveness. Which batteries were recharged? Which weren't? Where in God's name can he find a rechargeable lead acid battery or similar battery that can deplete to '3 VOLTS' - for God's sake?
What For God's sake in God's name are you talking about, lying idiot? Nowhere did any battery deplete to 3 VOLTS you lying idiot.
QuoteAnd at that level of charge - how does it 'skew' the evident voltages in all those batteries in series? He doesn't even disconnect them to establish their true voltage.
You idiot, you missed the entire point of the video as usual because you DON'T pay attention and you think you know it all already. Still.
QuoteAgain. He gets that applause. Do you LIKE to see that display of vulgarity - that 'boomp boomp' nonsense. Do you seriously propose to take this as a serious exercise when it is grossly presented and utterly flawed?
Flawed? Let's list the flaws in your work, which I can point to with references. Where is the ACTUAL flaw, not the imagined ones, in my work?
QuoteIs that your own 'bar' set to standards that YOU are happy with? Because if so - then I really want to disassociate from your standards. Lack of professionalism is the kindest thing that can be said about it. Which makes your support of it WHAT? Dependable? Deserved? I don't think so.
Idiot liar.
QuoteAnd one day I'd be glad when any of you, that is you, picowatt, farmhand, Phichaser call him to question on that use of the Tek and the video that followed.
Now what are you talking about? You have no idea.
QuoteWhere he shows a negative net mean voltage AND YET KEEPS IT OUT OF FOCUS? Or OFF reference? Why exactly?
Where did I show a negative mean voltage? Ever? And what is out of focus? or "OFF reference"? You are flailing and foaming at the mouth and not making any sense.
QuoteAnd that's not even taking into account that it was probably on hand because it needed repair. Which makes TK a repair technician. How honourable is to NOT mention that there's a problem with that machine - if there is? And how come - as repair technician - does he NOT know the meaning of the term calibrate? I can calibrate my clock to Greenwich Mean Time. I don't calibrate anything at all - if I set my clock to be in synch with my neighbour's.
You lying mendacious liar. You have no idea what I might do for a living, I am most certainly NOT a repair technician and that Tek scope is in perfect working condition and is CALIBRATED to NIST-traceable standards, and unlike my F43 its calibration is recent. And you do not understand what calibration is, what it means, and what is required to do it.
Now look: I am "accused" of being a repair technician and using a scope in need of repair... because I showed a scope trace on a Tek that she thought was one of HER OWN scope shots, because the waveforms are identical to what she showed. What an idiot.
TK,
Calm down, go to your happy place...
Did you get in any stargazing today/tonight? Lots of sunspots to look at.
PW
Here you go TK - MileHigh - picowatt
Take a good look at this video. At the first 3 seconds or so there is a negative voltage indicated across the shunt resistor. Then take a good look at the surroundings to that video. Then ask TK the questions that follow.
And picowatt. I've just re-read my posts. I see NOTHING emotional written there. I am NOT being emotional. In fact it is both you and TK who are.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 09:48:48 AM
Now TK - I've taken the trouble to plow through the last two pages answering your questions. Have the courtesy to answer mine. Here it is again.
Hello TK,
Nice to see you around. I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to address this post. Then I'll move on to the other three video references. Because I KNOW how badly you want to keep your thread topical.
Rosie Pose
Your first video referenced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
. Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
. It's really easily managed. Yet you didn't see some need for this?
. Or is that display there? In the right hand corner at the top?
. Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
. But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
. ALWAYS
. And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
. When this would have got to the heart of the matter
. so easily?
. And that trick with the ground?
. And all that INSINUATION?
. Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
. Therefore the circuit is only finally open
. Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
. When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
. Shouldn't you have explained this?
. Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
. I'd have thought?
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'? Surely not? I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics. :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit. It's not your style. I see that now.
Regards TK
Rosie Pose
By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine. Is that a warehouse? Full of equipment? Did you officially register your loan of it? For that little video of yours? I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.
ADDED[/glow
All:
I know that my post was a rant, and filled with emotion. It's probably not the most productive posting but it was a posting out of frustration. Sort of like a shot across the bow of Rosie's ship to try to get her to smarten up.
There are limits to trying to get some basic points across and the receiver is either combative or there is a complete and total disconnect. If Rosie would get with the program and "attend electronics kindergarten" by reading some books or going online and finding some good resources on electronics and putting some effort into it then perhaps we could get through to her more often.
You can tell that there are a lot of self-invented "old wives' tales" that Rosie uses to construct her belief system which serves as a coping mechanism to help her navigate through this strange world of electronics.
Anyway, I got frustrated. Rosemary is learning about electronics at a glacial pace. When you hit a brick wall in trying to explain stuff to her, you can lose your composure. You have to find a balance between blowing off some steam and being patient and helpful. You can't hold it in all the time because that's not healthy either.
Anyway, I don't want to sound 'too involved' either because I am not. It can still be fun sometimes, and frustrating at times. It would be nice to see closure on this whole affair.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:41:40 AM
TK,
Calm down, go to your happy place...
Did you get in any stargazing today/tonight? Lots of sunspots to look at.
PW
OOhh she makes me so mad. How can someone be allowed to get away with that crap? "Depleted to three volts". Repair technician not revealing the use of a broken scope. She objects to my scope shots that show identical phases to hers. She thinks that two circuits built with the same components using the same diagrams and tested in the same way will somehow work differently in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. Or is it just in my lab that reality bends? How can she get away with it? Every post of hers is filled with crap like that, and the sheer illogic isn't even the worst part of it. She misinterprets, then accuses and rants based on her misinterpretations and misunderstandings, and then lies about it all later. She will be proclaiming that I am a repair technician and my scopes are "in for repair" now. As if I could take apart a Tek DPSO and fix something in there with a crescent wrench and a soldering iron.
I did not get to look at the sun today... I was busy out buying BULBS and even a DC-to-DC converter to try on this ridiculous project ... but tonight I've got the best view of Saturn that I personally have ever seen. I can clearly make out the Cassini division in the rings and follow it around in _front_ of the planet about half the time as the seeing waves in and out. That's the first time I've been able to do that. Of course in the years that I've had the scopes, the rings have been their very flattest but are now opening up nicely. The tiny shadow of the rings on the planet, the shadow of the planet on the rings in back, some banding and color contrast in the planet's disk.... Titan a respectable way off to the left and three other moons in a nice formation nearby to the right side..... spectacular. It's too much trouble to set up to try to get a photo though. If it's clear again tomorrow night I will, though. To think that we have a robot spacecraft up there right now, skimming moons and taking pictures and streaming back incredible data.... it boggles the mind. And all done by people who paid attention in school, and who believe totally in QED, the Standard Model, and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Mars is kind of washed-out; I wonder if there's a duststorm happening. I can make out a brilliant white area that is the polar cap, and some dark markings, but no canals tonight ! And of course no "mystery plume"... I just don't have the aperture and wouldn't know when to look anyway.
Rosemary,
We will just have to agree to disagree to whether your posts are emotional.
My read sees plenty of emotion. And yes, my post too was filled with a bit of defensive emotion, for the reasons discussed therein. Hopefully you will take some of it to heart.
Again, I truly do wish everyone would/could just lighten up.
I cannot see from that video what it is you are discussing, it is not TK's best videography. I can't read much of anything on my screen. Possibly TK has a clue.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 24, 2012, 02:05:51 AM
OOhh she makes me so mad. How can someone be allowed to get away with that crap? "Depleted to three volts". Repair technician not revealing the use of a broken scope. She objects to my scope shots that show identical phases to hers. She thinks that two circuits built with the same components using the same diagrams and tested in the same way will somehow work differently in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. Or is it just in my lab that reality bends? How can she get away with it? Every post of hers is filled with crap like that, and the sheer illogic isn't even the worst part of it. She misinterprets, then accuses and rants based on her misinterpretations and misunderstandings, and then lies about it all later. She will be proclaiming that I am a repair technician and my scopes are "in for repair" now. As if I could take apart a Tek DPSO and fix something in there with a crescent wrench and a soldering iron.
I did not get to look at the sun today... I was busy out buying BULBS and even a DC-to-DC converter to try on this ridiculous project ... but tonight I've got the best view of Saturn that I personally have ever seen. I can clearly make out the Cassini division in the rings and follow it around in _front_ of the planet about half the time as the seeing waves in and out. That's the first time I've been able to do that. Of course in the years that I've had the scopes, the rings have been their very flattest but are now opening up nicely. The tiny shadow of the rings on the planet, the shadow of the planet on the rings in back, some banding and color contrast in the planet's disk.... Titan a respectable way off to the left and three other moons in a nice formation nearby to the right side..... spectacular. It's too much trouble to set up to try to get a photo though. If it's clear again tomorrow night I will, though. To think that we have a robot spacecraft up there right now, skimming moons and taking pictures and streaming back incredible data.... it boggles the mind. And all done by people who paid attention in school, and who believe totally in QED, the Standard Model, and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Mars is kind of washed-out; I wonder if there's a duststorm happening. I can make out a brilliant white area that is the polar cap, and some dark markings, but no canals tonight ! And of course no "mystery plume"... I just don't have the aperture and wouldn't know when to look anyway.
TK,
Were you "looking through" your Williams?
Just curious as to how well your Megrez performs when used for direct viewing.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2012, 01:48:30 AM
Here you go TK - MileHigh - picowatt
Take a good look at this video. At the first 3 seconds or so there is a negative voltage indicated across the shunt resistor. Then take a good look at the surroundings to that video. Then ask TK the questions that follow.
And picowatt. I've just re-read my posts. I see NOTHING emotional written there. I am NOT being emotional. In fact it is both you and TK who are.
You lying mendacious idiot. That top trace is EXACTLY like yours and shows the same thing as yours does... a voltage oscillating around zero. Just as yours does. And what do the surroundings have to do with the FACT THAT I AM REPRODUCING YOUR DATA?
And the rest of your "questions" are irrelevant and their purpose is clear: insinuation and prevarication. Again... you do not understand what is actually being shown because you are ignorant of the prerequisites and I simply do not know how to dumb things down to your level. You don't even understand ALGEBRA, ffs.
YOU are the one making claims, I can do whatever I want when and where I want to and I do NOT have to do or show anything at all, much less things that YOU have never shown.
TK:
I am trying to remember - the viewing cycle for the rings, is it 22 years or something like that? So if the rings are coming back does that mean the next seven or eight years will be good viewing years?
Can you see the rings with your naked eye live looking through the eyepiece of your reflector telescope? I have always wanted to do that.
Just one more tidbit. Lots of us grew up excited thinking about the return of Halley's comet in 1986. That turned out to be a big bust. But my God, that comet in 1997. I drove up north with a friend in an attempt to escape the light pollution. Then we walked out into a farmer's field and looked up in awe. I was just like I fantasized that Halley's would look like as a 10-year-old. It was amazing.
I almost wish I had had the urge to go into astronomy during my university days. It's an exciting time to be alive if you are an astronomer.
MileHigh
@PW: No, the EdgeHD. The WO is utterly crisp but at f/6 for visual use.... images are small. But it can get the whole Pleiades in the frame. The EdgeHD at f/10 is better for the planetary stuff but has a much narrower FOV.
The video that the poser is currently objecting to was shot elsewhere, obviously. I don't know why it's difficult to make it out. I'll be glad to explain anything you like. I took TarBaby over to the scope's owner's place and let them play for a while. It's a Play Date, and that's why no serious stuff was done YET with that scope. There is a real reason why I am doing all of this with the HP180 instead of the digital scopes at my disposal, and I think you know what that reason is. But certainly... now that I have shown exactly the same evidence that Rosemary has shown using the "useless" and "non-measuring" analog scope.... I will be visiting with the Tek's owner again for more serious conversation and drinks. And our pets can play together again.
In the video I basically show that 1) I have access to a DPSO, perhaps a better one for the purpose than they used.... 2) Tar Baby can travel without difficulty and make oscillations on demand like a good little circuit.... 3) that Rosemary would initially misidentify the scopeshot as one of her own, which she did..... 4) That under certain conditions the battery power can get to the board through the probe ground leads (I disconnect the battery negative cable at one point and of course the circuit keeps on keeping on... because there's a probe ground lead at the battery negative pole, as well as another one at the board's main ground point for the gate monitor channel.
Of course her rant about "negative mean voltage at 3 seconds in" is referring to the top trace across the CVR (and this is also a time when she claimed that I never showed a trace here) which shows, as you can clearly see in the comparison shot from her... the same thing that hers shows, an oscillation about the zero line. I don't recall ever showing the actual value of the mean for that channel though.
And that video was made and posted nearly THREE WEEKS ago. My how time flies. And she is using it now to distract, deliberately, from the devastating power computations that we made yesterday, doing her typical tactic of switching topics and filling page after page with insults and innuendo rather than addressing the real issues.
I emphasise the "GREEN TRACE" in the video because that's another thing she has been utterly wrong about... she ranted and raved over and over about how the GREEN TRACE in HER video was NOT the common mosfet drains, when it clearly is, and yet she would never say just what it actually WAS if it wasn't the drain trace. That was back in the locked thread, which is still viewable in the "solid state devices" section of the forum.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 24, 2012, 02:21:09 AM
TK:
I am trying to remember - the viewing cycle for the rings, is it 22 years or something like that? So if the rings are coming back does that mean the next seven or eight years will be good viewing years?
Can you see the rings with your naked eye live looking through the eyepiece of your reflector telescope? I have always wanted to do that.
Just one more tidbit. Lot's of us grew up excited thinking about the return of Halley's comet in 1986. That turned out to be a big bust. But my God, that comet in 1997. I drove up north with a friend in an attempt to escape the light pollution. Then we walked out into a farmer's field and looked up in awe. I was just like I fantasized that Halley's would look like as a 10-year-old. It was amazing.
I almost wish I had had the urge to go into astronomy during my university days. It's an exciting time to be alive if you are an astronomer.
MileHigh
MH,
Saturn is really cool, but one's first glimpse of the Orion and Horsehead Nebulae is always very memorable, even in a small 'scope. Easy to see, and just beautiful.
I miss the comets. The one was visible here for many weeks. Every night the tail was a bit different. It became a nightly fixture in the sky and it was sad to see it leave!
PW
TK,
What size is your Edge HD? You probably said already...
So you pretty much use the Megrez just for AP? Does that one have electric focus?
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on April 24, 2012, 02:21:09 AM
TK:
I am trying to remember - the viewing cycle for the rings, is it 22 years or something like that? So if the rings are coming back does that mean the next seven or eight years will be good viewing years?
Saturn's orbit is about 29 or 30 years, but I don't know if the apparent visible tilt follows that or not. Two years ago when I first started the rings were nearly exactly edge-on and were just opening up. Now they look like a picture in a book....
Quote
Can you see the rings with your naked eye live looking through the eyepiece of your reflector telescope? I have always wanted to do that.
Absolutely. That's what I'm describing. The 9.25 reflector, the Baader Hyperion zoom at 12 mm... and I can not only see the rings but I can see the Cassini gap between the A and B rings, and even the fuzzier inner edge of the main ring that is the "C" ring sometimes, tonight. It looks very three-dimensional with the shadow play on the rings and planet. And I can make out some detail in the planet itself, cloud bands and contrast zones. That's rare for me on Saturn, the banding is much less distinct than on Jupiter.
The rings can be clearly seen in the refractor too, just smaller. If you can hold very steady, you can even see them as "ears" on the disk in binoculars, and think about what Galileo saw and sketched here.
Quote
Just one more tidbit. Lot's of us grew up excited thinking about the return of Halley's comet in 1986. That turned out to be a big bust. But my God, that comet in 1997. I drove up north with a friend in an attempt to escape the light pollution. Then we walked out into a farmer's field and looked up in awe. I was just like I fantasized that Halley's would look like as a 10-year-old. It was amazing.
Yes, I remember seeing Halley as a tiny disappointing dot. But I saw it with a new girlfriend ... so it marked the beginning of an interesting period of my life, for sure. I never saw any of the other comets and haven't been able to see any with this kit yet although I have looked for a couple that I should have been able to see... but didn't.
Quote
I almost wish I had had the urge to go into astronomy during my university days. It's an exciting time to be alive if you are an astronomer.
MileHigh
It sure is. In just the past few years, the quality and power of amateur instruments has really taken off. I can make photos that would have taken all season at a real observatory to make, twenty years ago, and do it in one evening (and the next day processing). With the computerized mounts you can see more in a single evening than a "manual" astronomer might see in a year, and with a lot less frustration and knob turning.
If you are ever near San Antonio in clear weather you are of course welcome to come and take a look! Wednesdays in good weather the San Antonio League of Sidewalk Astronomers (SALSA) meets at a park on the northside and one fellow has a 24 inch motorized Dobsonian... in its own trailer... that he sets up for the public to look through. You have to climb a ladder up about six feet to get to the eyepiece! Now that is a spectacular instrument.
TK,
I went back a few pages... 9.25"
With mounts those guys are pricey. The 11" and 14" look awesome for direct viewing (or AP).
You've got some impressive gear.
They have come a long way since my days.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AM
At least TK is attempting a replication and responding to questions and requests for measurements from a circuit that also demonstrates a negative power measurement. He is spending both time and money in doing so. I am interested in gathering as much technical data as possible prior to an attempted replication. Possibly you too would receive applause if similar discussions could be had with you, and requested measurements made from an operating circuit as discussions evolved.
INDEED. I've already commented on this. It's a very fortuitous series of events. And on a purely personal level - I would be very sorry if the likes of you, MileHigh or TK EVER commented favourably on our tests. Certainly NOT at the bar set by you lot. It needs something considerably higher.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMyour comments? (not sure I got the whole quote in there) in the last, are emotion laden, defensive, and present a negative attitude towards most anyone who dares to ask a question.
I would be more than happy to answer any questions in a thread that is NOT full of slander and malice. And INDEED, I'd be inclined to take such a thread seriously. But not until then.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMIf your next experiments are going to be similar to the past wherein you set up a digital 'scope and select or discuss only the data that supports your claims without attempting alternate methods of measurement, or entertaining requests for alternate measurements, I see little change on the horizon. Also, I respectfully recommend that you find a spokesperson with a bit more technical knowledge.
WHERE and what tests are you referring to? I have no idea that we've ever done any tests for anyone at all other than our demonstrations. Please refer to specifics. And your recommendations are entirely unnecessary. If there is any aspect of our demonstrations that requires your clarification - after or even during the event - then feel free. Until then - kindly DO NOT presume what those demonstrations will contain - nor how they will be conducted. And I'd thank you to reference some FACTS related to prior demonstrations where I refused to answer questions - if we're to believe that you're that 'partial to the truth'.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMFrom what reading I have done on your other thread and in your papers, it appears you did not realize or understand that a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied from your FG, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG. I believe you statements regarding the circuit continuing to oscillate with the battery "disconnected" reflects your then lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates (no, there are not thousands upon thousands of ohms of resistance at an FG output). Hopefully, from the discussions in this thread, you now have a better understanding of at least how the circuit works, how an FG can pass/provide current, and how to read a 'scope's screen.
You state as a FACT that the current is flowing through Q2 and the function generator resulting in a negative voltage. I will entirely disabuse you of that opinion when we do our demonstration. And I assure you that we will show you PRECISELY the same negative voltage with the use of a 555 switch. And then you CANNOT use the excuse of the function generator enabling any current flowing through it. Again. Because we will show precisely the same results with the use of both the function generator and the 555 switch. So. No, is the short answer. You must certainly have NOT enabled my 'better understanding' from your discussions. If I were to understand your thinking I would first need to ignore the evidence.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMI originally engaged with you in the hopes of having a technical discussion with you, but from this side of the fence, it is just too difficult to do so. I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, or being misquoted, as a tool for use in an argument. As well, when I used the word "review" in the most casual way, you went off on a multi-post tirade. You constantly refer to and want your papers read, but apparently we are not to "review" them (or ask questions regarding them).
Thank you for reminding me about this. I will repost that post because, yet again, those points have NOT all been addressed. All you did was suggest that for 'review' read 'read'. Anyone can read. Very few are qualified to 'review'. And to claim a 'review' one needs to at it's least advertise a qualification. And the reviewed would expect courteous questions from the reviewer. Not the assumption - as you paraded - that I was 'ignoring' your questions. Hardly a constructive 'kick off' to a dialogue. I do NOT put words into your mouth. I did NOT misquote you. I did NOT use you for a tool in an argument. I simply pointed out that your comments were less than constructive, and by their sheer repetition were also less than courteous.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMI for one can easily live without all the emotion and negativity. I don't watch soaps or reality shows either!
So can I. I am it's victim on a personal level and our work is it's victim on a general level. I am NOT the one who is negative. I am simply pointing out the baseless NEGATIVITY that is applied to me. Yet again. You do NOT seem to find any harm in TK's extraordinary level of abuse. His license to say what he likes is absolutely endorsed by you all - notwithstanding common decency and notwithstanding forum guidelines? My defense of it is absolutely NOT acceptable to any of you? And I do NOT, like the rest of you, comment on any personal level at all. I comment on the work. And YET when I do argue in my defense, you all take UMBRAGE? Exactly how partial are you? And exactly to what 'truth'? And do you think that our readers here are not aware of this excess partiality? I am what would you call it? - upbraided? - for being negative. And TK is held up as an example of what? 'positivity'? politeness? respect? decorous address? What exactly? What about the vulgarity of that video where titled 'making out with a dog'? That's acceptable? Deserves no comment? Or the fact that he 'debunked' without giving a single measured value related to battery duration? Nor the value of the energy dissipated? And you expect me to answer his questions? Exactly why would you expect this? Why am I required to be that 'deferential' in the face of his paraded abuse? Because he's polite to you? Is that really enough? If so, then you too are applying double standards. And I'm well aware of them.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMIf I can get past all the attitude, I will reread your posts, but my first skim through saw no valid arguments against TK's circuit and data. The sample points issue will change nothing, that is easily proved, the phase shift in the scope shot I requested was only a triggering artifact, which I believed quite possible and is indeed why I questioned it. I do believe the circuit can likely be further optimized to oscillate at a lower Q2 bias current than TK's, which I may attempt to do with my replication.
picowatt. Don't read or comment on anything at all. UNLESS it's TK's work. I have NO faith in your impartiality. When you can address TK's flaunted disrespect - then I will be more inclined to 'believe' you're partial only to the 'truth'. From where I see that 'truth' is itself neither the truth nor is your reference to the way this thread is conducted even close to impartiality. And for you to expect me to answer anything at all that TK writes is somewhat offensive. He deserves NO recognition for his work nor his questions - nor anything at all - while he is incapable of exercising any kind of professional constraint. He has shown a vulgarity of sentiment that is entirely inappropriate to decency and common humanity. So. How you can then seriously propose that I take him seriously on any level at all when his best efforts are that abusive - I DO NOT KNOW. Unless, again, you're not as 'impartial' as you're pretending. Or unless you believe that his abuse is merited. In which case you, like he, would be operating under questionable levels of conduct and employing double standards with a flagrant liberality.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMBut yes, all in all, my hat is off to TK for at least engaging the inquisitive and patiently making measurements if asked. If you were more forthcoming in a similar fashion, you too might receive similar gratitude.
I do NOT want your gratitude. I do NOT want TK's condolences. I know full well that you see NO WRONG in the attitude TK flaunts - which is troubling. And I know full well that you ONLY consider my arguments against his work as 'emotional' when they are NOT.
Regards,
Rosemary
TK,MH,
I can't fathom how nice it would be to have a scope with "go to". That has to be just awesome. It is really something to actually look through a scope and see objects that you typically only see photos of. Although, for deep sky objects, doing some AP is really nice too.
They have indeed advanced the gear tremendously in the past few years.
I am going to have to get a rig again.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 02:42:10 AM
TK,
What size is your Edge HD? You probably said already...
9.25 inches, f/10.
Quote
So you pretty much use the Megrez just for AP? Does that one have electric focus?
PW
Not always just for AP. It's great for Luna, and I only have a small solar filter (Kendrick Astro Instruments make, using Baader solar filter film) so it's used for solar viewing too, and any time a wide field is needed, like for the Andromeda galaxy or the Pleiades. (The star diffraction spikes you see in some of my images are done with crossed threads in front of the objective. There isn't a "spider" in the EdgeHD, the secondary is mounted on the front glass like a standard Schmidt-Cassegrain design, and of course there is no obstruction at all in the refractor.
No electric focus on either of these scopes. The ETX125 does have, though. I'm going to rig a servo focuser for the 9.25 one of these days, and the software that I use can then focus the scope using fwhm or some other statistic on a star image.
Usually I use a Bahtinov focus mask which is an amazing and necessary accessory, focusing on a visible star near my invisible deepsky target, then slewing the scope "on faith" and fine-framing the invisible target using sample exposures and careful nudging. I started AP because I just couldn't see much visually... but the AP really opened up the skies.
"And I do NOT, like the rest of you, comment on any personal level at all."
"Unless, again, you're not as 'impartial' as you're pretending. Or unless you believe that his abuse is merited. In which case you, like he, would be operating under questionable levels of conduct and employing double standards with a flagrant liberality."
What a bald faced liar you are, Rosemary. YOU compared me to HITLER, to Savonarola, and just a couple of days ago you called me a criminal sociopath or something ridiculous like that.
These threads are filled with your personal-level comments against just about everybody, even including our host Stefan... who you just called "unreliable" in a very insulting manner.
You have a serious problem. You are disconnected from reality. And you still have not corrected your errors at all.
Set your FG to make your long, negative going pulse cycle. Make the oscillations. Then put a current meter in series with the negative lead of the function generator and report here the reading on it. Do the same with your magic 555 timer.
Of course you won't, but if you only would, you would see that the FG DOES provide a current pathway, and if you only had the wit to see it you would have to acknowledge STEFAN's point: that the FG's voltage is in SERIES with the main battery's voltage and adds to the power in the circuit.
Rosemary,
The "likes of me" glanced through your post. Nice one Rosemry, no emotion there.
I do indeed comment on TK's and everybody else's attitude. I wish everyone would lighten up. What do you want me to do? I say what I say and that is all that I can do. You have apparently gotten under other peoples' skin in the past, and that is not my battle. You do have a way of invoking frustration and your writing style is a bit, well, inflammatory at times. So if other's have dealt with that for some time, possibly they have reached a rope's end. That is far from a justification, but is indeed an observation, with possibly a lesson to be learned, by all.
As long as I am treated with respect and courtesy I do not have a problem with anyone.
If there is more to address, I apologize, as I said, I am selective regarding what I read. It is boring and non-productive when full of negative emotion and insinuation.
The "likes of me",
PW
TK,
If you had to choose but one telescope for "all around use", and as a purchase suggestion, which way would you go?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 03:43:08 AM
TK,
If you had to choose but one telescope for "all around use", and as a purchase suggestion, which way would you go?
PW
The eternal question... with the eternal answer: "It depends...."
What's your budget, do you intend to do AP, do you have a place to keep it set up or are you going to be completely portable, etc.
I considered all these factors and chose the Meade ETX125, and never regretted it for a moment. Meade has had some quality issues in the past, mostly cleared now, and I would not recommend the ETX125 to someone who wasn't a "tinkerer". You, though... I think you'd be able to finetune the mount. The Meade optics are legendary and the ETX125 is excellent indeed and for the price you can't beat it. The mount can be used either in its native alt-az mode or set up as polar-equatorial for long exposure AP and it really is portable, it packs into a big suitcase and the tripod. But... it's f/15 with a very narrow FOV.
For someone who isn't a tinkerer and just wants a goto scope that works and who isn't intending to do long exposure AP, one of the Celestron SCTs in the 6-8 inch range would be excellent. Get the biggest scope you will actually use. My employer owns a 14 inch Celestron on a Losmandy mount... and in the seven years I've known him it hasn't been set up at night even once. It takes two people half a day to set it up and align it, we did practice in the shop bay, but never took it outside. What a shame.
The 9.25 is the largest scope I can handle by myself. If you have the money and do intend to do AP, a German equatorial mount is a must, and Celestron has some reasonable ones as well as higher-end models. The EdgeHD design does what it claims to do, I get very flat fields out to the very edge of the image frame with no flattener needed, in contrast to the M90, which does benefit from the TV flattener/reducer.
If I had to do it over again I'd still get the EdgeHD, but I'd get the heavier CGEM DX or whatever they call it... the same basic CGEM mount but beefier and on a better tripod.
However.... sometimes the wide field of the refractor is nice. With the included 23 mm eyepiece, the disk of Luna nearly exactly fills the field of the reflector; the stated FOV is half a degree. But Andromeda, for instance, is THREE degrees wide, and the reflector sees right through it. The pleiades.... the reflector gives a great view of the individual stars but to see "the Pleiades" you need the wider field. Even using a 36 mm EP in the reflector I can't get the who thoughle asterism into the frame. However.... looking at Luna with an f/10 or f/15 (like the ETX125) is almost like being there, you feel so close. But the best views of the whole disk are better in the M90 because of its incredible crispness (really good glass in those lenses) and the roominess of the wider field.
Seriously... you need two telescopes and a third for guiding, but one mount will do if it's the right one.
Just recently Meade and Celestron both have made some very interesting additions to their lines. I especially like the new Meade convertible mount. It's pricey but looks great and the Meade software has some nice features that the Celestron does not, like the ability to enter in two-line orbital parameters of... anything in orbit, and the mount will track it. The Celestrons only will track sidereally or at the lunar rate and only in RA unless guided, while the Meades can track any which way if the two-line orbit parameters are in it. The Celestrons can actually do it too but only under the control of external software.
So... What's the biggest scope you will actually lug outside on a clear night and set up and align? For me it was the 9.25 and at first when it arrived I was seriously intimidated. At that time I lived in a basement and it took seven round trips on the stairs to get set up. One night as I was coming down with the counterweight bag in one hand and the battery bag in the other, I slipped on the stairs and landed right on my coccyx, broke that sucker good. It still hurts even now.
"And I do NOT, like the rest of you, comment on any personal level at all."
Hold your nose and look at the way she "summarises" a few posts from the old thread. Have you ever seen anything so pitiful?
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
Come on Rosemary, you coward. What is the phase relationship in this screenshot, and was YOUR load heating at the time?
Two simple questions. A single sentence of seven words can answer it totally and unequivocally.
QuoteYou state as a FACT that the current is flowing through Q2 and the function generator resulting in a negative voltage. I will entirely disabuse you of that opinion when we do our demonstration. And I assure you that we will show you PRECISELY the same negative voltage with the use of a 555 switch. And then you CANNOT use the excuse of the function generator enabling any current flowing through it. Again. Because we will show precisely the same results with the use of both the function generator and the 555 switch. So. No, is the short answer. You must certainly have NOT enabled my 'better understanding' from your discussions. If I were to understand your thinking I would first need to ignore the evidence.
This is hilarious.
1: in the first two sentences she is asserting that there is no current "resulting in a negative voltage". Yet she sets her FG at full negative offset. How could there NOT be a negative voltage at the gate?
2: In the third sentence she says there IS a negative voltage and that a 555 "switch" will produce PRECISELY the same negative voltage. THis may be the first true thing she's said in a good while. Especially since I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN THIS, many days ago.... and further, she's going to wind up using "my" circuit for the timer, with the possible substitution of cap and resistor values and maybe a diode or two.
(When you turn on the overhead light, which part is the "switch"? Your fingers, or the thing in the wall that you flip? The mosfets are the "switch", Rosemary... the 555 timer circuit is just your "fingers" on the switch. It sends a switching SIGNAL to your mosfet switch.)
3: If the function generator isn't in the circuit, that's right, you "CANNOT use the excuse of the function generator enabling any current flowing through it." You CAN, however, use the "excuse" that there is current flowing through the 555 timer into the rest of the circuit. Because... there is.
4: Just like I have shown "precisely the same results" using 1) the function generator 2) the 555 timer, two different ways at least, and 3) straight DC current.
5: So. No is indeed the short answer. Rosemary remains wilfully ignorant and refuses to do the very simple test of putting an ammeter inline with the timer's connection to the circuit. Because that would force her to FACE the evidence that she has been ignoring, wilfully, all this time.
Thrash and flail about, Rosemary. Like a landed fish out of water...... there's nothing you can do to change reality.
Note that anyone can repeat my demonstrations and do everything I have shown or "claimed" for themselves, easily. And if they can't, they can simply ASK ME for help or explanations. There is no sleight of hand, no concealment of data, not even fancy unobtainable equipment. (That is one of the points I hope I'm making here.).
Is the same true for Ainslie? Of course not. What you get when you build her circuit faithfully and test it faithfully is ordinary performance, and when you report that, she will turn on you with dripping fangs and mendacity, but never an explanation of what you've done wrong, and then it becomes clear that, not only does she not understand her subject matter, she can't process logical chains of reasoning and refuses to be guided in a Socratic dialog... since she, by default, knows everything she needs to know already. Like calculus, for example.
Any child with a scope and a function generator and a soldering iron (and basic math skills) could do it, and there is NO weird "theory" involved other than QED and the Standard Model. So.... what I do and show is universally understandable, you don't even have to speak English, just algebra. But of course if your worldview is obstructed by the beam in your own eye, the tiny motes of truth in the eyes of others are nothing to be concerned about.
I'm considering making the following famous quotation my "signature" on this forum:
RA:
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.
Got that, Bubba?
Yet another arrogant Ainslie error, ridiculous in its magnitude; so ridiculous that some people couldn't even believe it wasn't just a simple typo ... until it was shown that she repeats it over and over again, and still has not corrected and retracted it.
Ah, it's a wonderful world isn't it? You are so very certain that you are right that you won't actually TEST, you will only SHOW by demonstration. And you will show data that anybody can reproduce, and that many people HAVE reproduced. Yet, in your hands the results are "overunity" but in the hands of others, using the same circuitry getting the same results.... according to you they are in error and faking somehow and don't know what they are doing and are using broken equipment....... because the same results in THEIR hands don't yield a confirmation of your "theory". Which, by the way, is neither a thesis nor a theory; at best it's a hand-waving conjecture that demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the topic, yet again.
There were no manipulations of anything during the Ainslie demo video, other than setting up a different condition altogether. This is like showing the backside of a person's head and assuring us that he is very handsome indeed, just look at these hairs. But you NEVER turn the chair around to show the handsome face at all. And now here's a different person, also the back of his head, also claimed to be very handsome. And look... here is another view of the back of his head, taken with a different camera but at exactly the same angle. See... that proves he's handsome, you can't argue with TWO images of the back of a head, can you?
---------------------------------
RA:
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.
Got that, Bubba?
---------------------------------
Rosemary,
You do and have twisted my words. When discussing FIG3, one of your responses was with regard to me being wrong about 12volts being indicated at the shunt. I never said there was 12volts indicated at the shunt, yet you try to make a point using that as a response, as if such a statement were actually made by me.
As well, you continue to attempt to justify your tirade over my use of the word "review", which appears to me as only a game being played over semantics. I have no interest in playing that game. If you reread my post where I used the word review, I said 'by anyone attempting a replication or a review', not anywhere stating that I was doing a review, other than as required for a replication. It was my understanding, however, that you have attempted or were going to attempt to publish your papers, during which someone woud surely have done a "review" of some kind. I do not believe your tirade towards me over a simple word was justified.
Another perfect example of twisting words or putting words in my mouth, is when I stated a few posts back that "a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied by the function generator, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG." You respond with "You state as fact that the current is flowing through Q2 and the functon generator resulting in a negative voltage". To me, the two statements are far from the same. I did not state "resulting in a negative voltage". The two statements, my original and the one you claim I stated, are materially very different. Possibly you believe the two statements are similar and see no difference, but from a technical point of view, I assure you, they are not at all similar.
I have over the past few weeks looked at other sites and threads going back to your COP17 circuit gleaning data for a replication. It seems the battle between you and many others has some very lengthy roots. I fully disagree with the need for anyone to use the abusive language that so many of those threads (and even this one) seem to erode and collapse into. I do not fully understand why tempers are apparently lost or why such abuse is allowed by moderators or site hosts, however, I am not here to moderate attitudes or get involved in long standing battles between anyone. If such abuse is ever directed towards me, I will excercise my right to just walk away.
Although I enjoy a good discussion, I have no desire to become involved in emotional arguments with or between anyone, and this post of mine is exactly the type of post I have no further interest in creating,. It involves a discussion very far from anything of a technical nature or interest.
So again, I just wish everyone would/could just "lighten up".
The "likes of me" indeed,
PW
@PW:
You've said, several times as you point out, that a 50R might be used in the series line from the bias source. Of course I tried this right away when using the (nearly flat) 9v battery and it's there on the board, two 1/2 Watt 100Rs in parallel. Ohm's Law still seems to apply, though... to get the oscillations a minimum of about 15-20ma seems to be required and the amplitude and distortion of the oscillations still depends on the current... which depends on the voltage. So with the 50 R in series, one needs more voltage from the pot or power supply to attain the required current.
Right?
With the flat 9v the 50 R is too much resistance and the current won't go over 40 or 50 mA and the oscillations remain small. That's why I've made it easy to use, or not to use, this resistor. It's been there for several days now... but it's a series resistance, and with the fixed 10R at the pot wiper (if the pot and battery are used) it's just too much for a weak battery, or a 5 V supply, to push through. But sure.... if I hook the Elenco supply directly up to the circuit (why not?) I use the 50 R.... just because. The Elenco is short-protected of course but why take a chance? Regardless of the 50 R or not, the main battery is still in series with the bias supply.
I also purchased a NOS DC-DC converter at the surplus house. 12 VDC in, 5 VDC CT out ( Stevens-Arnold WF 12S05/1000Z). But.... buggers, they had no data on it at the store, and when I got it home I found that it has common grounds/negatives for both sides. This is different from some other DC-DC converters I've used in the past and of course makes it unusable here. Also, it doesn't even work to make oscillations in the "correct" config, powered from an external source, because it doesn't want to source enough current. It works just fine in the "positive" gate drive mode to turn the mosfets on hard when its + is connected to the + location on the board -- but that takes a minuscule current at 5 VDC.
TK,
Bummer regarding the non-iso grounds on the DC-DC converter.
Personally, I would lose the bias pot and just use the FG or pwr supply and the 50R while attempting to maximize oscillations at lower Ibias currents. If lower currents can be utilized, Vbias can be decreased for a given source resistor.
I believe you said osc just begins at 25ma or so, I think I would experiment with the circuit at that Ibias and play around with more battery wire length etc. to see if the amplitude of the oscillations can be increased at that lower Ibias.
Do your waveforms at the source of Q2 resemble those in FIG4 or FIG 5 of the first paper?
PW
TK,
If you were going to scribble on your scope face, which around here would be cause for a good "strapping down", I would rather have had the zero baseline and V per division indicated!!
So, please indicate verbally or otherwise.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:39:23 PM
TK,
If you were going to scribble on your scope face, which around here would be cause for a good "strapping down", I would rather have had the zero baseline and V per division indicated!!
So, please indicate verbally or otherwise.
PW
It's Glass, not plastic, so it is quite easily cleaned, and it's not a measurement... it only _relates_ to a measurement.
I just couldn't help myself when I saw the shape. Zippy the Pinhead is a hero of mine from waaay back.
The amplitude of the oscillations is indeed extremely unstable, as you might imagine, and does not only depend on the inductances but also on the capacitances between the leads. I've twisted up the cable sets to the mosfets and have gotten more stability without killing the oscillations but I can always untwist them down again. When I do, just moving my hands around or touching the mosfet heatsinks will affect the amplitude of the oscillations.
Don't worry, if I make a measurement I'll put in the references... don't I always?
My Elenco seems to be putting some hash on the bias right now.... so I guess I'll have to dig out the HP bench supply and see if it's any quieter. I'm telling you, this silly circuit is a component destroyer.... her COP>17 circuit was too, from the HV spikes it could generate.
@PW: You asked,
QuoteDo your waveforms at the source of Q2 resemble those in FIG4 or FIG 5 of the first paper?
What you call source of Q2 I call FG+ input, right? I generally do monitor there except when looking at the CVR. With two channels I look at either battery or common drains with one, and CVR or FG+ (Q2 sources) with the other. I also refer to this as the "positive gate drive input" and this is where the negative bias voltage must be applied. The point marked with a big "plus" sign in the diagram below, right?
EDIT: gahh, I've not had enough coffee, and I'm still set up for DC drive. Let me set up and see.
Whatever I posted here a minute ago is probably nonsense.
OK....sorry about the confusion earlier. I misread the timebase on Fig 4 for a minute.
The answer is "yes, pretty much". The similarity at slower timebase settings during pulsating drive with negative gate pulses I've shown lots of times including above.
Here's a shot showing the similarity to Fig4:
Timebase 1 microsecond per division showing the higher frequency of just under 2 MHz.
A channel (lower) is the voltage across the CVR at 2 volts per division, B channel (upper) is the voltage at Q2 source or FG+ as I prefer to call it at 5 v/div (I couldn't get a stable trigger at 10 V/div. Zero references are the closest graticule line to the grey marks on the right side of the bezel.
picowatt -
Regarding the flow of current through the function generator - here's what you ACTUALLY wrote.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMFrom what reading I have done on your other thread and in your papers, it appears you did not realize or understand that a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied from your FG, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG.
I take it that you're arguing that the positive bias from the function generator (FG) that's applied to the gate of Q2 enables a flow of current from the battery supply source? This current flow then passes through the FG probe. Then it passes out of the ground terminal of that probe to the source rail of the battery supply. Or to put it as Poynty Point prefers - to the battery's negative terminal? Therefore does the battery REMAIN connected. And therefore is there no significance in that oscillation. Is that your argument? Because then, the short answer is 'NO'. It is not possible. So WHY should I need to 'understand it'?
Then you continue - in that same post...
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMI believe your statements regarding the circuit continuing to oscillate with the battery "disconnected" reflects your then lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates
IF the gate at Q2 allowed any current from the battery supply to pass through the FG probes and to its ground terminal then it would also need to be passing a current from the battery that would reflect above zero. In effect - either Q1 or Q2 would be continually ON. Therefore the current sensing resistor (CSR) (NOT CVR as TK keeps putting it)) would NEVER record a voltage less than zero. At best it would would show a small fluctuation at the point at which the signal changes to apply a positive bias first at Q1 and then at Q2. Which then may result in that voltage trending to zero. But it would never CROSS zero. EVER. Whereas, in point of FACT what we see is that when the signal transfers - then the voltage across the CSR ACTUALLY swings to a NEGATIVE voltage. Unless, of course, you're arguing that the battery is now discharging a current from the DRAIN rail as an applied negative voltage. Perhaps? In which case we do, indeed, have extraordinary batteries. And we would also need to have rather EXTRAORDINARY transistors. Because then they would also need the rather improbable property of enabling an entirely IMPOSSIBLE negative current from the battery Drain rail. And all this notwithstanding the applied positive signal at the gate of Q2. So. Here's my answer. NO. It is not MY 'lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates'. And if it's not mine is it perhaps your own lack of understanding? I'm sure you won't consider the suggestion insulting, as you were well disposed to apply it to me.
So again. When you presume to write this...
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMHopefully, from the discussions in this thread, you now have a better understanding of at least how the circuit works, how an FG can pass/provide current,
rather - I put it to you that one 'hopes' that it is YOU who would have had a better understanding. The more so as you are 'posing' - if not as an expert - as a competent engineer in the analysis of current flow. Certainly you went to some pains to advise us all that a person of your standing could simply 'read' all that he needed to 'read' from an oscilloscope trace. Why then are you NOT seeing this? Why do you NOT know how the voltage across the CSR would resolve IF, indeed, the battery was discharging current through the Gate of Q2? Bear in mind picowatt. I'm the amateur. Yet even I know this. And I can't comment about our readers. But I certainly know that not you, nor TK, nor MileHigh, nor Farmhand, nor PhiChaser has mentioned this. WHY? Are you relying on our readers' ignorance? Are you assuming an entire lack of intelligence in everyone who engages here - directly or indirectly? Or are you even aware of the ACTUAL 'thing' that we're pointing to? WHAT? Because whichever way one reads these statements - in the final analysis if you ARE aware of these points, then it is nothing short of insulting. Or had you simply overlooked this? It can only be one or the other. So. Do let us know.
./...
continued/...
Then. To continue. And if it's not enough to insinuate that I have no idea how to resolve the question of the current path from a battery through a simple MOSFET TRANSISTOR - which in itself is excessively simple - you then continue by stating....
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 01:32:40 AMand how to read a 'scope's screen.
In other words you are publicly stating that not only do I not understand the 'flow' of current - nor the paths to 'enable' that current - but you also add insult to injury or rather, 'insult to slander' by implying that 'nor do I even understand the significance of a voltage reading across a battery and a current sensing resistor'. Which is INDEED insulting. In the extreme. It is well within the competence of anyone at all. And I would need to be considerably less than functionally intelligent if I could not, at least, know this much.
Now you come back with this.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 12:27:39 PM
Another perfect example of twisting words or putting words in my mouth, is when I stated a few posts back that "a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied by the function generator, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG."
Where did you state this? I was responding to your statement as detailed above. That was when I wrote ... "You state as fact that the current is flowing through Q2 and the functon generator resulting in a negative voltage..." And I stand by that statement. Unless I've ENTIRELY misunderstood your writing. Unless you are actually acknowledging that there are some questions needing answers as to why the Q2 Gate is able to 'INVERT' - turn upside down - on it's ear - the current from a battery supply to make it negative as opposed to positive.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 12:27:39 PMTo me, the two statements are far from the same. I did not state "resulting in a negative voltage". The two statements, my original and the one you claim I stated, are materially very different. Possibly you believe the two statements are similar and see no difference, but from a technical point of view, I assure you, they are not at all similar.
picowatt - spare me the 'I know better than you' attitude. There is absolutely NO reason to suppose that if the Q2 Gate has a positive signal that can allow the flow of current from the battery that it can then invert that signal and take it below zero. Not capacitance, not stray inductance - not ANYTHING - can explain this.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 12:27:39 PMYou do and have twisted my words. When discussing FIG3, one of your responses was with regard to me being wrong about 12volts being indicated at the shunt. I never said there was 12volts indicated at the shunt, yet you try to make a point using that as a response, as if such a statement were actually made by me.
I am not at all certain that you referred to 12 volts. Quite possibly you referred to 6 volts. In which case I have exaggerated the complaint. And I apologise. However, what I'm actually claiming is that the 'offset' from the FG is such that it qualifies the voltage even further. And this I hope to learn next Thursday. Then, as mentioned I will tell Poynty Point. And he will, no doubt, make the knowledge public.
continued/,,,
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 12:27:39 PMAs well, you continue to attempt to justify your tirade over my use of the word "review", which appears to me as only a game being played over semantics. I have no interest in playing that game. If you reread my post where I used the word review, I said 'by anyone attempting a replication or a review', not anywhere stating that I was doing a review, other than as required for a replication. It was my understanding, however, that you have attempted or were going to attempt to publish your papers, during which someone would surely have done a "review" of some kind. I do not believe your tirade towards me over a simple word was justified.
TIRADE? Is defense now be termed 'tirade'? I was arguing that IF you were presuming to do a review then you would be 'asking' questions related to the condition of the MOSFET. You would not have been STATING that it has blown. And through the next God knows how many pages, and certainly not less than 41 posts that same night - your 'retinue' of supporters declared it a FACT and proceeded to indulge in a level of 'slander' that would have been outlawed on any respectable forum - unfettered as they were and are by aby reasonable application of moderation. By contrast my protest was FAR from a TIRADE. It was merely articulate.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 12:27:39 PMI have over the past few weeks looked at other sites and threads going back to your COP17 circuit gleaning data for a replication. It seems the battle between you and many others has some very lengthy roots. I fully disagree with the need for anyone to use the abusive language that so many of those threads (and even this one) seem to erode and collapse into. I do not fully understand why tempers are apparently lost or why such abuse is allowed by moderators or site hosts, however, I am not here to moderate attitudes or get involved in long standing battles between anyone. If such abuse is ever directed towards me, I will excercise my right to just walk away.
I wish I had that option. I cannot indulge any sense of personal injury - because the cause is too important. And if I were to 'walk away' then all would be lost. And that most certainly would NOT be in the interests of over unity nor science nor the good of our planet. My pride, unfortunately - must be the victim. But that's a small price to pay.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 12:27:39 PMAlthough I enjoy a good discussion, I have no desire to become involved in emotional arguments with or between anyone, and this post of mine is exactly the type of post I have no further interest in creating,. It involves a discussion very far from anything of a technical nature or interest.
If your interest is purely in science and in technical discussions then may I impose on you to refrain from those multiple implications of incompetence which are insulting, inappropriate, and - on the whole - utterly inaccurate. I am well aware of my weaknesses. I am also well aware of my strengths. And the understanding relating to the flow of current is certainly NOT one of my weaknesses.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2012, 05:40:43 PM
picowatt -
Regarding the flow of current through the function generator - here's what you ACTUALLY wrote.I take it that you're arguing that the positive bias from the function generator (FG) that's applied to the gate of Q2 enables a flow of current from the battery supply source? This current flow then passes through the FG probe. Then it passes out of the ground terminal of that probe to the source rail of the battery supply. Or to put it as Poynty Point prefers - to the battery's negative terminal? Therefore does the battery REMAIN connected. And therefore is there no significance in that oscillation. Is that your argument? Because then, the short answer is 'NO'. It is not possible. So WHY should I need to 'understand it'?
Then you continue - in that same post...IF the gate at Q2 allowed any current from the battery supply to pass through the FG probes and to its ground terminal then it would also need to be passing a current from the battery that would reflect above zero. In effect - either Q1 or Q2 would be continually ON. Therefore the current sensing resistor (CSR) (NOT CVR as TK keeps putting it)) would NEVER record a voltage less than zero. At best it would would show a small fluctuation at the point at which the signal changes to apply a positive bias first at Q1 and then at Q2. Which then may result in that voltage trending to zero. But it would never CROSS zero. EVER. Whereas, in point of FACT what we see is that when the signal transfers - then the voltage across the CSR ACTUALLY swings to a NEGATIVE voltage. Unless, of course, you're arguing that the battery is now discharging a current from the DRAIN rail as an applied negative voltage. Perhaps? In which case we do, indeed, have extraordinary batteries. And we would also need to have rather EXTRAORDINARY transistors. Because then they would also need the rather improbable property of enabling an entirely IMPOSSIBLE negative current from the battery Drain rail. And all this notwithstanding the applied positive signal at the gate of Q2. So. Here's my answer. NO. It is not MY 'lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates'. And if it's not mine is it perhaps your own lack of understanding? I'm sure you won't consider the suggestion insulting, as you were well disposed to apply it to me.
So again. When you presume to write this...rather - I put it to you that one 'hopes' that it is YOU who would have had a better understanding. The more so as you are 'posing' - if not as an expert - as a competent engineer in the analysis of current flow. Certainly you went to some pains to advise us all that a person of your standing could simply 'read' all that he needed to 'read' from an oscilloscope trace. Why then are you NOT seeing this? Why do you NOT know how the voltage across the CSR would resolve IF, indeed, the battery was discharging current through the Gate of Q2? Bear in mind picowatt. I'm the amateur. Yet even I know this. And I can't comment about our readers. But I certainly know that not you, nor TK, nor MileHigh, nor Farmhand, nor PhiChaser has mentioned this. WHY? Are you relying on our readers' ignorance? Are you assuming an entire lack of intelligence in everyone who engages here - directly or indirectly? Or are you even aware of the ACTUAL 'thing' that we're pointing to? WHAT? Because whichever way one reads these statements - in the final analysis if you ARE aware of these points, then it is nothing short of insulting. Or had you simply overlooked this? It can only be one or the other. So. Do let us know.
./...
Rosemary,
I read the very first paragraph you wrote, and it is again nothing but a twisting of my words and further demonstration that you must not read what is written or twist words as a tool for arguing. I never once discussed a positive voltage applied to the source in the post you reference. Yet again, you claim that to be what I ACTUALLY wrote (you're emphasis). Again, when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2, Q2 is biased on and current flows thru Q2 and the FG. I have said it several times and yet you continue to want to twist it into something else. If you do not understand what I am writing or how a function generator works, by all means feel free to ask and DISCUSS (my emphasis), but please do not tell me what I am ACTUALLY saying or put words in my mouth. It is rude, disrespectful, and not at all professional.
Its a wonderful day outside and I really do not feel like playing word games or seeing my words twisted about right now. Assuming the rest of your posts are similar to your very first paragraph, I choose to read no more of your posts at this time.
Have a nice day, I am...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 24, 2012, 04:56:51 PM
OK....sorry about the confusion earlier. I misread the timebase on Fig 4 for a minute.
The answer is "yes, pretty much". The similarity at slower timebase settings during pulsating drive with negative gate pulses I've shown lots of times including above.
Here's a shot showing the similarity to Fig4:
Timebase 1 microsecond per division showing the higher frequency of just under 2 MHz.
A channel (lower) is the voltage across the CVR at 2 volts per division, B channel (upper) is the voltage at Q2 source or FG+ as I prefer to call it at 5 v/div (I couldn't get a stable trigger at 10 V/div. Zero references are the closest graticule line to the grey marks on the right side of the bezel.
TK,
OK, now we're talking. Timebase, zero ref, and V/div included. Were these shots taken with the 10R and pot for a bias source?
As you can see, there are little nuances on Rosemary's CH3 traces (FIG4) that are absent. Her circuit demonstrates several plateaus that yours does not. I would again suggest using the FG or pwr supply and 50R to see what if any differences show up. Also, alternate scope shots with the bias supply ground (or FG gnd) tied to either end of the CSR may help weed out the differences between the CH3 trace in FIG4 and FIG5 of the first paper. Keep in mind that some of the FIG4 plateaus may be related to the Q1 issue indicated by FIG3.
PW
.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 24, 2012, 07:37:07 PM
.
Groundloop,
Your very nicely done drawings will hopefully enlighten.
I do have a couple of conditions to add. When the FG is -12volts, the voltage at the source of the MOSFET will only pull to -3 to -4 volts (the threshold/turn on voltage of the MOSFET), so the drop across the 50R will be closer to 8 to 9 volts and not the full 12 volts. The current/wattage dissipation then needs to be recalculated accordingly.
Also, during the oscillation, the MOSFET will be cycling between an increase and decrease current, so the bias current will modulate as well.
I greatly appreciate your time in drawing and posting this. It is an excellent and concise representation of how the function generator is being utilized, and of the current flow through the function generator and the MOSFET.
Thanks!
PW
Quote from: Groundloop on April 24, 2012, 07:37:07 PM
.
Bingo.
Well done.
Unfortunately some people still deny that the FG can function as a power source or allow current from the main battery to flow through it, despite several demonstrations from me, the technical analyses by .99, MileHigh, PicoWatt and even Stefan Hartmann himself in addition to technical publications from Agilent and Tek...... yet she still denies it and calls us all incompetent because we believe such an idiotic thing to be true.
No... she doesn't make personal attacks at all, does she.
And she makes it even worse, by admitting that she's a rank clueless ignorant amateur, so how much stupider WE must be since we believe so many things that Rosemary has taught us aren't true at all.
Like Quantum Electrodynamics, standard physics, electrical power measurements, and the operation of mosfets. All these things, that we have been using for all these years to do things like design digital oscilloscopes and video cameras and spacecraft... all these things are false, because Rosemary has a "thesis" that needs proving.
Oh.. and there's this:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=current+viewing+resistor&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI (http://www.bing.com/search?q=current+viewing+resistor&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI)
(Another bogus claim of RA easily refuted, yet another thing that she is wrong about but won't admit or correct.)
And you know what... I could call the CVR "Charlie" or a Red Elephant or the Rock of Ages Incarnate... and it would still make the SAME READINGS on an oscilloscope.
.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 07:58:33 PM
Groundloop,
Your very nicely done drawings will hopefully enlighten.
I do have a couple of conditions to add. When the FG is -12volts, the voltage at the source of the MOSFET will only pull to -3 to -4 volts (the threshold/turn on voltage of the MOSFET), so the drop across the 50R will be closer to 8 to 9 volts and not the full 12 volts. The current/wattage dissipation then needs to be recalculated accordingly.
Also, during the oscillation, the MOSFET will be cycling between an increase and decrease current, so the bias current will modulate as well.
I greatly appreciate your time in drawing and posting this. It is an excellent and concise representation of how the function generator is being utilized, and of the current flow through the function generator and the MOSFET.
Thanks!
PW
PW,
Yes you are right, but I want to keep it simple.
GL.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:14:05 PM
TK,
OK, now we're talking. Timebase, zero ref, and V/div included.
Except for the jokes, don't I always mention these in the videos and the scope shots I post? As I said before I don't always mention the timebase, since RA's are all over the place and the pulsation frequency doesn't seem to matter and we know that my oscs are around 2 MHz. But the other parameters.... well, I do try. If you point out one where I forgot to do so, but the information is pertinent, please let me know and I'l "fill in the blanks".
QuoteWere these shots taken with the 10R and pot for a bias source?
Technically yes, but the pot is fried and needs to be all the way against the stop to get out of the burned spot, so the PS voltage setting is doing the regulation. And these are also including the 50R in series as well. As I indicated earlier, I think that the Elenco has started putting some fuzz on the power it's putting out, or perhaps a mosfet is starting to go bad, because the waveforms I'm getting since yesterday have seemed different, with more HF components.
Quote
As you can see, there are little nuances on Rosemary's CH3 traces (FIG4) that are absent. Her circuit demonstrates several plateaus that yours does not.
Uh-huh. And her trace is presumably coming from the function generator signalling the circuit to switch, whereas my trace is coming from a DC bias supply held constantly on; and there is also the fact that the bandwidth of the HP180 is under 100 MHz, especially with the probes I've got.
QuoteI would again suggest using the FG or pwr supply and 50R to see what if any differences show up. Also, alternate scope shots with the bias supply ground (or FG gnd) tied to either end of the CSR may help weed out the differences between the CH3 trace in FIG4 and FIG5 of the first paper. Keep in mind that some of the FIG4 plateaus may be related to the Q1 issue indicated by FIG3.
PW
Your second-to-last sentence confuses me. Are you saying that "my" traces are different than the RA CH3 traces Fig4 and Fig5, or are you saying that Fig4 and Fig5 are different from each other?
Of course they are different from each other.... one is at 1 microsecond per division horizontally showing the oscillation region only (note the trigger time offset at the top: the yellow triangle pointing off screen left and the -5.0000 MilliSecond figure at the top) and the other is showing the pulsations at a much longer timebase setting of 500 microseconds per division with no trigger time offset. In the FIG 4 we are looking at only that part of the oscillation that is represented by the blue fuzz at the bottom of the pulsing rectangular waveform shown 500 times more slowly in FIG5.
I must be confused about something again. It looks like you are asking me to make the same oscillations as hers in fine detail, but with different circuitry and device settings.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 24, 2012, 08:05:55 PM
PW,
Yes you are right, but I want to keep it simple.
GL.
GL,
Understood.
Again, excellent depictions!
Thanks,
PW
Quote from: Groundloop on April 24, 2012, 08:02:53 PM
. (DIagram showing doubled mosfets)
And also some of the FG's power is also dissipated in the mosfets themselves, isn't it? Or rather, there is a total power made up of the total resistance subjected to a total voltage so a total current flows. Both the battery and the FG or other source contribute to the total voltage, and thus to the total current. This current passes through the mosfet(s) both by the normal drain-source conductance but also by the various capacitances as well as the body diode, depending on the current's phase. So the mosfets are dissipating power, and the load is dissipating power. But how to assign the proportion of the contribution of each source to the dissipation? If the mosfets dissipate 30 Watts, how much is coming from the batteries and how much from the bias source? And... ditto question for the load.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 24, 2012, 08:22:09 PM
Except for the jokes, don't I always mention these in the videos and the scope shots I post? As I said before I don't always mention the timebase, since RA's are all over the place and the pulsation frequency doesn't seem to matter and we know that my oscs are around 2 MHz. But the other parameters.... well, I do try. If you point out one where I forgot to do so, but the information is pertinent, please let me know and I'l "fill in the blanks". Technically yes, but the pot is fried and needs to be all the way against the stop to get out of the burned spot, so the PS voltage setting is doing the regulation. And these are also including the 50R in series as well. As I indicated earlier, I think that the Elenco has started putting some fuzz on the power it's putting out, or perhaps a mosfet is starting to go bad, because the waveforms I'm getting since yesterday have seemed different, with more HF components. Uh-huh. And her trace is presumably coming from the function generator signalling the circuit to switch, whereas my trace is coming from a DC bias supply held constantly on; and there is also the fact that the bandwidth of the HP180 is under 100 MHz, especially with the probes I've got.
Your second-to-last sentence confuses me. Are you saying that "my" traces are different than the RA CH3 traces Fig4 and Fig5, or are you saying that Fig4 and Fig5 are different from each other?
Of course they are different from each other.... one is at 1 microsecond per division horizontally showing the oscillation region only (note the trigger time offset at the top: the yellow triangle pointing off screen left and the -5.0000 MilliSecond figure at the top) and the other is showing the pulsations at a much longer timebase setting of 500 microseconds per division with no trigger time offset. In the FIG 4 we are looking at only that part of the oscillation that is represented by the blue fuzz at the bottom of the pulsing rectangular waveform shown 500 times more slowly in FIG5.
I must be confused about something again. It looks like you are asking me to make the same oscillations as hers in fine detail, but with different circuitry and device settings.
TK,
Yes, you always give the required data. I thought your scope shot with your "drawing" on the screen was a scope shot in response to my question regarding the signal at the source, and I saw no supportive settings data. My intended humor was a bit dry I suppose.
I was referring to the difference in the overall negative value on RA's traces between FIG4 and FIG5. You'll note that the CH3 trace in FIG5 appears to be more negative than the same trace in FIG3/4. Possibly as I said, it indicates that the FG ground was at opposite ends of the CSR in the two tests.
The little nuances missing may be 'scope BW related as you say.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 24, 2012, 08:33:57 PM
And also some of the FG's power is also dissipated in the mosfets themselves, isn't it? Or rather, there is a total power made up of the total resistance subjected to a total voltage so a total current flows. Both the battery and the FG or other source contribute to the total voltage, and thus to the total current. This current passes through the mosfet(s) both by the normal drain-source conductance but also by the various capacitances as well as the body diode, depending on the current's phase. So the mosfets are dissipating power, and the load is dissipating power. But how to assign the proportion of the contribution of each source to the dissipation? If the mosfets dissipate 30 Watts, how much is coming from the batteries and how much from the bias source? And... ditto question for the load.
TK,
Yes you are right. Again, I want to keep it simple.
(You will use power to charge the Gate capacitance of the two MOSFET etc.)
GL.
TK,
Do you have any opinions regarding the fork mount used on the Celestron CPC deluxe series?
Also, any experience with or info regarding the use of FASTAR optics?
PW
TK:
Thank you for the kind offer for the astronomical viewing one day. I have been to Texas many times and you never know when I will go back. If I change jobs one day and get a big territory that includes Texas then I may take you up on your offer.
All:
Like I said a while back, discussing the circuit with Rosemary is like WWII and the Allies fighting their way up the boot of Italy. It's a hard battle for every square inch of territory. Groundloop very nice drawing and perhaps when Rosemary sees that she will "get it." It's apparent that she has constructed a belief system about the reason for the negative current flow and I suspect that she believes this "remarkable" fact is due to the zipons and the "binding material."
TK especially and others.... I am sure you are a fan of this series of drawings.... I suppose it applies to all of us one way or the other! :-X I will look around and may find a few others for a laugh or two.
MileHigh
The revenge of....
Quote from: MileHigh on April 24, 2012, 10:17:10 PM
The revenge of....
Hello MileHigh,
Are those self portraits? Those two pictures? I thought they looked rather 'rabbit' like. I rather expected you to look somewhat more 'human'. Are you actually turning into a naked version of the 'mad hatter'? Or is there some other point that you're making?
Sad lack of self esteem would be my opinion - for what it's worth. Perhaps that's why you're inclined to occupy the upper, upper echelons of our stratosphere. It puts you out of reach. But remarkably candid. Golly. I never realised you were promoting yourself as a genius. I wouldn't bother quite frankly. Clearly you're not. Any more than am I. I merely have a functional intelligence. But unfortunately there's no evidence of it while I continue to post on this thread. LOL (again laugh out loud - not 'gosh I'm anxious' - because that would be GIA)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 09:06:00 PM
TK,
Do you have any opinions regarding the fork mount used on the Celestron CPC deluxe series?
I am liking Celestron more and more. The CPC series has a good reputation. My opinion: they are heavier than they look in the pictures! Also any alt-az mount will suffer in long-exposure AP due to field rotation, but processing software can even handle that to a certain extent. The CPCs can be elevated on a wedge for polar-equatorial use to get rid of field rotation, and the Celestron tripods are good, and you do need the anti-vibration pads for the tripod (sold separately of course.) I've only personally seen them at the SALSA meetings and their owners seem happy with them. I think they are pretty neat all around, and the Celestron handset software is easy to use and easily flashed to new versions as they issue. Still, for me a German equatorial mount was necessary, and the CGEM is so beautiful and performs so well for the cost that the choice was easy. There are lots of aftermarket upgrades for the CGEM too.
Still... I chose a Meade for my first scope, because portability was very high on my list at the time and the ETX125 fit the quality requirement first, the portability second and the price third. I needed to be able to lug the scope, mount and tripod around on the subway or bus! Now that's not so much of an issue; I can get the whole rig into my old Cavalier and still have room for the dog. Not much else... but there is room for her.
Quote
Also, any experience with or info regarding the use of FASTAR optics?
PW
The system is called "Hyperstar" now I think. I've got no personal experience but it was a factor in my choice of the EdgeHD Celestron scope. The Hyperstar adapter itself is pricey and I probably never will be able to afford one now, but if I ever can ... then that makes the scope something like f/3 with a very wide field of view for AP. It's kind of a hassle to remove the secondary mirror and install the Hyperstar adapter, I understand, and then when you replace the secondary after your imaging session of course you have to re-collimate, but for a former portable Dobs owner that's a routine chore anyway and will bring back fond memories I'm sure.
There probably isn't a need for GPS...you have a cellphone probably and you aren't travelling to random locations every time you set up, are you?... and I've heard that sometimes the GPS gives trouble, both on Meades and Celestrons. It only takes a couple of minutes to manually align anyway.
http://www.celestron.com/astronomy/telescopes/celestron-cpc-deluxe-925-hd.html (http://www.celestron.com/astronomy/telescopes/celestron-cpc-deluxe-925-hd.html)
Yum.... But consider the weight. The 9.25 Edge HD is as heavy as I want to lift by myself. I don't think I could handle an 11 inch and the 14 definitely no question takes two people to set up. Also... the regular black tube SCTs in the 8" and 9.25" models have 1.25 inch optical backs and the bigger ones 2 inches. But the EdgeHD uses a 2" optical back also on the 9.25. That was the "sold" point for me, since I'm doing heavy AP much of the time.
ETA: Another thing to be considered is that the CPC mount will only be compatible with the telescope that came with it, mostly. But if you get a German equatorial (my choice today would be the CGEM DX) you can use any scope on it, so if you later on decide to get a refractor... you have already got the mount for it. The CGEM DX can even hold all three scopes at once with a tandem bar: Refractor, reflector and guidescope.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 08:35:31 PM
TK,
Yes, you always give the required data. I thought your scope shot with your "drawing" on the screen was a scope shot in response to my question regarding the signal at the source, and I saw no supportive settings data. My intended humor was a bit dry I suppose.
I was referring to the difference in the overall negative value on RA's traces between FIG4 and FIG5. You'll note that the CH3 trace in FIG5 appears to be more negative than the same trace in FIG3/4. Possibly as I said, it indicates that the FG ground was at opposite ends of the CSR in the two tests.
The little nuances missing may be 'scope BW related as you say.
PW
The difference in apparent baseline between 4 and 5 may just be a matter of vertical resolution at the different timescales, or it could be a component issue, or the difference in ground position. Since Ainslie has told us that the one diagram is correct (even though the demo wasn't done that way) I've just been using the "wrong" position on the transistor side of the CVR. I might be able to resolve some difference on the scope; I'll check tomorrow.
EDIT: sorry, I got confused there between the "FG ground" and the scope probe reference. I like to keep all probe grounds at the same reference. If one is on one side of the CVR and one is on the other side, there will be current flowing between the two ground leads, even with just a 0.25R, and I don't like that.
I'll do it to check the effects on the trace though, with only a single channel.
The Fig3 and Fig4 shots were evidently taken within moments of each other before anybody fiddled with trace positioning (offset), and so it may be presumed that the experimental setup was the same. Fig5, though... who knows.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 25, 2012, 12:38:04 AM
I am liking Celestron more and more. The CPC series has a good reputation. My opinion: they are heavier than they look in the pictures! Also any alt-az mount will suffer in long-exposure AP due to field rotation, but processing software can even handle that to a certain extent. The CPCs can be elevated on a wedge for polar-equatorial use to get rid of field rotation, and the Celestron tripods are good, and you do need the anti-vibration pads for the tripod (sold separately of course.) I've only personally seen them at the SALSA meetings and their owners seem happy with them. I think they are pretty neat all around, and the Celestron handset software is easy to use and easily flashed to new versions as they issue. Still, for me a German equatorial mount was necessary, and the CGEM is so beautiful and performs so well for the cost that the choice was easy. There are lots of aftermarket upgrades for the CGEM too.
Still... I chose a Meade for my first scope, because portability was very high on my list at the time and the ETX125 fit the quality requirement first, the portability second and the price third. I needed to be able to lug the scope, mount and tripod around on the subway or bus! Now that's not so much of an issue; I can get the whole rig into my old Cavalier and still have room for the dog. Not much else... but there is room for her.The system is called "Hyperstar" now I think. I've got no personal experience but it was a factor in my choice of the EdgeHD Celestron scope. The Hyperstar adapter itself is pricey and I probably never will be able to afford one now, but if I ever can ... then that makes the scope something like f/3 with a very wide field of view for AP. It's kind of a hassle to remove the secondary mirror and install the Hyperstar adapter, I understand, and then when you replace the secondary after your imaging session of course you have to re-collimate, but for a former portable Dobs owner that's a routine chore anyway and will bring back fond memories I'm sure.
There probably isn't a need for GPS...you have a cellphone probably and you aren't travelling to random locations every time you set up, are you?... and I've heard that sometimes the GPS gives trouble, both on Meades and Celestrons. It only takes a couple of minutes to manually align anyway.
http://www.celestron.com/astronomy/telescopes/celestron-cpc-deluxe-925-hd.html (http://www.celestron.com/astronomy/telescopes/celestron-cpc-deluxe-925-hd.html)
Yum.... But consider the weight. The 9.25 Edge HD is as heavy as I want to lift by myself. I don't think I could handle an 11 inch and the 14 definitely no question takes two people to set up. Also... the regular black tube SCTs in the 8" and 9.25" models have 1.25 inch optical backs and the bigger ones 2 inches. But the EdgeHD uses a 2" optical back also on the 9.25. That was the "sold" point for me, since I'm doing heavy AP much of the time.
ETA: Another thing to be considered is that the CPC mount will only be compatible with the telescope that came with it, mostly. But if you get a German equatorial (my choice today would be the CGEM DX) you can use any scope on it, so if you later on decide to get a refractor... you have already got the mount for it. The CGEM DX can even hold all three scopes at once with a tandem bar: Refractor, reflector and guidescope.
TK,
The link you posted was just what I was looking at. But I too was wondering if I would be happier with the GEM. Possibly go for twin fork and wedge now, and then add the GEM later. I suspect the fork would be lighter for transport, and then I would have both (eventually).
I think I saw F1.8 listed using the Hyperstar. That's fast!
PW
That 23 mm eyepiece it comes with is _nice_. Big and heavy, but nice and bright and good flatness out to the edges, retractable eyecup too. With the 9.25 and the 23mm, you get a TFOV just bigger than half a degree... it frames the full moon with a little to spare around the edges. That was another thing about Celestron I liked: the "optical tube assemblies" come complete with dovetail mounting plate, diagonal, finderscope, and that nice eyepiece. Other manufacturers just give you the tube itself if you get the "OTA" without a mount, generally. I was lucky even to get tube rings with the WO, I had to buy the dovetail and diagonal and red dot finder separately and there was no question about eyepieces with the deal... fergeddaboudit.
Here's a shot of Aristarchus I did with the EdgeHD 9.25 and the Celestron NexImage webcam imager, which is roughly about equivalent to a 12 or 15 mm EP. This is the full frame, no cropping or other enlargement, just stacked from a bunch of short exposures and processed with RegiStax and PixInsightLE.
Hello Groundloop,
Quote from: Groundloop on April 24, 2012, 08:43:45 PM
TK, Yes you are right. Again, I want to keep it simple.(You will use power to charge the Gate capacitance of the two MOSFET etc.)
Your input here is appropriate and rendered with your typical genius at economy of expression. Thank you. And thankfully too, you're talking about the technology - which is a rare thing on this thread. It is my opinion that you're over simplifying. And there are considerable variations between our oscillation and a Colpitt oscillation. But perhaps YOU can explain the questions that I put to picowatt? This would be appreciated - especially as picowatt simply took umbrage. Still not sure why. Perhaps he didn't want to address those questions. In any event - they apply to 'precisely' the argument that that picowatt was promoting. So. Let me see if I can repost that and then please let me know what you think.
Here is that post with editing applied to highlight the points made.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2012, 05:40:43 PM
picowatt - I take it that you're arguing that the positive bias from the function generator (FG) that's applied to the gate of Q2 enables a flow of current from the battery supply source? This current flow then passes through the FG probe. Then it passes out of the ground terminal of that probe to the source rail of the battery supply. Or to put it as Poynty Point prefers - to the battery's negative terminal? Therefore does the battery REMAIN connected. And therefore is there no significance in that oscillation. Is that your argument? Because then, the short answer is 'NO'. It is not possible. So WHY should I need to 'understand it'?...
IF the gate at Q2 allowed any current from the battery supply to pass through the FG probes and to its ground terminal then it would also need to be passing a current from the battery that would reflect above zero. In effect - either Q1 or Q2 would be continually ON. Therefore the current sensing resistor (CSR) (NOT CVR as TK keeps putting it)) would NEVER record a voltage less than zero. At best it would would show a small fluctuation at the point at which the signal changes to apply a positive bias first at Q1 and then at Q2. Which then may result in that voltage trending to zero. But it would never CROSS zero. EVER. Whereas, in point of FACT what we see is that when the signal transfers - then the voltage across the CSR ACTUALLY swings to a NEGATIVE voltage. Unless, of course, you're arguing that the battery is now discharging a current from the DRAIN rail as an applied negative voltage. Perhaps? In which case we do, indeed, have extraordinary batteries. And we would also need to have rather EXTRAORDINARY transistors...
You will notice here - Groundloop - that I'm highlighting this as it's also your own argument. Your annotations state 'every time the function generator goes (to a) negative pulse then you add the 12 volts to the circuit'. Effectively you're saying that when the negative charge is applied to the Gate of Q1 then the input from the FG is in series with the battery supply. Which in terms of standard predictions would add those applied 12 volts to the sum of supply voltage - those plus/minus 2 to 3 watts. If this was the fact then the voltage across the current sensing resistor (CSR) would show a positive voltage that would thereby increase by the sum of the applied voltage from the FG. Your see this I trust? Effectively and correctly, you're showing that at this transitional phase of the switching cycle, those two supplies now fall in series. Which is correct. Now. Bear in mind that the CSR is also directly in series with the negative rail of the battery supply source. Therefore it will show the voltage bias - whichever way it runs. And it will also thereby reflect the polarity of that applied voltage and the consequent current flow. Being in series with the supply at this point in the switching cycle, then it would also be applying a positive voltage to the battery which would, under all standard predictions, result in a decrease of the supply voltage. However. During THIS precise phase of the oscillation - when the signal supply is effectively in series with the battery supply - as you've shown it - then the voltage across the CSR is NEGATIVE. Which would 'belie' the addition of any positive voltage applied or 'input' from the FG. The relationship between our oscillation and Colpitt's or even Hartley's - is only superficial. We all show an oscillation. But Colpitt and Hartley rely on the use of a single transistor and parasitic oscillations are evident in their results where both can trend to a 'chaotic' condition. Our own oscillations NEVER become chaotic until we operate it in a 'booster converter mode'. And more importantly - nor do they result in the 'gains' that are measured and evident over our apparatus.
Please let me know if I've misunderstood you.
Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie
Guys - here's an interesting admission...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 24, 2012, 08:22:09 PM
I must be confused about something again. It looks like you are asking me to make the same oscillations as hers in fine detail, but with different circuitry and device settings.
I thought that much was a 'given'. Surely? That's where this 'replication exercise' becomes a parody and has always been a parody. And very entertaining it is too. Indeed.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 02:15:08 AM
Guys - here's an interesting admission...
I thought that much was a 'given'. Surely? That's where this 'replication exercise' becomes a parody and has always been a parody. And very entertaining it is too. Indeed.
Regards,
Rosemary
There you go again you idiot. You once again are misstating and mischaracterising that discussion. You are right about one thing though: you are being parodied and mocked. But you are wrong about another thing: I am using the EXACT circuit you claim to have used, and I am using the EXACT components you claim to have used, with the exception of the load and the clipleads. If you claim that your overunity and battery charging depend on that exact water heater load.... then say so right out loud. And I am making the same waveforms and the same "negative" average power computations. What is so hard to understand about that? That qualifies as a "REPLICATION" in just about anyone's book...except yours, because you know one thing: you cannot acknowledge my work because you KNOW that I can and will show that Tar Baby is NOT overunity, because you can't control the testing or the interpretation.
Once again: I OFFER TAR BABY TO ANYONE qualified that Stefan will designate, to be tested ALONGSIDE YOUR DEVICE, in the same way and analysed in the same way, and I claim that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD. Just like. You dare not meet this offer and you dare not make a similar offer yourself: there will never be any independent testing of your device at all. And even the tests you claim to be preparing won't be the right tests, this we know.
What about the phases, Rosemary? What about the One Joule = One Watt Per Second, Rosemary? What about my power measurements that show the same negative power as yours, Rosemary? What about thinking about what Groundloop ACTUALLY said, not how you twist his words, Rosemary? What about your continuing blather and insults, Rosemary? What about your "bereavement" and all the work you should be doing now instead of cluttering up this thread with your distortions and lies, Rosemary?
What about correcting your many errors and retracting the conclusions based on them? What about simply admitting you were wrong about:
My color coded wires, for example? You ranted and criticised me for not having color coded wires..... What about the use of the initials CVR? You make an insulting comment about that... and I refute you with four million references to manufacturers and users of CVRs, definitions, mentions of them... you are WRONG once again. Will you correct even this mistake?
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
Got that, Bubba?
Rosemary,
In Groungloop's drawing "wraosc.gif" of reply #732, the schematic is a simplified representation that is the equivalent of your Q2 array. The battery and resistor depicted in the source of the MOSFET is the functional equivalent of the function generator.
In the left drawing, the source of the MOSFET is biased negative with respect to its gate, so the MOSFET turns on and current flows from the main battery positive, thru the load resistor, thru the MOSFET drain to its source, thru the 50 ohm resistor, thru the bias battery and returns to the main battery negative.
When the polarity of the battery is reversed, as in the image on the right, the MOSFET turns off and current flow ceases.
Again, the depicted battery and 50 ohm resistor at the source of the MOSFET are the functional equivalent of your function generator. The left image depicts the period when the FG output is negative, the right image depicts the period when the FG output is positive.
PW
picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:03:05 PM
Again, when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2, Q2 is biased on and current flows thru Q2 and the FG. I have said it several times and yet you continue to want to twist it into something else. If you do not understand what I am writing or how a function generator works, by all means feel free to ask and DISCUSS (my emphasis), but please do not tell me what I am ACTUALLY saying or put words in my mouth. It is rude, disrespectful, and not at all professional.
I am not sure where we're missing each other. I most certainly am ALSO referring to this statement. 'when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2, Q2 is biased on and the current flows through Q2 and the FG.' I am countering this. IF the FG is applying a negative voltage to the source of Q2, then it reflect as a positive voltage across the CSR. That voltage would therefore resolve as a positive voltage during both switching cycles. So. It is self-evidently NOT what is happening.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:03:05 PMIts a wonderful day outside and I really do not feel like playing word games or seeing my words twisted about right now. Assuming the rest of your posts are similar to your very first paragraph, I choose to read no more of your posts at this time.
I am sorry to read this. Because I'm arguing a point that you refuse to address? Is that really in the best interest of science? Or of coming to some kind of resolution related to our technology?
Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose
picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 02:39:14 AM
Rosemary,
In Groungloop's drawing "wraosc.gif" of reply #732, the schematic is a simplified representation that is the equivalent of your Q2 array. The battery and resistor depicted in the source of the MOSFET is the functional equivalent of the function generator.
In the left drawing, the source of the MOSFET is biased negative with respect to its gate, so the MOSFET turns on and current flows from the main battery positive, thru the load resistor, thru the MOSFET drain to its source, thru the 50 ohm resistor, thru the bias battery and returns to the main battery negative.
When the polarity of the battery is reversed, as in the image on the right, the MOSFET turns off and current flow ceases.
Again, the depicted battery and 50 ohm resistor at the source of the MOSFET are the functional equivalent of your function generator. The left image depicts the period when the FG output is negative, the right image depicts the period when the FG output is positive.
PW
I KNOW this. I've addressed it. The voltage across the current sensing resistor BELIES this.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Do you see in Groundloop's drawing that I referenced (reply#732) how in the drawing on the left, the MOSFET is turned on and current flows?
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 25, 2012, 02:36:10 AM
There you go again you idiot. You once again are misstating and mischaracterising that discussion. You are right about one thing though: you are being parodied and mocked. But you are wrong about another thing: I am using the EXACT circuit you claim to have used, and I am using the EXACT components you claim to have used, with the exception of the load and the clipleads. If you claim that your overunity and battery charging depend on that exact water heater load.... then say so right out loud. And I am making the same waveforms and the same "negative" average power computations. What is so hard to understand about that? That qualifies as a "REPLICATION" in just about anyone's book...except yours, because you know one thing: you cannot acknowledge my work because you KNOW that I can and will show that Tar Baby is NOT overunity, because you can't control the testing or the interpretation.
Once again: I OFFER TAR BABY TO ANYONE qualified that Stefan will designate, to be tested ALONGSIDE YOUR DEVICE, in the same way and analysed in the same way, and I claim that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD. Just like. You dare not meet this offer and you dare not make a similar offer yourself: there will never be any independent testing of your device at all. And even the tests you claim to be preparing won't be the right tests, this we know.
What about the phases, Rosemary? What about the One Joule = One Watt Per Second, Rosemary? What about my power measurements that show the same negative power as yours, Rosemary? What about thinking about what Groundloop ACTUALLY said, not how you twist his words, Rosemary? What about your continuing blather and insults, Rosemary? What about your "bereavement" and all the work you should be doing now instead of cluttering up this thread with your distortions and lies, Rosemary?
What about correcting your many errors and retracting the conclusions based on them? What about simply admitting you were wrong about:
My color coded wires, for example? You ranted and criticised me for not having color coded wires..... What about the use of the initials CVR? You make an insulting comment about that... and I refute you with four million references to manufacturers and users of CVRs, definitions, mentions of them... you are WRONG once again. Will you correct even this mistake?
Got that, Bubba?
Are you losing your control there? TK? Again?
::) :-*
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 02:48:22 AM
Rosemary,
Do you see in Groundloop's drawing that I referenced (reply#732) how in the drawing on the left, the MOSFET is turned on and current flows?
PW
Picowatt - again. Spare me the rather fatuous requirements you have to point out the 'bleeding obvious' because the inference is that I don't understand. Of course I understand Goundloop's point. He is showing us that at at the 'on' period at Q1 the FG supply is in parallel to the circuit supply. During the off period of Q1 the FG supply is in series with the battery supply source. Effectively therefore he's showing us that the FG is inputting energy during the period that the switch is off. I counter that argument - both of yours and his. If the FG was putting in current during the 'off period' then it would be evident over the CSR's. It's not. On the contrary - the precise oscillation phase at this point shows an entirely negative voltage.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 02:56:04 AM
Picowatt - again. Spare me the rather fatuous requirements you have to point out the 'bleeding obvious' because the inference is that I don't understand. Of course I understand Goundloop's point. He is showing us that at at the 'on' period at Q1 the FG supply is in parallel to the circuit supply. During the off period of Q1 the FG supply is in series with the battery supply source. Effectively therefore he's showing us that the FG is inputting energy during the period that the switch is off. I counter that argument - both of yours and his. If the FG was putting in current during the 'off period' then it would be evident over the CSR's. It's not. On the contrary - the precise oscillation phase at this point shows an entirely negative voltage.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I am not discussing whether current is being supplied by the FG or not.
I am only wanting to now if you understand how the MOSFET is being turned on in the left drawing, and current flows as I stated, and in the right drawing the MOSFET is turned off, and current flow ceases.
Simply yes or no, do you understand or not?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 03:02:02 AM
Rosemary,
I am not discussing whether current is being supplied by the FG or not.
I am only wanting to now if you understand how the MOSFET is being turned on in the left drawing, and current flows as I stated, and in the right drawing the MOSFET is turned off, and current flow ceases.
Simply yes or no, do you understand or not?
PW
I FULLY understand your argument. It's been discussed at length over a period of 2 years by ALL OF US. The problem is NOT my understanding your point but that you have no CLUE what it is that we're pointing out. Either that or your refuse to acknowledge our point.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 03:04:55 AM
I FULLY understand your argument. It's been discussed at length over a period of 2 years by ALL OF US. The problem is NOT my understanding your point but that you have no CLUE what it is that we're pointing out. Either that or your refuse to acknowledge our point.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I will indeed progress to your other points, once I know we have a common knowledge to build those discussions upon.
So again, do you understand how the MOSFET in Groundloop's drawing is being turned on (left dwg) and off (rightdwg) as the polarity of the battery in series with the 50 ohm resistor changes?
Can we agree on this?
PW
Rosemary,
And this is not an "argument" as you say. This relates only to very basic DC electronics and the fully defined and understood operation of a MOSFET.
So, if you want to progress with this discussion, I will stay up a bit longer and do so.
But first, and again, do you understand how the MOSFET in GL's drawing is being turned on and off, and, while on, how current flows as I described?
Simply yes or no please. If no, I will continue to focus on this point. If yes, I will move on to other points.
PW
Rosemary:
What are you, utterly lacking in imagination? Those cartoon graphics are a comment on society, a comment on the level of discussion in this thread, and a comment about you. You are the "unrecognized genius" that is still waiting to go into electronics kindergarten class and yet is too smart for the rest of us around here. As a result it's going to take about 200 postings back and forth to convince you that current flows right through the function generator, which is something that you weren't even aware of when you did your months and months of testing with the NERDs and while consulting your !EXPERTS.
Admit it Rosemary, you had no clue when you wrote up your papers that current was flowing straight through the function generator.
"The many moods of the gifted visionary: - irked - vexed - crabbed - perturbed - glum - surly - snappy - peevish - grumpy - sullen - sulky - sour - deadly." A lot of that sounds like you to me.
QuoteI thought that much was a 'given'. Surely? That's where this 'replication exercise' becomes a parody and has always been a parody. And very entertaining it is too. Indeed.
What a cheap-ass low-brow shot that was. To take something completely out of context and then cynically try to apply it to something else, and that something else isn't even true - that's scraping the bottom of the barrel, how cheap and low can you go?
TK's replication is a real and valid replication of your circuit, period. Stop insulting him and his good work and stop insulting everyone's intelligence by trying to pretend it is not. You only dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole when you do that.
Meanwhile, you won't admit that you are wrong about current flowing through a resistor and whether there is power dissipation or not. I have told you repeatedly that it has nothing to do with any phase measurement. Ahh, but you are an "unrecognized genius" and you know better, don't you Rosie Posie? That's the crux of the problem in a nutshell, isn't it? "You know better" and that's all there is to it. Surely?
Like I said before Rosemary, you are on the run and your ship is sinking. Your "genius" thoughts that it must be zipons and the "binding material wanting to go back to a balanced state" that is causing the reversal in current flow are laughable nonsense.
The batteries are discharging and supplying 100% of the energy that is heating the load resistor and the MOSFET array. That is an absolute fact which will be proven by your own testing if in fact you are competent enough to do it.
The
LEDs of DOOM and the contributors to this thread will seal the fate of your nonsensical circuit.
MileHigh
GL,
Your second paragraph in the diagram is not correct.
There will be no power added to the circuit in the scenario shown. What you have there is simply an isolated VGS bias that turns ON the right MOSFET. There isn't even a return path for the FG source, so it can't provide any power to the circuit.
Guys,
In terms of simplifying the circuit, I did this in a step-by-step fashion a year ago to date (2011-04-25) here (the discussion is also interesting, and recommended):
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283067/#msg283067 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283067/#msg283067)
See also the post above this linked one (Reply #892).
One other that is interesting:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283544/#msg283544
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Are you losing your control there? TK? Again?
::) :-*
It is you who have lost control, Ainslie.
Your "project" is out of your control and you are in fear.
You continue to make all kinds of ignorant and ridiculous statements in your flopping and flailing about, but apparently YOU DON'T EVEN REALISE that what WE have been doing here for the last WEEK is using STEFAN HARTMANN's suggested DC bias source.... WHICH
ALWAYS puts a negative voltage at the Q2 sources.
ALWAYS 100 percent of the time.
Just like your function generator does in your minutes-long negative going duty cycle pulses.
And it makes oscillations, and it makes a NEGATIVE POWER AVERAGE which is even of the same order as the NERD circuit shows under your analysis.
So where is this reflected in the oscillations on the CRV? As WE have all seen, it behaves JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM IT DOESN'T, and your NERD device will behave exactly the same way... how could it not, since it's the same components wired in the same manner?
Why don't you make a predictive hypothesis based on what you claim is the way your FG functions. "IF someone puts a FG or a negative voltage source at point X, the circuit will do Y." Then we can both test that hypothesis on our circuits. That's the way to progress, and that's exactly what you will continue to avoid: comparative and honest testing of hypotheses.
What will happen if YOU supply a 5 volt positive voltage from a battery, to the point marked "FG minus" in YOUR circut? Will it oscillate? Will it make a negative average power product? What will the CVR trace look like?
So you are talking about things that anyone anywhere can do and check for themselves.... and see that you are once again WRONG in your ridiculous assertions and claims. And all of this is a result of your own insurmountable willfull ignorance.
I am ready to demonstrate the truth of what I say NOW or at ANY TIME ANY WHERE.
I'll send my Tar Baby off to STEFAN HARTMANN whenever he lets me know that YOUR DEVICE is ALSO on the way to him for side-by-side comparisons. If you had any confidence you'd jump on this because it's an ideal way for you to finally PROVE ME WRONG. What a feather in your cap that would be. Just think.... somebody YOU trust and respect would have both our systems and can do WHATEVER THEY LIKE, as long as they do it to both systems and report the results, trying as hard as they can to PROVE ME WRONG, with absolutely no interference or theorising from me.
But deep down you know what will happen, so you will never agree to a test where you don't have control of what's done and what's analysed.
Losing control? You are grasping at straws because "your" project has been co-opted by people who know what they are doing and talking about. Just like has happened many times before, like for instance with FuzzyTomCat and Harvey.
I am still simply pointing out some more of your many errors, and I'm waiting for you to explain and retract your bogus claims and monumental errors... in a rhetorical sort of way, because I know that you will never do it.
Like this one, which you make over and over and still don't even understand.
Quote
Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
Now... either report some current experimental results, correct some of your prior egregious errors like that one, or just go out and play on the highway.
REMEMBER: Any time, anywhere, by anybody. TAR BABY IS READY. Put up.... or STFU.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2012, 09:41:08 AM
Guys,
In terms of simplifying the circuit, I did this in a step-by-step fashion a year ago to date (2011-04-25) here (the discussion is also interesting, and recommended):
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283067/#msg283067 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283067/#msg283067)
See also the post above this linked one (Reply #892).
One other that is interesting:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283544/#msg283544 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283544/#msg283544)
Nice..... I like it. There has been a huge amount of progress in the year, hasn't there. -)
BUT... it doesn't matter much if WE understand and appreciate your work and analysis.
How are you ever going to convince Ainslie that that circuit in any way resembles hers? Eventhough a year ago she was "in tears" over it... now she repudiates it, of course.
Why.... it doesn't even have clipleads, so how could it possibly even _relate_ to the NERD circuit? There just aren't even enough wires, just those funny turnip roots. And everybody knows, Poynty Poynt, that turnip roots don't oscillate. Therefore TK is proven to be a lowly maintenance technician and is shorter than Hitler (although a lot more handsome), who somehow manages to get paid for repairing broken digital oscilloscopes even though he doesn't even know how to turn one on.
(Just for the record, it is the "lowly" maintenance technician with opposable thumbs and a rack full of tools and equipment that KEEPS OUR SOCIETY RUNNING, since so many people nowadays have neither the knowledge, the skill, or the motivation to do it themselves-- nor is the equipment needed to keep society running typically owned by individuals, due to its complexity and cost. Therefore, highly skilled, trained, educated and intelligent people all over the world work for peanut wages so that rich people in their gated communities can listen to stereos and type on computers without getting their hands dirty at all.
And... after all that... I am not a maintenance technician (although I would be proud to be one), except when I'm tinkering with my antique classic collection of rare old test equipment with historical significance. The Hewlett-Packard HP180, for example, is ex-Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where it was used for many years, daily, helping to develop America's nuclear deterrent forces. And right now I am also up to my elbows in a Tektronix RM503 that came from NASA Ames, their Blade Dynamics Laboratory, where it was also for many years in daily use analysing aerodynamic flutter and other fluid flow dynamics by NASA scientists and technicians who are responsible for America's amazing successes in space exploration.)
@.99:
Your diagram appears to show a DC current path that puts both the main battery and the bias battery in series and provides a current pathway that does NOT flow through the CVR at all when the mosfet is conducting.
Am I right about this? (just sharpening the point)
I'm also wondering about something else, which also jives with my experience on the live circuit. If the FG has its own equivalent 50R in the output, why is the series 2R also required at the circuit itself? I think I understand why it's needed if the bias supply is a battery, but I don't think I understand why it needs to be there if the FG or other source with a moderate impedance like the 555 timer circuit is used.
Reading that old discussion is a remarkable blast from the past. The most amazing thing is that .99 is actually able to lead Ainslie in a Socratic chain of reasoning for a little while... until she bumps up against the reductio ad absurdum that he is presenting, then the claws and fangs and her superior knowledge come out.
The transposed S and G on her diagram, the "your waveforms still aren't correct" bit, the mystery of component capacitance -- LOSE THE CAP --- the zener diode thing ....hilarious.
It's like Mylow--- remember? Him measuring his magnets with a micrometer caliper that he doesn't even know how to hold properly, and then sticking them in place with hot glue without using a jig, and then claiming that your motor isn't a replication because YOUR magnets are a millimeter out of position. And yet even Mylow made more sense than Ainslie does.
Your waveforms are Wrong, Poynty Poynt. They need to be on a _white_ background to be valid. And my academics have assured me that I am correct about that much, at least.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2012, 09:28:40 AM
GL,
Your second paragraph in the diagram is not correct.
There will be no power added to the circuit in the scenario shown. What you have there is simply an isolated VGS bias that turns ON the right MOSFET. There isn't even a return path for the FG source, so it can't provide any power to the circuit.
.99,
I think GL's simplified schematics provide a better tool to help Rosemary understand what the FG is doing. Particularly the first drawing posted in reply #732 as it regards to her Q2 array.
As for GL's second paragraph, I spotted that too but did not at the moment want to complicate things. The body diode on the left will, however, conduct and clamp the right side gate voltage to a couple volts or so above the drain voltage. When the right side MOSFET is on, the drain voltage will be dependent on the battery voltage, the load resistor drop, and the MOSFET on resistance. With a 72volt supply battery, the gate voltage would be clamped at around 14 volts and with a 48 volt supply battery, the gate voltage would be clamped at closer to 9 volts. Any voltage applied to the gate by the FG (or a pwr supply) that exceeds this "gate clamping voltage" will be dropped across and dissipated by the 50R. At the supply battery voltages typically used by Rosemary, and with a typical FG, this dissipation from gate voltage clamping would be minimal. (if any at all, depending on the FG settings)
Again, I really like GL's first drawing and was hoping it would help Rosemary understand how her Q2 array is being turned on and off. I was then going to attempt to help her understand the current limiting/regulation that occurs regarding the voltage applied to the 50R and the threshold voltage of the MOSFET, that limits the Q2 DC current to around 200ma or less (thought I would discuss only DC conditions for a while).
Then, in response to her wondering why current flow at the CSR is not observed, hope to make her see that the 200ma of bias current will make the CSR only 50 millivolts positive, which would be barely visible at her scope settings.
It sounds like you have covered all this ground in the past. Apparently it has yet to "sink in".
PW
PW:
QuoteIt sounds like you have covered all this ground in the past. Apparently it has yet to "sink in".
Indeed. For what it's worth, I probably have more technical prowess than I appear to have. I went though the whole thing last year and when I got into this thread I posted a disclaimer to TK saying that I might not be getting into all of the nitty-gritty details again. I also did the "COP 17" saga about three years ago (also TK and Poynt) which had just as much drama associated with it. I never really played with MOSFETs but I certainly understand how they work. So I am suffering from a form of burnout about this whole deal. I am not engaging fully on the lowest level.
I certainly can qualify and to see you discuss the nuances of MOSFET design is very impressive. When I was doing digital design the transition to sticking everything into a gate array was just starting to really take off. I am more of a PAL and GAL kind of guy. Then I jumped ship into sales anyway and it was a relief to not have to worry about timing diagrams or to learn how to "design hardware" with VHDL.
The fun part is that most of the stuff around here draws on the "engineering foundation" education that is still taught in school to this day. We did lots and lots of labs with transistors, but only did MOSFETs in the classroom, perhaps covering them in two classes or something.
It's fun to watch the real experts do their thing!
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 25, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
@.99:
Your diagram appears to show a DC current path that puts both the main battery and the bias battery in series and provides a current pathway that does NOT flow through the CVR at all when the mosfet is conducting.
Am I right about this? (just sharpening the point)
According to the diagram, yes that would be correct. The location of the CVR/CSR was a point of contention for a while, as you may have read in the discussion I linked to. The diagram was made according to the video demonstration as-built apparatus.
Quote
I'm also wondering about something else, which also jives with my experience on the live circuit. If the FG has its own equivalent 50R in the output, why is the series 2R also required at the circuit itself? I think I understand why it's needed if the bias supply is a battery, but I don't think I understand why it needs to be there if the FG or other source with a moderate impedance like the 555 timer circuit is used.
I've mentioned this before, but perhaps did not "take" well. In the simulations, if the FG (or DC source) resistance is made anything close to 50 Ohms, the oscillations either stop or look considerably different. Even the NERD's simulation uses a 22 Ohm instead of 50 Ohm. It worked best for me with a 2 Ohm.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2012, 02:23:01 PM
According to the diagram, yes that would be correct. The location of the CVR/CSR was a point of contention for a while, as you may have read in the discussion I linked to. The diagram was made according to the as-built apparatus.
I've mentioned this before, but perhaps did not "take" well. In the simulations, if the FG (or DC source) resistance is made anything close to 50 Ohms, the oscillations either stop or look considerably different. Even the NERD's simulation uses a 22 Ohm instead of 50 Ohm. It worked best for me with a 2 Ohm.
.99,
Are you saying the NERD circuit FG did not have an Rgen of 50R, or that the sim would not work with 50R?
PW
The sim would not work properly with 50 Ohms.
Of course the FG has a 50 Ohm output. :)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2012, 02:27:12 PM
The sim would not work properly with 50 Ohms.
Of course the FG has a 50 Ohm output. :)
.99,
Do you have any idea as to why the sim would not work with 50R?
PW
Only two things come to mind, although there may be other better reasons:
1) There are no RF effects in the simulation
2) The MOSFET model is not perfect.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2012, 09:28:40 AM
GL,
Your second paragraph in the diagram is not correct.
There will be no power added to the circuit in the scenario shown. What you have there is simply an isolated VGS bias that turns ON the right MOSFET. There isn't even a return path for the FG source, so it can't provide any power to the circuit.
.99,
Yes it is. When the FG goes positive pulse the RIGHT MOSFET will switch on. The current output from the FG
will go through the internal diode in the LEFT MOSFET and will be burned as heat in the FG resistance.
And that is what I wrote in the text in the drawing.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 04:50:11 PM
.99,
Yes it is. When the FG goes positive pulse the RIGHT MOSFET will switch on. The current output from the FG
will go through the internal diode in the LEFT MOSFET and will be burned as heat in the FG resistance.
And that is what I wrote in the text in the drawing.
GL.
GL,
Even when fully on, the right MOSFET will only pull the drain down to around 11 volts (assumes 72 volt supply battery, 11R load resistor, and 2R as MOSFET on resistance). The left body diode will not conduct until the gate voltage of the right MOSFET is about 2 volts (body diode fwd voltage) above the drain, or in this case approx. 13volts. So, yes, if the FG was outputting +15volts open circuit, for example, there may be approx 2 volts drop across the 50R due to the left body diode conducting. The supply battery voltage, the level of the FG drive, and the MOSFET Rdson, will determine if sufficient voltage pull down is acheived at the drain to allow the left body diode to conduct.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 12:22:17 PM
.99,
I think GL's simplified schematics provide a better tool to help Rosemary understand what the FG is doing. Particularly the first drawing posted in reply #732 as it regards to her Q2 array.
As for GL's second paragraph, I spotted that too but did not at the moment want to complicate things. The body diode on the left will, however, conduct and clamp the right side gate voltage to a couple volts or so above the drain voltage. When the right side MOSFET is on, the drain voltage will be dependent on the battery voltage, the load resistor drop, and the MOSFET on resistance. With a 72volt supply battery, the gate voltage would be clamped at around 14 volts and with a 48 volt supply battery, the gate voltage would be clamped at closer to 9 volts. Any voltage applied to the gate by the FG (or a pwr supply) that exceeds this "gate clamping voltage" will be dropped across and dissipated by the 50R. At the supply battery voltages typically used by Rosemary, and with a typical FG, this dissipation from gate voltage clamping would be minimal. (if any at all, depending on the FG settings)
Again, I really like GL's first drawing and was hoping it would help Rosemary understand how her Q2 array is being turned on and off. I was then going to attempt to help her understand the current limiting/regulation that occurs regarding the voltage applied to the 50R and the threshold voltage of the MOSFET, that limits the Q2 DC current to around 200ma or less (thought I would discuss only DC conditions for a while).
Then, in response to her wondering why current flow at the CSR is not observed, hope to make her see that the 200ma of bias current will make the CSR only 50 millivolts positive, which would be barely visible at her scope settings.
It sounds like you have covered all this ground in the past. Apparently it has yet to "sink in".
PW
PW,
You are right, but let us keep this simple. When the FG is positive then the current from the FG
will be burned as heat in the 50 Ohm and not in the LOAD. That was the point of the drawing.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 05:14:09 PM
PW,
You are right, but let us keep this simple. When the FG is positive then the current from the FG
will be burned as heat in the 50 Ohm and not in the LOAD. That was the point of the drawing.
GL.
When the FG output is positive there will likely be no current flow through the FG or 50R.... unless, the FG drive and drain pull down is sufficient to allow the left body diode to conduct. Of course there will be a short burst of current to charge the right MOSFET Ciss (and discharge the left), but once charged, and at say +9 to +10 FG drive level, the left body diode will likely not conduct and there will only be right MOSFET gate leakage current being drawn from the FG for the bulk of the FG's positive cycle (and the gate leakage is a very small amount of current).
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 05:22:45 PM
When the FG output is positive there will likely be no current flow through the FG or 50R.... unless, the FG drive and drain pull down is sufficient to allow the left body diode to conduct. Of course there will be a short burst of current to charge the right MOSFET Ciss, but once charged, and at say +9 to +10 FG drive level, the left body diode will likely not conduct and there will only be right MOSFET gate leakage current being drawn from the FG for the bulk of the FG's positive cycle (and the gate leakage is a very small amount of currentl).
PW
PW,
My point was that the current (if any) from the FG at the positive pulse
will NOT go to the RLOAD but will be burned as heat in the 50 Ohm instead.
Agree?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 05:33:39 PM
PW,
My point was that the current (if any) from the FG at the positive pulse
will NOT go to the RLOAD but will be burned as heat in the 50 Ohm instead.
Agree?
GL.
GL,
Agreed!!
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 05:35:29 PM
GL,
Agreed!!
PW
PW,
Great :-)
So now we know that only the negative pulse from the FG will inject power to RLOAD.
I know RA does not agree to this but this a fact.
It is also a fact that when the FG is negative then the circuit runs as an Colpits oscillator.
The 180 degrees feedback needed to run is through the MOSFET internal D to S capacitance.
The MOSFET runs in the linear region.
I know RA has a question about the negative measurement over
the SHUNT resistor when the oscillator runs, but I will take that later.
GL.
GL,
If we want to be even more precise, if the drain pull down and FG drive is sufficient to turn on the left body diode, the current through the load will actually decrease slightly. And, the bulk of the FG drive above the left side body diode clamping voltage will be dissipated in the 50R and to a lesser degree in the left side body diode and in the right side drain to source resistance. If drain pull down and FG drive are insufficient to turn on the left body diode, then no power will be drawn from the FG or dissipated in the 50R.
But, as you say, if there is any current dissipated by the FG during the positive output portion of the FG cycle, it will not be dissipated in the load.
So again, agreed...
PW
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
PW,
Great :-)
So now we know that only the negative pulse from the FG will inject power to RLOAD.
I know RA does not agree to this but this a fact.
It is also a fact that when the FG is negative then the circuit runs as an Colpits oscillator.
The 180 degrees feedback needed to run is through the MOSFET internal D to S capacitance.
The MOSFET runs in the linear region.
I know RA has a question about the negative measurement over
the SHUNT resistor when the oscillator runs, but I will take that later.
GL.
GL,
I think it might be best for you to discuss DC conditions with RA for a time as if there were no inductances involved, and then move on to AC conditions.
I am unsure if RA fully understands or accepts the DC conditions indicated by your first set of drawings (your reply #732).
PW
What on earth are you trying to say picowat?
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 05:50:36 PM
GL,
If we want to be even more precise, if the drain pull down...
What drain pull down? We're talking MOSFETs not IC circuitry. MOSFETS are by definition 'solid state' switching devices. So. There is no 'drain pull down'. What there is, is a positive or negative signal applied by the function generator or by 555 circuitry - to the gate of Q1 in anti phase to Q2. That's it. And the only thing that then happens is that the current from the battery is either enabled or not - depending on the MOSFET type and the level of potential difference from the supply. We're using N channel 'types' therefore the gate oxide is designed to enable a flow of current from the battery when that applied signal is positive.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:03:05 PMand FG drive is sufficient to turn on the left body diode, the current through the load will actually decrease slightly.
What? When will this 'decrease' take place? The current flow will be enabled to the extent that the gate is open. And that rate of current flow is determined by the resistance in the path of the current from the supply. that's it.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:03:05 PMAnd, the bulk of the FG drive above the left side body diode clamping voltage ...
What on EARTH is 'the left side body diode clamping voltage'? The ONLY clamper in that circuit is from the function generator's 'off set'. And if there's a 'left side body diode' during one phase of each switching cycle there's also a 'right side body diode' at the other. They both have IDENTICAL functions. The only difference is their connection to the the battery source rail which in the one is enabled and in the other it is NOT enabled.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:03:05 PM'...will be dissipated in the 50R and to a lesser degree in the left side body diode and in the right side drain to source resistance.
Right side drain? Source resistance? What are you talking about? If you mean the drain or source legs of Q1 or Q2 then say it. If you are referring to the drain or source rail of the battery then say it. This entire phrase is entirely undefined. It is the simple 'rule' of science that terms must be defined and clearly expressed. Anything less and we're NOT talking science.
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:03:05 PMIf drain pull down and FG drive are insufficient to turn on the left body diode, then no power will be drawn from the FG or dissipated in the 50R.
Again. WHAT 'drain pull down'? And what left and what right? Do you mean Q1 or Q2? When the offset of the function generator is adjusted that its signal applied to the gate of Q1 is positive yet has been 'pulled down' below that positive setting - then it will not allow the flow of current from the battery supply as the net value of that applied signal is NOT positive but negative. Is that what you mean?
Quote from: picowatt on April 24, 2012, 06:03:05 PMBut, as you say, if there is any current dissipated by the FG during the positive output portion of the FG cycle, it will not be dissipated in the load.
the function generator does not typically 'dissipate' any energy on the circuit at all. If you are referring to the 'heating' of the MOSFET TRANSISTORS then that is the result of the 'applied voltage' from the function generator. And the heating of the MOSFET is then as a result of the extent to which that applied voltage is then able to deliver current from the battery source supply - OR NOT.
I wonder if it would be as well to try and keep ones terms as clear as possible. I think we're all rather tired of obfuscation. It simply confuses the argument. With respect.
And Groundloop - just a small point. You would need to justify your argument when there is a steady DC application by the function generator of a negative voltage at the Gate of Q1. No switching at all. Because that's what is evident.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Groundloop,
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
So now we know that only the negative pulse from the FG will inject power to RLOAD. I know RA does not agree to this but this a fact.
Actually what you've pointed to is that the signal from the supply source and the batteries are 'in series' during the application of a negative signal at Q1. There is no-one would argue. I agree. Wholeheartedly. And, as I pointed out in my previous post - this is continual during an extended switching phase of the function generator. We literally apply this negative signal for upwards of 2 minutes.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 05:46:32 PMIt is also a fact that when the FG is negative then the circuit runs as an Colpits oscillator. The 180 degrees feedback needed to run is through the MOSFET internal D to S capacitance.
The MOSFET runs in the linear region.
I am not sure how the Colpitt's oscillator runs. But I believe it does not use MOSFETS - and therefore does not 'typically' have that internal body diode and the 3 pin connection to the circuitry and signal generator - simultaneously. Are you saying that one MOSFET - on its own - would then enable that 'Colpitt's oscillation'? What I DO know is that we can, indeed, just use the one transistor - as Poynty Point's already confirmed. And that we then only need to apply a continual positive signal to the source rail of the battery supply to generate that oscillation. Which is one of the tests that we've got lined up to show you all. So. I can't comment regarding that Colpitt's oscillation analogy. But you're CERTAINLY correct in that continual oscillating waveform as a consequence.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 05:46:32 PMI know RA has a question about the negative measurement over the SHUNT resistor when the oscillator runs, but I will take that later.
It's not the only thing Groundloop. Quite apart from the evidence of a negative voltage at the 'onset' of that oscillation - is the fact that we measure that negative wattage. That's pivotal. But I like your 'style' of argument.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Sorry Groundloop. I'm working these posts reading 'latest' first. Just a point here.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 05:33:39 PM
My point was that the current (if any) from the FG at the positive pulse will NOT go to the RLOAD but will be burned as heat in the 50 Ohm instead.
Not so much. On both the 555 switching circuits AND on our NERD Q-array - we're able to heat the load to significant levels purely from that oscillation. No current drawn from the battery at all during the 'on' phase - or when the signal at Q1 is positive. Not sure where you're going with this - but bear that in mind.
Kindest again
Rosie
Quote from: Groundloop on April 24, 2012, 07:37:07 PM
.
Rosemary,
I was having a discussion with GL regarding one of his drawings. He did not label the MOSFETs in the drawing we were discussing, so we were referring to them as "left" and "right". As to the rest, I am not surprised that you were not able to follow along. There was no "obfuscation", it was a discussion between people with a common technical background in electronics using terms that one with such a background would easily be able to follow. It would only appear as "obfuscation" to someone without that background.
To continue our discussion, if you so desire:
In the drawing that GL graciously provided in reply #732 on page 49 of this thread, there is a "supply battery" and a "bias battery". The bias battery is the battery connected to the 50 ohm resistor at the MOSFET source.
Do you understand and agree that the MOSFET is turned on when the bias battery negative terminal is towards the 50 ohm resistor? (This is the instance on the left above)
Do you also understand and agree that when the MOSFET is turned on, current flows from the supply battery, thru the load resistor, thru the MOSFET, thru the 50 ohm resistor, through the bias battery, and back to the supply battery?
Do you also understand and agree that when the bias battery positive is towards the 50 ohm resistor the MOSFET is turned off and no current flows?
These are simple yes or no questions and a response with just yes or no answers would greatly facilitate further discussion.
PW
ADDED location of GL's drawing discussed
Rosemary:
It's time for you to WAKE UP. I am sure that even you can tell that PW is an EXPERT in MOSFETs and he certainly knows what he is talking about. Your willfully ignorant belligerent technical posts were you challenge each point because you don't understand what is being said have to change. You know that he he knows what he is talking about, yet you go off on this dance of absurd ignorance. You do this over and over. It's time for this idiocy to stop.
You have Google Rosemary? It's time for you to start using it.
Here is one that is a DOOZY:
PW said:
Quoteright side drain to source resistance
And your comment was:
QuoteRight side drain? Source resistance? What are you talking about? If you mean the drain or source legs of Q1 or Q2 then say it.
Rosemary, a basic fundamental concept associated with any MOSFET is the drain to source resistance. How could you not possibly know this when you have been working with MOSFET circuits for the past three years straight?
Go look it up on Google, learn what it means, and then come back here and tell us that you understand what that term means.
This has to STOP Rosemary. There are perhaps five or six FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH MOSFETs and you MUST understand them so that you STOP these moronic postings.
Go learn about the five or six fundamental concepts associated with MOSFETs so that you STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.
Come back in two days when you understand this stuff. It is disrespectful to everyone to force us to do this repeated hand-holding like you are some hapless fool that doesn't know how to tie her own shoes.
You must master the standard terminology associated with MOSFETs, you have been at this for years.
Don't show up around here unless you know what the drain to source resistance means. Read up about this stuff online and educate yourself to show your peers on this thread the respect that they deserve. You can show them this respect by learning and understanding the commonly accepted terminology for MOSFETs and at the same time this will be of great benefit to you.
We are talking about you investing a few hours of your time to learn this stuff and show your peers some respect. You must do this.
Rant off.
MileHigh
To All,
I posted my last post above as a reply from GL's reply#732 hoping his drawing would repost, but it did not.
If there is anyone reading that knows how to repost GL's drawing from reply#732 to the current page, I would greatly appreciate it if you would do so.
Rosemary,
The drawing I am discussing in my last post is several pages back, reply #732. You will have to go back a few pages to look at it unless someone assists in reposting it.
I as well will give it another try.
PW
MH,
If your still here, do you know how to repost GL's drawing from reply #732 on page 49 of this thread?
Would appreciate it if you could/would do so.
PW
picowatt
I believe you're referring to this diagram. So am I.
Or alternatively, and possibly even more eloquent - is this diagram.
Rosemary,
Thanks for that. How did you do it? I tried a copy and paste and that would not work for me.
No, you were not discussing this drawing. You were discussing a conversation I was having with GL regarding a different drawing with two unlabeled MOSFETs, hence we were referring to them as left and right.
But again, to continue our discussion, if you so desire:
In the drawing that GL graciously provided in reply #732 on page 49 of this thread, and that you also graciously reposted, there is a "supply battery" and a "bias battery". The bias battery is the battery connected to the 50 ohm resistor at the MOSFET source.
Do you understand and agree that the MOSFET is turned on when the bias battery negative terminal is towards the 50 ohm resistor? (This is the instance on the left above)
Do you also understand and agree that when the MOSFET is turned on, current flows from the supply battery, thru the load resistor, thru the MOSFET, thru the 50 ohm resistor, through the bias battery, and back to the supply battery?
Do you also understand and agree that when the bias battery positive is towards the 50 ohm resistor the MOSFET is turned off and no current flows?
These are simple yes or no questions and a response with just yes or no answers would greatly facilitate further discussion.
PW
And picowatt - what Groundloop is suggesting is that the oscillation is simply around the switch. And what I'm asking is where is that Current Sensing Resistor? Because if he put that in he'd see that the the voltage across that resistor shows that the current that Groundloop is proposing is dissipated in the 50 Ohm resistance is actually ALSO moving through the battery supply source - in BOTH directions - while the battery is in series with the circuit supply source.
Rosemary
I find your questions that offensive that I do NOT choose to answer them. What must any reader think? That I don't know the difference? And may I ask you how you could seriously propose that I need to have this explained.
Rosemary
This version of the posting #732 drawing may be larger and clearer:
(PW, I just save the drawing to my hard drive and re-upload.)
Rosemary,
In the drawing that GL graciously provided in reply #732 on page 49 of this thread, and that you also graciously reposted, there is a "supply battery" and a "bias battery". The bias battery is the battery connected to the 50 ohm resistor at the MOSFET source.
Do you understand and agree that the MOSFET is turned on when the bias battery negative terminal is towards the 50 ohm resistor? (This is the instance on the left above)
Do you also understand and agree that when the MOSFET is turned on, current flows from the supply battery, thru the load resistor, thru the MOSFET, thru the 50 ohm resistor, through the bias battery, and back to the supply battery?
Do you also understand and agree that when the bias battery positive is towards the 50 ohm resistor the MOSFET is turned off and no current flows?
These are simple yes or no questions and a response with just yes or no answers would greatly facilitate further discussion.
PW
Just in case this comes in handy:
I will NOT answer your questions picowatt. Any more than I'd answer questions as to whether or not I can read - or spell - or write - or talk. You are relying on this utterly highhanded patronising series of questions and answers to ENDORSE your opinion that I need to be spoken to at the level of an IDIOT.
I have no further intention of engaging with you unless and until you show some level of respect for my intelligence.
So NO. I will not answer your questions.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
QuoteI will NOT answer your questions picowatt. Any more than I'd answer questions as to whether or not I can read - or spell - or write - or talk. You are relying on this utterly highhanded patronising series of questions and answers to ENDORSE your opinion that I need to be spoken to at the level of an IDIOT.
I have no further intention of engaging with you unless and until you show some level of respect for my intelligence.
So NO. I will not answer your questions.
You saw my posting. Spend several hours per day over the course of two days and come back here with a basic competency about MOSFETs. There are five or six key concepts that need to be understood if you want to try and understand how your circuit works.
You are years late in making the effort to understand the basic concepts so that you can understand the standard terminology and communicate using the standard terminology.
Not knowing what drain to source resistance means is totally unacceptable.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 25, 2012, 11:52:16 PM
Rosemary:
You saw my posting. Spend several hours per day over the course of two days and come back here with a basic competency about MOSFETs. There are five or six key concepts that need to be understood if you want to try and understand how your circuit works.
You are years late in making the effort to understand the basic concepts so that you can understand the standard terminology and communicate using the standard terminology.
Not knowing what drain to source resistance means is totally unacceptable.
MileHigh
Your advices here MileHigh - as ever - would be better applied to yourself. I know considerably more about MOSFETs - self evidently - than either you or picowatt. Not only that but picowatt is utterly out of line. You - I would expect to rely on that 'Rosemary knows NOTHING' bit. Picowatt needs to explain his argument. He has first endorsed TK's findings - which were WRONG. He is now endorsing Groundloop's argument - without even seeing where it goes. And optionally - as the whim takes him - he is ALSO endorsing Poynty's argument which is possibly the only one that still has any intellectual merit. So. From that I'd suspect that he's ready to fall in with anything that comes along - in the hopes of something being 'right'. And up till now he has NOT explained his argument. I'm waiting for it.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
No, the burden must fall on you this time to put in your own effort to educate yourself about MOSFETs and then come back here and continue the discussion. It's simply ridiculous that this late in the game that you don't even posses a mastery of the most basic terminology (and one would assume associated technical concepts) related to MOSFETs.
It's simply unacceptable.
Your self-evaluation of your knowledge is pure bluff and everybody reading this thread knows that's the case.
Repeat: Come back in a few days after you understand MOSFETs. Perhaps then you will be able to have a rational discussion with PW.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 11:45:10 PM
I will NOT answer your questions picowatt. Any more than I'd answer questions as to whether or not I can read - or spell - or write - or talk. You are relying on this utterly highhanded patronising series of questions and answers to ENDORSE your opinion that I need to be spoken to at the level of an IDIOT.
I have no further intention of engaging with you unless and until you show some level of respect for my intelligence.
So NO. I will not answer your questions.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
This is far from "opinion". This is simplest, and most basic discussion of the well known and fully understood operation of a MOSFET, connected as indicated, under very simple DC conditions. I doubt many readers of this thread would have any difficulty answering those three questions and understanding the concepts they relate to.
If you can not understand the simplest of concepts depicted in the drawing discussed, you will be unable to progress further with understading the current limiting action of the MOSFET in concert with the 50 ohm resistor and the applied bias voltage and how the MOSFET is biased into a linear region of operation, which is again with respect to simple DC operation.
Without being able to grasp that much, you will never be able to understand the operation of the circuit under AC conditions while it is oscillating, which is much more complex to grasp than the DC conditions.
If you do not wish to learn, that is your choice. But do not be surprised if apparent "obfuscation" continues, due to your lack of understanding.
If two mechanics were discussing your vehicle engine using the likes of MAP, MAF, PPS, TPS, CKP, CMP, ECT, PWM, IAT, IAC, HO2S, etc, would you also accuse them of "obfuscation"? Or would it possibly just be that you have no idea what they're talking about? I assure you, that is merely the language of their trade.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 11:59:29 PM
Your advices here MileHigh - as ever - would be better applied to yourself. I know considerably more about MOSFETs - self evidently - than either you or picowatt. Not only that but picowatt is utterly out of line. You - I would expect to rely on that 'Rosemary knows NOTHING' bit. Picowatt needs to explain his argument. He has first endorsed TK's findings - which were WRONG. He is now endorsing Groundloop's argument - without even seeing where it goes. And optionally - as the whim takes him - he is ALSO endorsing Poynty's argument which is possibly the only one that still has any intellectual merit. So. From that I'd suspect that he's ready to fall in with anything that comes along - in the hopes of something being 'right'. And up till now he has NOT explained his argument. I'm waiting for it.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Exactly what "argument" of mine, that you feel I need to explain, are you referring to?
PW
I told you, PW. She knows more about mosfets than anybody in the world. Talk about Rdss and she can't even read the data sheet. SHE HAS NO MATH. At all. If she can't push a button on a calculator, forget about it.
And she does stuff like this just to piss people off, and it works for me.
Picowatt. The ONLY thing that I want to learn is what EXACTLY is your argument? Let's hear it. Clearly put - no ambiguities - qualified use of acronyms. Then we'll know where you're standing. Right now. Something that you will be able to rely on when we do our demonstrations. I want to KNOW what your argument is. I do NOT want to learn anything else. No 'twaddle'. Just clear unambiguous argument. And something that you'll stand by when we evaluate that 'opinion' in the face of experimental and demonstrable evidence.
Rosemary
Here, maybe this top-secret publication from my protected vault will help in the discussion.
This howler is so blatant that it made it into my "Ainslie Fail" file for posterity.
Quote
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 12:03:05 AM
QuotePW says: "...will be dissipated in the 50R and to a lesser degree in the left side body diode and in the right side drain to source resistance. "
Right side drain? Source resistance? What are you talking about? If you mean the drain or source legs of Q1 or Q2 then say it. If you are referring to the drain or source rail of the battery then say it. This entire phrase is entirely undefined. It is the simple 'rule' of science that terms must be defined and clearly expressed. Anything less and we're NOT talking science.
And yet anybody who knows anything about mosfets understands perfectly well what PW is talking about because he is using completely standard and universally understood terminology. Universally... that is... outside of the Ainslie brain.
Here's my question again - picowatt. Or are you not able to give that cogent argument that you infer is everywhere evident in your posts? I see that TK has assisted you in taking the focus back to a general criticism of me. But that's fine. I'll just keep reminding you.
Rosemary
picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 12:17:59 AM
Rosemary,
Exactly what "argument" of mine, that you feel I need to explain, are you referring to?
PW
You have endorsed TK's 'debunk'. You are now falling in line with Groundloops suggestion of its being a Colbitt's oscillation. The question is this. How do you explain our measured negative wattage - and how do you explain the positive half of each oscillating cycle? Put your neck on the block here picowatt.
Rosemary
added
And this one is so important that I preserved it also.
QuoteSorry Groundloop. I'm working these posts reading 'latest' first. Just a point here.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 25, 2012, 11:33:39 PM
My point was that the current (if any) from the FG at the positive pulse will NOT go to the RLOAD but will be burned as heat in the 50 Ohm instead.
Not so much. On both the 555 switching circuits AND on our NERD Q-array - we're able to heat the load to significant levels purely from that oscillation. No current drawn from the battery at all during the 'on' phase - or when the signal at Q1 is positive. Not sure where you're going with this - but bear that in mind.
Kindest again
Rosie
Emphasis all mine, this time.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 12:24:52 AM
picowatt
You have endorsed TK's 'debunk'. You are now falling in line with Groundloops suggestion of its being a Colbitt's oscillation. The question is this. How do you explain our measured negative wattage - and how do you explain the positive half of each oscillating cycle? Put your neck on the block here picowatt.
Rosemary
Facepalm.
While you are at it, explain MY negative wattage.
What debunk? Tar Baby performs just like NERD so how could it possibly be a debunk? I have already shown the same evidence you have shown: a negative wattage. Therefore it's not a debunk at all but a CONFIRMATION of your results, dimwit Ainslie.
And I don't recall PW ever "endorsing" my work at all. I'm a piker compared to him and I'm learning a lot from his posts. When you are asleep, that is.
ADDED: Learn to spell, or at least learn to Google. It's Colpitts, not Colbitts, isn't it, even after your emphatic edit you STILL didn't correct it.
And how do YOU explain MY negative wattage?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 12:19:10 AM
I told you, PW. She knows more about mosfets than anybody in the world. Talk about Rdss and she can't even read the data sheet. SHE HAS NO MATH. At all. If she can't push a button on a calculator, forget about it.
And she does stuff like this just to piss people off, and it works for me.
TK,
I saw that and just let it slide. I am not easily goaded. I truly appreciated the reposting of the drawing.
My brain is trained to filter out digs and jabs, insinuation, sarcasm, cynicism, denegration, etc. (and red glowy text). Makes life much more pleasant.
Besides, such things are more often a reflection of the user, not the target.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 12:29:16 AM
TK,
I saw that and just let it slide. I am not easily goaded. I truly appreciated the reposting of the drawing.
My brain is trained to filter out digs and jabs, insinuation, sarcasm, cynicism, denegration, etc. (and red glowy text). Makes life much more pleasant.
Besides, such things are more often a reflection of the user, not the target.
PW
TK,
You're a "piker"? Dang, let me tell you about the fencepost I caught one time.
PW
@PW: I presume you are using Linux or Windows. Right click on the image, select "save image as..." and save it to your system somewhere. Then when you want to upload it, look at the bottom of the reply window where it says "attach" and browse to the image on your system.
Alternatively you can link to the post where the image appears by right-clicking on the post title just above the message number, select "copy" and then paste the resulting url into your message.
A "screenshot" tool is also very handy.
TK,
No response? Possibly a poor attempt at humor on my part.
Pike, fishing, get it?
Everybody groan...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 12:37:50 AM
@PW: I presume you are using Linux or Windows. Right click on the image, select "save image as..." and save it to your system somewhere. Then when you want to upload it, look at the bottom of the reply window where it says "attach" and browse to the image on your system.
Alternatively you can link to the post where the image appears by right-clicking on the post title just above the message number, select "copy" and then paste the resulting url into your message.
A "screenshot" tool is also very handy.
TK,
Thanks for that. I considered doing the save as and then attaching, but was not sure if the image would display or just the link.
Very helpful, thanks again,
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 12:39:15 AM
TK,
No response? Possibly a poor attempt at humor on my part.
Pike, fishing, get it?
Everybody groan...
PW
Ahhh.... I was working up a nice story about "biker" catching a fence... like Steve McQueen in The Great Escape..... I've never fished for a pike, we have largemouth bass around here.
By the way, I got the old RM503 up and running perfectly. The fault was HV insulation breakdown in the 6.3 volt secondary winding of the line transformer that powers the CRT filament.... and which is floated to -3000 volts by a HV power supply running off yet another transformer in the regulated supplies section. So I installed a cheap Radio Shack 6.3 volt transformer, running the primary in parallel with the original and simply running the CRT filament with its HV off of the Radio Shack transformer. I found room inside the box for it, and it's burning in now, has been running fine for a couple of hours.
450 kHz bandwidth, and the slowest timebase setting is 5 seconds per centimeter !
It has a lovely persistent blue phosphor (optimized for film photography they say) and an orange graticle illuminator. And I spell it that way because I want to.
A genuine classic, the Tektronix RM503.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
Ahhh.... I was working up a nice story about "biker" catching a fence... like Steve McQueen in The Great Escape..... I've never fished for a pike, we have largemouth bass around here.
By the way, I got the old RM503 up and running perfectly. The fault was HV insulation breakdown in the 6.3 volt secondary winding of the line transformer that powers the CRT filament.... and which is floated to -3000 volts by a HV power supply running off yet another transformer in the regulated supplies section. So I installed a cheap Radio Shack 6.3 volt transformer, running the primary in parallel with the original and simply running the CRT filament with its HV off of the Radio Shack transformer. I found room inside the box for it, and it's burning in now, has been running fine for a couple of hours.
450 kHz bandwidth, and the slowest timebase setting is 5 seconds per centimeter !
It has a lovely persistent blue phosphor (optimized for film photography they say) and an orange graticle illuminator. And I spell it that way because I want to.
A genuine classic, the Tektronix RM503.
TK,
One can only hope the insulation between the pri/sec of the RS transformer can handle that float voltage.
450KHz bandwidth and 5sec/cm? What a crawler. I love the old high persistance tubes as well. At a very slow timebase, they a quite mesmerizing.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 12:58:17 AM
TK,
One can only hope the insulation between the pri/sec of the RS transformer can handle that float voltage.
450KHz bandwidth and 5sec/cm? What a crawler. I love the old high persistance tubes as well. At a very slow timebase, they a quite mesmerizing.
PW
TK,
I responded before the image loaded. She looks real pretty. It looks to be in excellent condition.
You mentioned a surplus store in the past, do they have a website?
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 11:45:10 PM
I will NOT answer your questions picowatt. Any more than I'd answer questions as to whether or not I can read
evidently not
Quote- or spell -
Without a spell checker you can't, as is demonstrated several times on this page alone.
Quoteor write - or talk.
At those you excel, Rosie Poser.
QuoteYou are relying on this utterly highhanded patronising series of questions and answers to ENDORSE your opinion that I need to be spoken to at the level of an IDIOT.
They are just questions, Leon.
Quote
I have no further intention of engaging with you unless and until you show some level of respect for my intelligence.
So NO. I will not answer your questions.
Rosemary
He's showing all the respect for your intelligence you deserve, Rosie Poser. For example, he's dumbed the questions down by NOT using the approved and universally understood acronyms for the variables and phenomena he's asking if you understand. And your answers COULD indeed have been simple yes or no answers. But you refuse to do it. Why? Isn't your advisor right at your elbow tonight? Or has he told you that yes, in fact, PW is right? Why are you running away flailing about like someone who has just seen her own ghost?
Perhaps it's because you have.
TK,
Just let it go. I'll fight my own battles if I feel it's called for.
In this case, not so much...
Regarding your scope, does that -3000 really go thru the filament transformer or were you saying the filament winding was shorted to the -3000?
Back in the day, when we all watched big glass bottles, filament shorts were common and all manner of filament iso's and brighteners were available.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:03:34 AM
TK,
I responded before the image loaded. She looks real pretty. It looks to be in excellent condition.
You mentioned a surplus store in the past, do they have a website?
PW
Yep, that's what the burn-in is for. If it fails, it will be in the same condition it was when I started, but so far so good, it's been up four hours now....
I got this one directly from NASA Ames. A colleague is a chief scientist there and he picked it up at a surplus disposal auction along with a bunch of other neat stuff, and gave it to me.
The surplus store I deal with here does not have a website, no. And they don't really have much. Two of my three favorites are in Canada:
http://torontosurplus.com/
http://www.activesurplus.com/
The first is run by someone who knows what he's got and charges full market rate but will ship to the States. The second is wild and crazy, you never can tell what they will have and there are some good deals there. Also will ship stateside I believe.
And the third was in the Bay Area in CA: Mike Quinn's, but it's been closed for years now.
Around here there isn't really much to choose from, even though we have 5 or six military bases or ex-bases nearby.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:15:55 AM
TK,
Just let it go. I'll fight my own battles if I feel it's called for.
In this case, not so much...
Regarding your scope, does that -3000 really go thru the filament transformer or were you saying the filament winding was shorted to the -3000?
Back in the day, when we all watched big glass bottles, filament shorts were common and all manner of filament iso's and brighteners were available.
PW
The -3000 really really does go through the filament of the CRT and thus through the winding of the mains transformer.
The HV was leaking out inside the transformer and loading up (or drawing down, ha ha) the regulated + and - 100 v and +250 v supplies so that they died, and for some strange reason the filaments of the preamp tubes are also run off this regulated supply. It took me a while to track it down, I didn't want to believe the mains transformer was bad and I sure didn't want the CRT to be bad, but there it is. I know I'll never find another mains transformer for it... but my kludge seems to be working and there isn't any other HV in the mains transformer (unless you count 190 vac, which I don't.)
So now I have my Lissajous machine again... and for LF signals it can be used in a differential mode, as you know.
8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 01:16:23 AM
Yep, that's what the burn-in is for. If it fails, it will be in the same condition it was when I started, but so far so good, it's been up four hours now....
I got this one directly from NASA Ames. A colleague is a chief scientist there and he picked it up at a surplus disposal auction along with a bunch of other neat stuff, and gave it to me.
The surplus store I deal with here does not have a website, no. And they don't really have much. Two of my three favorites are in Canada:
http://torontosurplus.com/
http://www.activesurplus.com/
The first is run by someone who knows what he's got and charges full market rate but will ship to the States. The second is wild and crazy, you never can tell what they will have and there are some good deals there. Also will ship stateside I believe.
And the third was in the Bay Area in CA: Mike Quinn's, but it's been closed for years now.
Around here there isn't really much to choose from, even though we have 5 or six military bases or ex-bases nearby.
TK,
I am familaiar with the first store, and they are as you say, they know what they have and price accordingly.
Most of the great surplus stores for electronics I used to haunt have all clsosed as well. Back in the day when discrete was being phased out and NASA was at full bore, there was an incredible amount of surplus available. Then as surface mount was being phased in, a whole new batch of surplus was available. Seems that now, as mfg. has moved overseas, most surplus stores have dried up. I think the military just scraps and chops all their gear now.
PW
TK,
If the RS transformer fails, I'll bet you could find one with a better isolation rating.
Maybe a nice potted toroid or similar.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2012, 10:26:11 PM
Groundloop,
Actually what you've pointed to is that the signal from the supply source and the batteries are 'in series' during the application of a negative signal at Q1. There is no-one would argue. I agree. Wholeheartedly. And, as I pointed out in my previous post - this is continual during an extended switching phase of the function generator. We literally apply this negative signal for upwards of 2 minutes.
I am not sure how the Colpitt's oscillator runs. But I believe it does not use MOSFETS - and therefore does not 'typically' have that internal body diode and the 3 pin connection to the circuitry and signal generator - simultaneously. Are you saying that one MOSFET - on its own - would then enable that 'Colpitt's oscillation'? What I DO know is that we can, indeed, just use the one transistor - as Poynty Point's already confirmed. And that we then only need to apply a continual positive signal to the source rail of the battery supply to generate that oscillation. Which is one of the tests that we've got lined up to show you all. So. I can't comment regarding that Colpitt's oscillation analogy. But you're CERTAINLY correct in that continual oscillating waveform as a consequence.
It's not the only thing Groundloop. Quite apart from the evidence of a negative voltage at the 'onset' of that oscillation - is the fact that we measure that negative wattage. That's pivotal. But I like your 'style' of argument.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Rosemary,
You can build oscillators by using MOSFETS also. You operate the MOSFET in the linear region just like an bipolar transistor.
I state then when the FG is at negative offset then the left MOSFET is biased and can operate in the linear region like an oscillator.
The 180 degrees feed back needed to get the oscillation going is through the D to S capacitance (inside the MOSFET).
The LC tank circuit needed is the self inductance in RLOAD and self capacitance in RLOAD plus inductance in wires. I have
made an drawing explaining different Colpitts oscillator variations. I think my drawing proves that your circuit oscillate
as an Colpitts configuration when the FG is at the negative, thus giving a positive bias voltage to the MOSFET that allow
an oscillation to happen.
So I will stay by my earlier statement that your circuit oscillates (when the FG is at negative pulse) because
it is an Colpitts oscillator setup.
GL.
picowatt?
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:15:55 AM
TK,
Just let it go. I'll fight my own battles if I feel it's called for.
In this case, not so much...
Regarding your scope, does that -3000 really go thru the filament transformer or were you saying the filament winding was shorted to the -3000?
Back in the day, when we all watched big glass bottles, filament shorts were common and all manner of filament iso's and brighteners were available.
PW
I take it then that you're not 'up for it'? You realise that those two questions are the ONLY questions that actually pertain. And they're the only two questions that have not yet been addressed. All that emphases that you've all relied on related to my innate stupidity - all that? They're irrelevant to the argument. What's needed is some kind of reasonable explanation for the evidence of a negative wattage that is dependably and accurately measured over a circuit. And then some discussion as to why. TK.'s experiments were designed to 'infer' gross measurement errors. And Groundloop has come up with the proposal that it may be a mere 'oscillation' that has no intrinsic benefit. So. Let's hear your 'summation'?
And TK - I always run a spell check. You Americans - unfortunately - have yet to learn how to spell. In fact, you've made 'misspelling' English into an art form - since you re-invented it - with your Declaration of Independence. There's an excessive use of 'z's and an omission of 'our' in the suffix of certain nouns - to be represented as 'or'. But on the plus side - you all make English sound SO delectable - who cares?
Kindest regards to you both and comforting to see that TK is still 'abusing' all those forum guidelines. But no doubt he's in need of all that propagandising. So it's to be expected. It's becoming a bit repetitive though TK. People will start 'skimming' your posts - like I do with your videos.
Again.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 01:32:57 AM
picowatt?
I take it then that you're not 'up for it'? You realise that those two questions are the ONLY questions that actually pertain. And they're the only two questions that have not yet been addressed. All that emphases that you've all relied on related to my innate stupidity - all that? They're irrelevant to the argument. What's needed is some kind of reasonable explanation for the evidence of a negative wattage that is dependably and accurately measured over a circuit. And then some discussion as to why. TK.'s experiments were designed to 'infer' gross measurement errors. And Groundloop has come up with the proposal that it may be a mere 'oscillation' that has no intrinsic benefit. So. Let's hear your 'summation'?
And TK - I always run a spell check. You Americans - unfortunately - have yet to learn how to spell. In fact, you've made 'misspelling' English into an art form - since you re-invented it - with your Declaration of Independence. There's an excessive use of 'z's and an omission of 'our' in the suffix of certain nouns - to be represented as 'or'. But on the plus side - you all make English sound SO delectable - who cares?
Kindest regards to you both and comforting to see that TK is still 'abusing' all those forum guidelines. But no doubt he's in need of all that propagandising. So it's to be expected. It's becoming a bit repetitive though TK. People will start 'skimming' your posts - like I do with your videos.
Again.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
>>>And Groundloop has come up with the proposal that it may be a mere 'oscillation' that has no intrinsic benefit.
Don't put words in my mouth!
I have explained to WHY your circuit oscillates when the FG is a negative pulse and offset.
I have never said anything about the usefulness or not of the oscillation.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 26, 2012, 01:39:13 AM
Rosemary,
>>>And Groundloop has come up with the proposal that it may be a mere 'oscillation' that has no intrinsic benefit.
Don't put words in my mouth!
I have explained to WHY your circuit oscillates when the FG is a negative pulse and offset.
I have never said anything about the usefulness or not of the oscillation.
GL.
Apologies Groundloop. I assumed. And one should never do so. I am - as ever - a great admirer of your work.
Rosie
:)
added
I've just seen your earlier post BTW. I'll study it and get back to you. But I think I see your point about it's being similar. I just have to work out the implications of that oscillation. Groundloop - you know my sketch? I'll post it again - if I can find it.
Willfully ignorant.
I imply, you infer.
And my experiments are designed to duplicate yours and they have. What I imply and what you infer are different things, Rosie Poser.
I imply that your circuit, since it is just like mine, also is not overunity. What I state clearly and overtly is that my circuit performs just like yours in all significant respects, and I offer it to anyone qualified to test this claim side by side with yours. Any where any time. You infer from this that I am trying to "debunk" you. But my claim only _refers_ to your circuit... it doesn't try to debunk it. I'm leaving that to you. You are doing a really great job of it, too.
Spell check this, Rosie Poser.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 01:46:04 AM
Willfully ignorant.
I imply, you infer.
No TK. You can both infer from 'inference' and by 'inference'. I imply that you've 'inferred' in the same way as you 'infer' what I've implied. And no need to spell check your posts. They're American - which only approximates to English. In the same way as your tests only 'approximate' to our own.
Rosie Pose
added
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 01:32:57 AM
picowatt?
I take it then that you're not 'up for it'? You realise that those two questions are the ONLY questions that actually pertain. And they're the only two questions that have not yet been addressed. All that emphases that you've all relied on related to my innate stupidity - all that? They're irrelevant to the argument. What's needed is some kind of reasonable explanation for the evidence of a negative wattage that is dependably and accurately measured over a circuit. And then some discussion as to why. TK.'s experiments were designed to 'infer' gross measurement errors. And Groundloop has come up with the proposal that it may be a mere 'oscillation' that has no intrinsic benefit. So. Let's hear your 'summation'?
And TK - I always run a spell check. You Americans - unfortunately - have yet to learn how to spell. In fact, you've made 'misspelling' English into an art form - since your re-invented it - with your Declaration of Independence. There's an excessive use of 'z's and an omission of 'our' in the suffix of certain nouns - to be represented as 'or'. But on the plus side - you all make English sound SO delectable - who cares?
Kindest regards to you both and comforting to see that TK is still 'abusing' all those forum guidelines. But no doubt he's in need of all that propagandising. So it's to be expected. It's becoming a bit repetitive though TK. People will start 'skimming' your posts - like I do with your videos.
Again.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
I am not sure what two questions you refer to, I believe asked three.
Back in the other thread I spent a great deal of time trying to teach you how to read values from the display on a 'scope. I believe, regarding the horizontal measurement, that you stated even an 8 year old could understand it. I have indeed taught 8 year olds how to use a 'scope. I have taught pre-schooler's how to solder. All of them were more receptive to learning than you.
It is not that I am not "up for it", it is merely that I do not believe you will attempt to understand it and will only want to argue rather than discuss and learn. It would just be a waste of my time. Life is too short.
If you want to have a discussion, it has to be based on a common ground of knowledge and language. If you will not allow me to ask questions, and then be provided succinct answers by you so that I know your level of understanding, any further discussion can go no where.
You act as if the questions somehow insult your intelligence, but just a short time ago in another thread and from your paper, you apparently did not believe Q2 could ever turn on to any degree at all, and that an FG cannot pass current. So the questions were merely to see if you had resolved and accepted these very basic issues. If not, I was willing to discuss that further. If you did understand, I was going to move on to the MOSFET's inherent current regulation action in this circuit and how it is biased into linear operation. Just basic DC before proceding to AC.
I am glad however, that you are at least an expert at spelling.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMI am not sure what two questions you refer to, I believe asked three.
Math has never been my thing. Perhaps I did ask you three. Let's list then again and then do a numbers count.
1 What explanation for the negative wattage computed
2 What explanation for the positive half of each waveform
That's about it. I think that's what our papers deal with. And I've doubled checked. Definitely just two pertinent questions. But if that count is out - then let me know. I'll revise it.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMBack in the other thread I spent a great deal of time trying to teach you how to read values from the display on a 'scope. I believe, regarding the horizontal measurement, that you stated even an 8 year old could understand it. I have indeed taught 8 year olds how to use a 'scope. I have taught preschooler's how to solder. All of them were more receptive to learning than you.
Golly? preschoolers - let loose with a solder iron? That's a bit reckless. I know that in South Africa children are strongly discouraged from such 'high risk exposure' so young. And our preschoolers are under 6. But there you go. Our differences are not only confined to spelling. Regarding that 'lesson' that you embarked on related to scope reading. I'm most receptive. But not so much when the 'inference' is that our MOSFETs are blown or that our SCOPE MEASUREMENT is wrong. Perhaps you should have tried the more courteous approach of simply asking a question. It would certainly have been more apposite.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMIt is not that I am not "up for it", it is merely that I do not believe you will attempt to understand it and will only want to argue rather than discuss and learn. It would just be a waste of my time. Life is too short.
Do you see your mission in this little exercise of ours to 'teach'? I'm not sure that I want to be 'taught' - anything at all by you. When I need teaching I go to experts. And when I need guidance I go to my colleagues. And if you're not that interested in getting to the questions in the paper - then why are you wasting everyone's time here? I thought that was the object of this thread? Was I that wrong? Was it merely to concentrate on what needs to be taught and by whom? Not a typical 'thread topic' and certainly not clear in all everyone's posts here.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMIf you want to have a discussion, it has to be based on a common ground of knowledge and language. If you will not allow me to ask questions, and then be provided succinct answers by you so that I know your level of understanding, any further discussion can go no where.
Don't worry about my ability to understand what you write. Just use good argument and qualify your acronyms. Then what I don't understand I'll ask. And it may be that I'll ask my colleagues or experts. Or - who knows? Maybe I'll also understand you.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMYou act as if the questions somehow insult your intelligence, but just a short time ago in another thread and from your paper, you apparently did not believe Q2 could ever turn on to any degree at all.
Q2 DOES NOT TURN ON in the Q-array. Certainly not that it can discharge any current through the gate.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMand that an FG cannot pass current.
A function generator DOES NOT PASS CURRENT. What it does is apply a voltage that then enables a current flow.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMSo the questions were merely to see if you had resolved and accepted these very basic issues.
Clearly I have not.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMIf not, I was willing to discuss that further. If you did understand, I was going to move on to the MOSFET's inherent current regulation action in this circuit and how it is biased into linear operation. Just basic DC before proceding to AC.
I'll pass if you don't mind. I just want to hear your 'opinion' if you have one. Do you endorse Tk's conclusion of there being a negative wattage? And then. If so - those two, (I think it was) questions apply.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMI am glad however, that you are at least an expert at spelling.
Where did I say I was an expert at spelling? I only stated that I make liberal use of a spell check.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 02:15:00 AM
Math has never been my thing. Perhaps I did ask you three. Let's list then again and then do a numbers count.
1 What explanation for the negative wattage computed
2 What explanation for the positive half of each waveform
That's about it. I think that's what our papers deal with. And I've doubled checked. Definitely just two pertinent questions. But if that count is out - then let me know. I'll revise it.Golly? preschoolers - let loose with a solder iron? That's a bit reckless. I know that in South Africa children are strongly discouraged from such 'high risk exposure' so young. And our preschoolers are under 6. But there you go. Our differences are not only confined to spelling. Regarding that 'lesson' that you embarked on related to scope reading. I'm most receptive. But not so much when the 'inference' is that our MOSFETs are blown or that our SCOPE MEASUREMENT is wrong. Perhaps you should have tried the more courteous approach of simply asking a question. It would certainly have been more apposite.Do you see your mission in this little exercise of ours to 'teach'? I'm not sure that I want to be 'taught' - anything at all by you. When I need teaching I go to experts. And when I need guidance I go to my colleagues. And if you're not that interested in getting to the questions in the paper - then why are you wasting everyone's time here? I thought that was the object of this thread? Was I that wrong? Was it merely to concentrate on what needs to be taught and by whom? Not a typical 'thread topic' and certainly not clear in all everyone's posts here. Don't worry about my ability to understand what you write. Just use good argument and qualify your acronyms. Then what I don't understand I'll ask. And it may be that I'll ask my colleagues or experts. Or - who knows? Maybe I'll also understand you.Q2 DOES NOT TURN ON in the Q-array. Certainly not that it can discharge any current through the gate.A function generator DOES NOT PASS CURRENT. What it does is apply a voltage that then enables a current flow. Clearly I have not.I'll pass if you don't mind. I just want to hear your 'opinion' if you have one. Do you endorse Tk's conclusion of there being a negative wattage? And then. If so - those two, (I think it was) questions apply.Where did I say I was an expert at spelling? I only stated that I make liberal use of a spell check.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
If you only knew how much humor you provide at times. I truly enjoy a good laugh now and again.
No one need insult your intelligence, you do that just fine all by yourself.
Sincerely,
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:25:16 AM
Rosemary,
If you only knew how much humor you provide at times. I truly enjoy a good laugh now and again.
No one need insult your intelligence, you do that just fine all by yourself.
Sincerely,
PW
Not actually. That's what you're trying to 'infer'. I don't think that there's much wrong with my IQ. I have a functional intelligence. And that's all that's needed. Certainly on this thread.
Rosie Pose.
And tell us more about those 'preschoolers' that you taught to use a solder iron. I can't get my head around it. It sounds alarming. Did their parents know what you were teaching them? :o
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 02:34:23 AM
Not actually. That's what you're trying to 'infer'. I don't think that there's much wrong with my IQ. I have a functional intelligence. And that's all that's needed. Certainly on this thread.
Rosie Pose.
And tell us more about those 'preschoolers' that you taught to use a solder iron. I can't get my head around it. It sounds alarming. Did their parents know what you were teaching them? :o
Of course their parents knew. They did very well sitting on my lap. Soldered up siren circuits to run around annoying everyone with. They loved it.
THEY had a functional intelligence.
Good night Rosemary,
PW
ZZiinngg!
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anfO1ZKz2CQ
This one's for MileHigh... and anyone else who appreciates a classic....
QuoteDo you see your mission in this little exercise of ours to 'teach'? I'm not sure that I want to be 'taught' - anything at all by you. When I need teaching I go to experts. And when I need guidance I go to my colleagues. And if you're not that interested in getting to the questions in the paper - then why are you wasting everyone's time here? I thought that was the object of this thread? Was I that wrong? Was it merely to concentrate on what needs to be taught and by whom? Not a typical 'thread topic' and certainly not clear in all everyone's posts here.
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg316720/#msg316720
Rosemary, I think you are forgetting something. This thread is NOT about you or your device. It only _refers_ to it.
So go play in the street, because YOU ARE THAT WRONG. Over and over again.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 03:22:20 AM
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg316720/#msg316720 (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg316720/#msg316720)
Rosemary, I think you are forgetting something. This thread is NOT about you or your device. It only _refers_ to it.
So go play in the street, because YOU ARE THAT WRONG. Over and over again.
TK - you've made this very much about ME. Not so much about our circuit. And latterly a rather trivial discussion on star gazing. But I think the thread has concluded. Surely? I keep hoping. Then I can start doing some outlines of the proposed tests that we're going to make public. The good news is that our study has been cleared. It now needs to be sorted and then some testing apparatus and filming gear installed. Can't wait. I'll include a full 555 circuit and show you what happens when we run it off a 'rechargeable' battery. I'll do a series of tests to show picowatt that the MOSFETs are not blown. I'll run some others to show how the function generator 'off set' shifts the zero reference of the waveform across the gates of the FETs. And I'll show you the difference in filming under good lighting. It would make it impossible to confuse our viewers as you manage. I'll show the difference in the oscillations across the battery. Those will be prelim shots. Let me know if you can think of any others. Happy to oblige.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
It's an interesting position, don't you think?
Here we have the "claimant" of an overunity device trying to DEBUNK the duplicate device that I have built and tested.
Further, the claimant "promises" to reproduce the tests and circuitry that I HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED many times in this thread, and to replicate my 555 timer circuit and my DC demonstrations .... yet she has NO plans to perform the simple and comprehensive test that would prove her claims unequivocally: the simple DIM BULB TEST. This test could be performed in three days and would put a stop to this whole chapter, if not the whole story. But she will not be doing it.
Since Tar Baby has reproduced ALL the evidence that Ainslie has shown including the NEGATIVE MEAN WATTAGE... and can do so AT ANY TIME ANY WHERE FOR ANYBODY on ANY OSCILLOSCOPE (except maybe my RM503) ..... Ainslie is now in the rather unique position of having to "debunk" ME, to have any credibility at all. But of course.... since Tar Baby is a duplicate of NERD.... well, do the math.
Any debunk of ME is also a debunk of NERD.
Remember, my ENTIRE process of exploration and development is right here, in public, and I will answer all questions immediately without running and hiding, and anyone can reproduce my results without even needing a digital oscilloscope. Anybody can do it.
ANYbody can make the negative wattage that Ainslie claims is evidence for OU, and I (not Ainslie), with the help of .99, MileHigh, PW, and Groundloop (and some others) have shown the way to do it and how to understand it.
This is a far cry from what Ainslie has done with her errors, misinterpretations, accusations, mendacity, combative attitude, hiding information, and refusal to perform real tests.
If Ainslie's negative wattage figures are evidence of something.... how can my negative wattage figures not be evidence of the same thing?
I hope somebody will explain to Ainslie that my power computations of negative average wattage are JUST AS VALID as hers. Has anyone found any "more" errors in my spreadsheet? Is there any real justification for using a million samples per period rather than 18? Whatever did people do before digital oscilloscopes? Would the result be materially different? No..... more precise perhaps, but not different in sign or magnitude, and certainly not more "accurate" .... because no matter how sophisticated your garbage truck is, Garbage In still produces Garbage Out.
I really LOL at the way she "skims" my videos and then pretends to understand what I'm talking about, when she manifestly does not.
You are a hypocrite, Ainslie, and you deserve to be spewed out like lukewarm water.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 06:33:22 AM
TK - you've made this very much about ME. Not so much about our circuit. And latterly a rather trivial discussion on star gazing. But I think the thread has concluded. Surely? I keep hoping. Then I can start doing some outlines of the proposed tests that we're going to make public. The good news is that our study has been cleared. It now needs to be sorted and then some testing apparatus and filming gear installed. Can't wait. I'll include a full 555 circuit and show you what happens when we run it off a 'rechargeable' battery. I'll do a series of tests to show picowatt that the MOSFETs are not blown. I'll run some others to show how the function generator 'off set' shifts the zero reference of the waveform across the gates of the FETs. And I'll show you the difference in filming under good lighting. It would make it impossible to confuse our viewers as you manage. I'll show the difference in the oscillations across the battery. Those will be prelim shots. Let me know if you can think of any others. Happy to oblige.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Oh yes, that's right.... I still have the NERD test preventer turned on and linecasting, don't I. That's why you can only talk about what you "will" do, but you can't actually DO it.
Go ahead and "show" the things I have already shown from Tar Baby. I will be standing by and will DUPLICATE once again, your duplications of what I've already shown in this thread. The only thing that you can show of interest will be a DIM BULB TEST or other comprehensive test of battery charge and remaining capacity. All the rest of your "testing" is irrelevant.... and I'll duplicate it anyway.
Meanwhile, I'll show, YET AGAIN that a function generator can and does source CURRENT, whether or not it is in series with another power supply. How do you explain this video if a FG can't source current? What is making those LEDs light up, just voltage?
Rosemary.... Voltage, current and resistance. They go together. If a transistor has an on-state resistance of 2 ohms and it is carrying a current of 5 amps.... what must the voltage be? Will the transistor get warm? Does it matter to the transistor whether this voltage... and hence the current... is coming from a function generator or a wind farm or a cold fusion device? Of course not.
You are the only one confused by my videos Ainslie, and that's because you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand them, even though I am pitching them at an eighth-grade level. And also because you simply do not pay attention to what's being said or shown.
And YOU are the one who would like to make this thread "very much about Ainslie". If you didn't make your insane ignorant blowhard insulting comments, if you simply answered questions that were asked of you and used normal reasoning ability and stopped insulting people with literally EVERY post you make.... this thread would be IGNORING YOU completely, because after all YOU are irrelevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ynqTc1fY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ynqTc1fY)
On April 23 Ainslie posted,
QuoteIn terms of a 'time line'. Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early May. The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house. I need to set these tests up in our study. At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons. This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country. All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week. Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing. But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things. I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge. And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com. I've got lots of homework to do before I get started. And I won't be 'rushed'. I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past. Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence. And I've been well 'bitten'. I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented. That way the results will be unequivocal. It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'.
But I'll get there. Hopefully sooner rather than later. And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise. A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters. I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread. And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today. Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.
Well... hadn't you better be getting busy, then? Yesterday was Wednesday on this half of the planet. Tick tock, tick tock. Have you found your "academics" who will endorse your work? Are they going to remain anonymous, like me?
And note: the only place that will provide the "required supervision" of those tests is the Ainslie residence. How impartial can you get?
In stark contrast, Tar Baby can be tested ANYWHERE at ANY TIME and I don't even have to be on the same CONTINENT much less in the same house "supervising" and making sure that nobody actually tries to _falsify an hypothesis_ during the testing. Anywhere, anytime by anybody.... as long as NERD is tested in the same manner at the same time. ANY TESTS even. Drop them both in a bucket of water and see if they sink or float, I don't care. Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in all significant respects.
You see.... when in a store I look at a demonstration device and decide to purchase one of my own.... when I get it home I know it will perform just like the sample in the store, because they both have the same circuitry. So how could they possibly perform differently?
@PW:
The 503 is still running stably and beautifully, has been on for at least 12 hours now and no sign of badness from the RS xfmr. I've posted a video showing it making Lissajous figures in X-Y mode... something I can't do with the HP180 without an external attenuating amplifier.
(Is that an oxymoron? Should I have said, an amplifier and a step attenuator? Oh well you at least know what I mean.)
;D
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 10:15:42 AM
@PW:
The 503 is still running stably and beautifully, has been on for at least 12 hours now and no sign of badness from the RS xfmr. I've posted a video showing it making Lissajous figures in X-Y mode... something I can't do with the HP180 without an external attenuating amplifier.
(Is that an oxymoron? Should I have said, an amplifier and a step attenuator? Oh well you at least know what I mean.)
;D
TK,
I hope the RS xfmr continues to perform well for you. I saw the video. I wouldn't want to have to try to explain to "someone", what and how how actual measurements can be made in that mode. I'll just stick with they're very pretty and mesmerizing!
I apologize for being off topic discussing o'scopes, t'scopes, and surplus supply every now and again. In the last and only other thread I participated in, the topic changed directions "like the wind".
Regarding the TB, it would be interesting to test .99's simulation/calculation results regarding the use of the true battery voltage making the mean neg pwr fade away. The batteries could be heavily decoupled/bypassed with caps to eliminate any osc across the batt. Additional wire length could be placed between the batt and board to replace the lost L to maintain osc if required.
Two test runs/calculations with the batt probe at the board's batt connection in one test and directly at the batt in another might be very telling.
Regarding last night's discussions and the eventual answering of my three questioms, I am, quite frankly, just plain flabbergasted.
PW
Flabbergasted? Already? Wait until you've been dealing with it for three years. :'(
I'll try to do the demonstrations you have suggested but I can't say when. Soon, though.
Meanwhile, here's a little more fuel for the fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIruX5_Hc-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIruX5_Hc-o)
Function Generator as Current Source.
Notice: at no time do my hands leave my wrists. And I'll not say how long it took me to stuff a toy monkey with a battery inside that yellow box.
PW said,
QuoteI wouldn't want to have to try to explain to "someone", what and how how actual measurements can be made in that mode.
You don't mean actual measurements of the _phase relationship_ between two signals, do you? How on earth could an analog scope do _that_? Golly. It doesn't even have numbers in boxes. How anyone could claim to do actual measurements on that piece of broken junk is beyond me. Just another example of TK's misdirection and calumny, obviously. And look at that lighting! Clearly he has something to hide.
:-\
Too bad its bandwidth is so low....
;)
and
QuoteI apologize for being off topic discussing o'scopes, t'scopes, and surplus supply every now and again. In the last and only other thread I participated in, the topic changed directions "like the wind".
You certainly don't have to apologise to _me_ for discussing highly technical topics that interest us both. And you don't have to worry in the least about Rosemary's snide objections to these "off topic" discussions... because they are only off "her topic" and after all... I am the one who started this thread.
8)
(She's prolly gonna flame you for that "american zed" though. My spellchecker is crazy... it even flags "spellchecker".)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 11:17:47 AM
Flabbergasted? Already? Wait until you've been dealing with it for three years. :'(
I'll try to do the demonstrations you have suggested but I can't say when. Soon, though.
Meanwhile, here's a little more fuel for the fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIruX5_Hc-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIruX5_Hc-o)
Function Generator as Current Source.
Notice: at no time do my hands leave my wrists. And I'll not say how long it took me to stuff a toy monkey with a battery inside that yellow box.
TK,
Total obfuscation! You obviously are using a jet of air from off camera to make the little tape flag spin the motor.
PW
Rosemary:
QuoteWhen I need teaching I go to experts.
When I read that I felt that little "jump" that you feel inside when you read something outrageous. Rosie, the expert is Picowatt. I am am pretty sure that you realize this yourself. Any expert that you talk to will tell you what PW is telling you. PW is an expert when it comes to MOSFETs, who are you trying to fool? You are not fooling me, or the other people in the thread, or the readers of the thread, you are just "play fooling" yourself.
You are just "running away" like some poor Southern Belle that can't believe that the South is about to fall. This nonsensical cognitive dissonance is kooky-crazy. It's becomes a farcical black comedy when you act like this.
Little Miss StrangeMOSFET.
MileHigh
MH,
With regard to Rosemary stating that she always admits when she is wrong, she said specifically that we were to ask you, so, does she?
TK,
I've barely figured out how to post an image on this site, let alone run a spellchecker while making posts.
Those darn S and Z keys are so close together!
And if you did not use a jet of air in that little motor video, I'll bet it was just done using stop action techniques. What other possible explanation can there be?
PW
MH,
I did not mean to put you "on the spot". The question was rhetorical at best.
TK,
I've consulted with experts in video software and audio analysis. They have assured me your little motor video is indeed authentic. Apologies for accusing you of any fraudulent action.
So, as it is known that a function generator cannot pass, sink, or source current, your little motor must be a source of free energy. Protect it well from the MIB!
PW
This is so beautiful. I wonder what language it is in.
(from Circuits, Devices and Systems, 3rd Ed, by Ralph J. Smith)
Quote from: MileHigh on April 26, 2012, 11:54:20 AM
Rosemary:
When I read that I felt that little "jump" that you feel inside when you read something outrageous. Rosie, the expert is Picowatt. I am am pretty sure that you realize this yourself. Any expert that you talk to will tell you what PW is telling you. PW is an expert when it comes to MOSFETs, who are you trying to fool? You are not fooling me, or the other people in the thread, or the readers of the thread, you are just "play fooling" yourself.
You are just "running away" like some poor Southern Belle that can't believe that the South is about to fall. This nonsensical cognitive dissonance is kooky-crazy. It's becomes a farcical black comedy when you act like this.
Little Miss StrangeMOSFET.
MileHigh
MileHigh - I know EXACTLY who picowatt is. And he is NOT an expert. The only thing I don't yet know is who TK is.
Rosie Pose
Rosie:
I have been involved in electrical engineering one way or the other for more than 30 years and I am telling you that Picowatt is the real thing.
You will never be able to cherry-pick experts that will agree with you to advance your cause. That's simply impossible.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdA7GM3657s
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 05:54:17 PM
MileHigh - I know EXACTLY who picowatt is. And he is NOT an expert. The only thing I don't yet know is who TK is.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
I never said I was an expert. I'll be learning, hopefully, until the day I die.
Have you seen TK's panel of LED's video and the little motor video where the LED's and motor are being powered by his function generator?
Do you have an opinion or thought regarding those videos that you care to share?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 07:14:10 PM
Rosemary,
I never said I was an expert. I'll be learning, hopefully, until the day I die.
Have you seen TK's panel of LED's video and the little motor video where the LED's and motor are being powered by his function generator?
Do you have an opinion or thought regarding those videos that you care to share?
PW
picowatt - do you have some thoughts and opinions about our two questions? Those two that you counted as three? The one is about the negative wattage. And the other is about the manifest positive half of each of those oscillations?
RA
TK:
Love that blue phosphor. High persistence.
In my day I projected Lissajous figures on skyscrapers, dammit!
PW:
You are a modest expert, but when you take off your glasses.... ;D
To answer your question about Rosie:
Roses supposes her toeses are Roses,
But Roses supposes Erroneously,
Roses she knowses her toeses aren't roses,
As Roses supposes her toeses to be!
Roses supposes her toeses are Roses,
But Roses supposes Erroneously,
A mose is a mose!
A rose is a rose!
A toes is a toes!
Hooptie doodie doodle!
Roses supposes her toeses are Roses,
But Roses supposes Erroneously,
Roses supposes Erroneously!
Roses supposes Erroneously!
Roses supposes Erroneously!
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 07:23:05 PM
picowatt - do you have some thoughts and opinions about our two questions? Those two that you counted as three? The one is about the negative wattage. And the other is about the manifest positive half of each of those oscillations?
RA
Rosemary,
Go back and reread the post where I said I was not sure what two questions you were referring to.
You will see that I said "I believe I asked three questions".
I thought you were referring to MY questions. I had not even seen yours.
So forgive me, I can't recall what your questions were.
How do you reconcile your belief that a function generator cannot source, sink, or pass current when you watch TK's videos?
Just curious,
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on April 26, 2012, 07:12:53 PM
Rosie:
I have been involved in electrical engineering one way or the other for more than 30 years and I am telling you that Picowatt is the real thing.
You will never be able to cherry-pick experts that will agree with you to advance your cause. That's simply impossible.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdA7GM3657s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdA7GM3657s)
MileHigh - you are quite simply wrong. I CAN and do refer to experts - regularly - and from far further afield than South Africa. And I do not want anyone - expert or otherwise - to agree with me on any issue at all. I want them to evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusions.
But that video link? Well done. As ever. You've got the soul of an artist. I think you've missed your vocation.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 07:34:16 PM
MileHigh - you are quite simply wrong. I CAN and do refer to experts - regularly - and from far further afield than South Africa. And I do not want anyone - expert or otherwise - to agree with me on any issue at all. I want them to evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusions.
But that video link? Well done. As ever. You've got the soul of an artist. I think you've missed your vocation.
Rosie Pose
And if they evaluate and draw a conclusion that is different from yours, then what?
Again, just curious,
PW
MileHigh
Deleted my 'ditty' version - because it did not match up to yours.
And - on a more serious note - how come you're so easily fooled? I would have expected better?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 07:32:32 PM
Rosemary,
Go back and reread the post where I said I was not sure what two questions you were referring to.
You will see that I said "I believe I asked three questions".
I thought you were referring to MY questions. I had not even seen yours.
So forgive me, I can't recall what your questions were.
How do you reconcile your belief that a function generator cannot source, sink, or pass current when you watch TK's videos?
Just curious,
PW
LOL That's an easy question. I believe NOTHING that TK videos. The few that I've actually taken 10 minutes to watch are ridiculous. And I most certainly DID watch that function generator thing - which was a JOKE. At best.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 07:48:03 PM
LOL That's an easy question. I believe NOTHING that TK videos. The few that I've actually taken 10 minutes to watch are ridiculous. And I most certainly DID watch that function generator thing - which was a JOKE. At best.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
Why do you say it was a joke?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 07:53:49 PM
Rosemary,
Why do you say it was a joke?
PW
picowatt I'll answer your questions when you EVENTUALLY get around to answering mine.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 07:55:43 PM
picowatt I'll answer your questions when you EVENTUALLY get around to answering mine.
Rosie Posie
Rosemary,
I told you, I can't recall what they were.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 07:57:22 PM
Rosemary,
I told you, I can't recall what they were.
PW
Let me remind you - starting with the last 'first'.
How do you explain a 'negative wattage'?
How do you reconcile the positive half of each half of that oscillation?
again
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 07:48:03 PM
LOL That's an easy question. I believe NOTHING that TK videos. The few that I've actually taken 10 minutes to watch are ridiculous. And I most certainly DID watch that function generator thing - which was a JOKE. At best.
Rosie Pose
\
A joke.... you say that because you can't believe it... because it contradicts a lot of what you've been claiming here out of ignorance.
But what you are missing is this: The demonstration is easy to do and anybody with a function generator and a handful of LEDs and a little motor can repeat it for themselves... and see if it's a joke or not.
And when they do, they will see for themselves that what you are claiming about the operation of a function generator is a bunch of your usual hooey.
I can even show the function generator in series with a battery, powering the motor at the battery's voltage PLUS the FG's voltage when the FG is positive.
The "joke" is that you claim to understand videos you haven't even watched, and that you refuse to see that I am constructing these videos deliberately so that it will be easy for anyone to repeat what I show.
Try it yourself with your "isotech 324" function generator. I am sure that you can find LEDs and small motors, somewhere, even in South Africa. If you can't maybe your "advisors" can.
Then come back and tell me if that video is a joke, and just what part you found funny.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 08:00:28 PM
Let me remind you - starting with the last 'first'.
How do you explain a 'negative wattage'?
How do you reconcile the positive half of each half of that oscillation?
again
Rosie Posie
Yes... PW... how do you explain (to Rosemary) those same things in MY data as well?
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 08:20:53 PM
Yes... PW... how do you explain (to Rosemary) those same things in MY data as well?
;)
There you go picowatt. How about it? Even TinselKoala is asking this. I am most anxious to read your explanation.
Rosie Pose
He's already explained it to you. .99 has explained it to you and demonstrated in his sim the exact same result. Mile High has explained it to you. I have explained it to you and demonstrated in Tar Baby the exact same result.
Hopefully he'll find a way to explain it to you that even you can understand.
But will YOU explain the features he's asked about, in a way that we will understand? Unlikely.
If anyone is interested, Tar Baby doesn't need an external bias supply.
Using my 555 voltage inverter circuit to make a negative 12 volts more negative than the lowest battery negative, and feeding its output into the potentiometer circuit, one can make oscillations that look just like those made with the external bias source, including negative mean "wattage" product AND... something the AINSLIE crew has not shown ... a negative-going ENERGY INTEGRAL.
NO EXTRA BIAS BATTERY IS NEEDED as long as something like my 555 voltage inverter is used.
I'll show the evidence for this when I get home in a couple of hours, if I survive the drive.
And... since I have this NEGATIVE going ENERGY integral... that means my Tar Baby is actually putting out energy instead of consuming it. (Apparently).
And.... since I have it all packed up and ready to go, and since it is a lot closer to Stefan's size and weight requirement..... well, DO THE MATH.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 26, 2012, 08:00:28 PM
Let me remind you - starting with the last 'first'.
How do you explain a 'negative wattage'?
How do you reconcile the positive half of each half of that oscillation?
again
Rosie Posie
Rosemary,
The second question will be more difficult to answer. As I have not been able reach agreement with you regarding initial DC operating conditions, discussion of AC conditions would be difficult at best. So I will skip that question for now.
As for your first question, although I have not yet reached a 100% solid conclusion, I am indeed forming an opinion that is not far from reaching such a conclusion.
Some time ago it was proposed that the neg mean pwr measurement was simply a measurement error based on possible skew between 'scope channels. Although plausible, that reasoning seemed a bit weak to me as the frequency of the oscillation is not very high. Skew would likely only be a source of significant error at much higher frequencies, and 'scope probes and channels are pretty good at the low frequencies involved. So, although plausible, I had serious doubts regarding this issue being the reason for the indicated measurement.
As discussions progressed, I became aware of .99's sim data and analysis that demonstrates the neg mean pwr was the result of an improper indication of the true battery voltage due to battery interconnect inductance. Of all the reasons discussed to date, this seems the most plausible. When one looks at the battery voltage as indicated by the various 'scope shots, it is not reasonable to believe that the battery voltage is swinging as far positive and negative as indicated. In order for a fully charged lead acid battery's voltage to vary to that degree, the battery must source or sink hundreds of amps (or even more). If this were happening, that current would be indicated by the voltage across the CSR and by a glowing red load resistor. It is much more reasonable to believe that the path to the battery is a high impedance path at the frequency of oscillation due to lead and battery interconnect inductance. It is also, therefore, reasonable to believe that the indicated voltage, that is, the measured voltage being utilized for power calculations, is not the true battery voltage.
As .99's analysis indicates, if the measured battery voltage numbers are replaced with the the battery's true DC voltage, the neg mean pwr measurements disappear and become a pos mean pwr result.
At this time, I believe this to be the most likely explanation. TK has been able to construct a circuit that, while not an exact replication of your circuit, also indicates a neg mean pwr (an exact replication will be difficult to acheive by anyone due to several unknowns). TK has graciously provided various measurements as requested that continue to support .99's analysis. I have sugested an additional test to TK wherein the supply battery would be heaviy decoupled/bypassed with capacitors to eliminate all AC across the battery terminals. If necessary, additional wire length between the battery and the circuit board can be added to replace lost inductance that may affect oscillation. Power calculations can then be made by first using the battery voltage as indicated at the circuit board (with its AC component), and then second with the battery voltage as indicated at the decoupled/bypassed battery (which would be a smooth DC voltage). If the first calculations demonstrate a neg mean pwr and the second calculations demonstrate a pos mean pwr, I would consider this highly supportive of .99's analysis.
Of course, if the mean pwr calculations remain negative using either battery voltage measurement, I will have to reconsider .99's analysis and adjust my opinion accordingly.
I am still waiting on the IRFPG50's that I have ordered, and if TK is unable to perform this particular test, I will do so when my parts arrive.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2012, 09:29:04 PM
If anyone is interested, Tar Baby doesn't need an external bias supply.
Using my 555 voltage inverter circuit to make a negative 12 volts more negative than the lowest battery negative, and feeding its output into the potentiometer circuit, one can make oscillations that look just like those made with the external bias source, including negative mean "wattage" product AND... something the AINSLIE crew has not shown ... a negative-going ENERGY INTEGRAL.
NO EXTRA BIAS BATTERY IS NEEDED as long as something like my 555 voltage inverter is used.
I'll show the evidence for this when I get home in a couple of hours, if I survive the drive.
And... since I have this NEGATIVE going ENERGY integral... that means my Tar Baby is actually putting out energy instead of consuming it. (Apparently).
And.... since I have it all packed up and ready to go, and since it is a lot closer to Stefan's size and weight requirement..... well, DO THE MATH.
TK,
What's this all about. Is this your original 555 and battery or did you construct an inverting charge pump for the supply?
PW
PW:
Great explanation and I think that it will ultimately prove to be the true explanation.
Let me give a simple example to illustrate this to make the wheels in people's heads start to turn. As we know on the free energy forums the majority of people that work with coils don't understand all of their dynamics. Coils are "mysterious" and for many people there is just an emptiness in their understanding and they work around it, they even pretend that it isn't even there. This "work-around" can go on for years.
Rosemary's work-around is to make reference to the "inductive laws." That's as far as she can go, beyond that it's emptiness. Some other people make references to "time compressed potential." Another perennial is that coils somehow tap into "Unknown and unquantifiable 'energy from the environment'" The list is quite long.
So here is the simple example:
You have a set of batteries with long wires going to a simple on-off switch in series with a 10-ohm load resistor. So it's somewhat similar to a simplified NERD setup but using a physical switch instead of a MOSFET. We know that the long wires between the batteries and the switch and the load resistor possess some inductance.
Imagine you are monitoring the voltage between the ground connection of the load resistor and the switch with your scope. For the positive connection, you are monitoring the "battery side" of the switch.
When you close the switch to power the load, for a fraction of a second you will see what appears to be the "battery voltage" drop to zero on your scope display.
When you open the switch to disconnect the load, for a fraction of a second you will see what appears to be the "battery voltage" spike up very high.
Those are the kinds of inductive effects that are the likely cause of the negative average power measurement in the NERD circuit and in TK's replication of the NERD circuit, the Tar Baby.
It's a fake-out compliments of Mother Nature.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 09:53:45 PM
TK,
What's this all about. Is this your original 555 and battery or did you construct an inverting charge pump for the supply?
PW
The latter. NO extra battery is needed.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 12:42:02 AM
The latter. NO extra battery is needed.
TK,
I figured. Have you measured the quiescent current on that puppy yet? Or better still, the difference between the current to the inverter and the bias current. Are you going to heat sink the inverter as well?
Nice job.
PW
@PW: I agree that skew is not the cause of the negative mean power. At first I thought it might be but with the relatively low inductances and the low frequency the effect would be negligible. The reason is as you say: the waveshape, because of the inductive effects, is such that a negative product results from the multiplication when averaged over a full cycle. But "proper" measurements of battery voltage will not show the waveshape that will result in this negative product.
Be that as it may, the negative product is robust enough to be easily repeatable, and I've even gone a step further and looked at the integration of the instantaneous multiplication... and it produces a negative-going energy integral as well.
Where most of us would see this as an artefact and try to eliminate it as being illusory and hiding the true power, some others would naively read the numbers out of the boxes and shout halleluja, the "theory" is confirmed.... when in fact it is evidence of nothing more than improper power measurement technique.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile I have repeated the negative mean power measurements using a digital oscilloscope with math capability, using both a bias battery and the potentiometer/50R hookup, _and_ the 555-based voltage inverter that allows running the bias from the lowest unit of the Main Battery pack. The schematic for the inverter is posted above.
Fig.1: The setup, using the 9v battery as bias source through the potentiometer and the 50R series resistance.
Fig.2: The traces with the 9v battery. Top trace (Yellow) is across the CVR. Purple trace is the battery voltage taken at the positive rail on the motherboard. RED trace is the Math trace, showing a straight multiplication (no constants correcting for inductive reactance) of the Yellow and the Purple traces. Note the negative mean product. Green is the mosfet common drains and blue is the gate drive signal.
Fig. 3: Close up of the mean power reading on the Math trace.
Fig. 4: Using NO external bias battery this time. The 555 voltage inverter is used with the potentiometer but NOT the 50R series resistance. Here I show the integration of the multiplication of the CVR and Battery traces. Again, no constants are inserted in the integral. NOTE WELL: the energy integral _decreases_ from left to right. This confirms the negative power _reading_ and also is evidence that could be interpreted to indicate very robust "overunity" performance ... since the energy through the system apparently _decreases_ over time rather than increasing as a power "consumer" should indicate.
Fig. 5: The 555 inverting charge pump hookup in place of the 9v battery.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 12:49:12 AM
TK,
I figured. Have you measured the quiescent current on that puppy yet?
no,not yet
QuoteOr better still, the difference between the current to the inverter and the bias current. Are you going to heat sink the inverter as well?
Yes, heatsink is on the 555. I have had one thermal failure but I consider 555s to be consumables anyway and I have dozens of them laying around.
Quote
Nice job.
PW
Thanks.. .I thought I had mentioned this before though. But it probably got buried under a bunch of Ains-lies.
@PW: I noticed an interesting thing about this Tek scope. When the channel settings are made, the scope indicates both a "position" value and an "offset" value. The trace position knob moves the trace up and down normally and the "position" value indicates the divisions plus or minus displaced from the center graticle markings... but the "offset" figure doesn't change. It appears that the Tek might be using "offset" to mean the displacement resulting from AC coupling, bringing the signal down to the "position" marker. This means that when AC coupling is used, the scope still can do math calculations because it knows the "offset" removed by the AC coupling and so uses the true trace values in the math.
I think I tried to explain this same thing some time ago with reference to the LeCroy's handling of math on AC-coupled traces, although the LeCroy uses "offset" to describe trace position by the positioning knob too, as we understand trace offset or DC offset in an oscillating signal.
This might account for some of the confusion we have been having with Rosemary about our understanding of the scope's "offset" function.
I'm not sure about this and I've been in meetings all day (plus driving 200 miles) so I'm frazzled. I couldn't find the manual for the scope either, so I couldn't check this point out. (The manual is on a CD somewhere and I just couldn't figure out where.)
This would be a good point to research, since it may be that Rosemary just isn't describing the situation well and that Tek could be using this other "offset" to calculate with in the AC coupled condition, separately from trace "position".
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the "AC" coupling on the CVR trace in my shots above is taken into account by the math, and any DC offset is very small anyway on that trace.
Another weird thing I noticed about this scope is that the timebase doesn't appear to have a natural "1 microsecond per division" sweep setting. It has 1.2 microseconds I think, then the next detent is 400 nanoseconds. Weird. But at least it has the same number of minor divisions going in both directions even though the squares aren't square. The LeCroy Rosemary used had 5 minors in the X and only 4 in the Y directions.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 01:46:21 AM
@PW: I noticed an interesting thing about this Tek scope. When the channel settings are made, the scope indicates both a "position" value and an "offset" value. The trace position knob moves the trace up and down normally and the "position" value indicates the divisions plus or minus displaced from the center graticle markings... but the "offset" figure doesn't change. It appears that the Tek might be using "offset" to mean the displacement resulting from AC coupling, bringing the signal down to the "position" marker. This means that when AC coupling is used, the scope still can do math calculations because it knows the "offset" removed by the AC coupling and so uses the true trace values in the math.
I think I tried to explain this with reference to the LeCroy's handling of math on AC-coupled traces.
This might account for some of the confusion we have been having with Rosemary about our understanding of the scope's "offset" function.
I'm not sure about this and I've been in meetings all day (plus driving 200 miles) so I'm frazzled. I couldn't find the manual for the scope either, so I couldn't check this point out. (The manual is on a CD somewhere and I just couldn't figure out where.)
This would be a good point to research, since it may be that Rosemary just isn't describing the situation well and that Tek could be using this other "offset" to calculate with in the AC coupled condition, separately from trace "position".
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the "AC" coupling on the CVR trace in my shots above is taken into account by the math, and any DC offset is very small anyway on that trace.
Another weird thing I noticed about this scope is that the timebase doesn't appear to have a natural "1 microsecond per division" sweep setting. It has 1.2 microseconds I think, then the next detent is 400 nanoseconds. Weird. But at least it has the same number of minor divisions going in both directions even though the squares aren't square. The LeCroy Rosemary used had 5 minors in the X and only 4 in the Y directions.
TK,
The Lecroy does not have a separate position control. I read the 300 series manual and it stated to use the offest control to adjust trace position. As well, the visual calculations from centerline agree very well with the indicated offset, and the observed FG drive during neg osc visually calculates to where it should be within a volt or two. If necessary, I will call LeCroy.
As for the Tek, I am unsure what it is you are saying regarding AC coupling, position and offset. Explain again if you will. I'll look for a manual for the Tek online.
Is your inverter not able to provide enough voltage for use with the 50R?
It seems you are reliably able to obtain the negative pwr figures. Now that you have that 'scope there, I wonder if you could be troubled to investigate bypassing the batteries with caps and adding wire if needed as discussed. You might even be able to solder a switch to a batt connector and the caps lead to allow you to bypass the batteries by merely using the switch when desired. Likely any additional wire added could remain in circuit for either test, and it might also increase the amplitude of the osc. With the 'scope there, doing the two tests would be pretty quick, none of that "add the dots" needed.
Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct. No one moreso than I wish it were not true. Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring. After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 02:35:05 AM
snip...
I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring. After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally".
PW
A good question ... KneeDeep!
Cheers
TK,
Why are you AC couping the CVR trace?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 03:28:43 AM
TK,
Why are you AC couping the CVR trace?
PW
At some point when I was fiddling with the math I set it that way to see what happened to the math, and I simply forgot to set it back.
As far as I can tell the math is not affected. I said earlier, the scope apparently defines "trace position" and "offset" differently. Do you believe that the AC offset setting on the CVR channel affects the math result? If it did, it likely would REDUCE the magnitude of the indicated negative mean power, wouldn't it?
When you pull up the channel settings menu, it displays a "position" figure that correponds to what we have been calling "offset" ... that is, the vertical positioning of the trace on the screen, by moving the little zero indicator on the left side of the screen... AND it displays an "offset" figure in another box. You turn the knob and the trace position goes up or down, and the numbers in the "position" box changes to reflect this. But the number in the "offset" box remains at zero. As I said... I _think_ that this "offset" number changes when the scope corrects a DC offset by removing it when AC coupling is selected. I can almost stuff this into the word-salad description of the offset functionality of the Tek scope she used, as an attempt to describe possibly the same thing. I would like to see the manual though, to see if I am understanding these two separate "offset" and "position" values. I am trying to be charitable here and make sense of what Ainslie said in light of this difference in "offset" and "position" values for the Tek's traces.
I don't "have" this Tek oscilloscope. I used it yesterday after a long drive and a day full of meetings, with another long drive ahead of me. I can use it whenever I like, that is no problem-- as long as I am in the same city as it is. But it is a problem for me to box everything up and spend another full day and another full tank of gasoline chasing down somebody else's phantoms.
Of course Ainslie's claims are folly of the highest order, and I hope that I have at least demonstrated that much. Just as I did before with her "COP>17" bogus claim. After I showed to MY satisfaction that that whole affair was a stupid waste of time and that the claimant was ignorant and uncooperative --- I went on to do other far more interesting things like developing my SSTC. (There is nothing wrong with ignorance per se. After all it is a complex subject. What's wrong is when ignorant people deny their ignorance and strive mightily to preserve it in its pristine state untrammeled by education.) Meanwhile, I watched with some amusement as others went down the same path that I did, perhaps even more comprehensively than I did, like FTC, but with the same general results. That is, it's easy to produce the DATA from Ainslie. But when interpreted correctly the data don't support the claims: the batteries always run down and properly performed calorimetry always indicated less efficiency in load heating than straight DC power, and there is actually nothing in the data that DOES support her claim...just as in the present case.
As I have said before, the MAIN REASON that I climbed in again this time was that one egregious set of errors contained in the bogus calculation of the 25.6 million Joules, which she fought about for WEEKS before somebody she trusts finally convinced her it was wrong. But she still doesn't understand HOW it is wrong and she still can't correct it. Nor will she retract the claim that that one test used more than the battery's capacity. This single incident reveals everything significant that you need to know about Ainslie and her device. Think about it.
This time, she hasn't been able to recruit her usual passel of hopeful sycophants... instead she's wound up with the likes of US and there aren't the usual cloud of addled supporters.
Meanwhile, my work, flawed that it is, along with other details in this thread, should demonstrate to others at least "what to expect" when you reach out and touch the Tar Baby that is Ainslie and her bogus set of claims.
You've made a lot of suggestions that have helped me to understand this circuit. And you've seen how Ainslie responds to simple questions that challenge her position. What I don't understand is how Ainslie can be allowed to get away with all the egregious errors and bogus distortions and all the rest of the crap that surrounds this project. SHE will not be cooperating with others, by doing suggested testing and comprehensive analysis of her circuit. What she is doing and has always done is to get others to do her work for her, and then when they eventually see for themselves what is happening, she turns on them and uses their "failures" to denigrate and malign her former collaborators, and then she goes on to another group of newbies. Banned, unbanned, emails and phone calls to site owners, threatening lawsuits, but never actually doing the battery rundown testing. That's what happened three years ago on Ashtweth's site, it happened again a year ago here, and it's happening again here now.
It's too bad that your mosfets are on that slow boat. I'd box up my whole bunch of Ainslie parts and send them to you by next-day FedEx if it would just shut her up... but it wouldn't.
The bottom line for me is this: Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects, and if NERD is overunity, then so is Tar Baby. I've shown MORE evidence of this than Ainslie has for her circuit, I can repeat it on demand... and so can anyone else. And Tar Baby is ready for any independent testing, side by side with NERD, right now.
Does Tar Baby somehow prevent its batteries from running down? No. Does NERD? Well.... it would take less trouble than I went through JUST YESTERDAY, to find out once and for all, if only the CLAIMANT would do some of your tests that you suggest that I do.
Do you detect a bit of frustration and anger in my tone here? Good. Now watch Ainslie distort and misrepresent and run with the information in this post to insult me further, and then tell me whether my frustration and anger seem at all justified. She doesn't even speak the same language as we do.
"Is your inverter not able to provide enough voltage for use with the 50R?"
When it's running off a 12-volt 5 amp-hour sealed lead-acid battery that has been used for many days of testing and that indicates 11.7 volts open circuit--- no, it's not.
TK,
The "vertical offset" setting in the Tek scopes allows one to compensate for a large DC offset without having to resort to AC coupling. This allows you to have the trace on screen without having to adjust the trace vertical position, nor use AC coupling.
When you enter a value for the "offset", the zero-level (channel reference) bar on the left of the trace is now AT that offset level.
Useful for examining ripple on a relatively high voltage DC supply for instance.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2012, 09:07:17 AM
TK,
The "vertical offset" setting in the Tek scopes allows one to compensate for a large DC offset without having to resort to AC coupling. This allows you to have the trace on screen without having to adjust the trace vertical position, nor use AC coupling.
When you enter a value for the "offset", the zero-level (channel reference) bar on the left of the trace is now AT that offset level.
Useful for examining ripple on a relatively high voltage DC supply for instance.
OK, that makes sense to me and seems like a useful feature.
What effect does it have on the scope's math functions, and what effect does my having the CVR trace AC coupled have on the math?
(I know that the math result is bogus (since it indicates the same thing that Ainslie's does) but I'd still like to understand just how all this affects the scope's math
calculations.)
And how does it jive with Ainslie's description of the LeCroy offset values given in her traces, since they seem to correspond strictly to "position" and not to the kind of vertical offset that you are describing?
What do you suppose the Green Trace is in the shot below? I think it's the common mosfet drains, shown AC coupled to get it on the screen where it is.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 09:41:48 AM
OK, that makes sense to me and seems like a useful feature.
What effect does it have on the scope's math functions, and what effect does my having the CVR trace AC coupled have on the math?
(I know that the math result is bogus (since it indicates the same thing that Ainslie's does) but I'd still like to understand just how all this affects the scope's math
calculations.)
Using the "offset" feature should have no effect on the MATH computations. It's simply a display feature.
However, if there is an observable change in the "position" of the trace when changing from AC to DC coupling, then there WILL (or at least should) be an effect on the MATH computation when switching between the two.
Quote
And how does it jive with Ainslie's description of the LeCroy offset values given in her traces, since they seem to correspond strictly to "position" and not to the kind of vertical offset that you are describing?
It is essentially the same thing. The LeCroy offset setting should also not have an effect on the MATH computations.
Quote
What do you suppose the Green Trace is in the shot below? I think it's the common mosfet drains, shown AC coupled to get it on the screen where it is.
Yes, of course. They clearly state what each trace is in the video. ;) Yes, it was most likely set to AC coupling to make it easier to display. The presumption is that they multiplied the pink ("battery") and yellow (shunt) voltages, which are both on DC coupling, so there should be no problem with the MATH computation in that regard.
TK,
From my read of the Tek manual I concur with .99's answers regarding the 'scope.
The Tek injects a DC offset at the preamp input to allow DC to be "nulled" prior to amplification. This allows small AC details to be viewed on a signal with a large DC component without having to use AC coupling. "Position" is separate and only a display function on the Tek.
Its a bummer the 'scope isn't a house guest! So, you had to do all that driving just to get a few screen shots? I can understand your apparent frustration over having to do so.
When I stated your replication was not exact, I did not mean it was materially different. To do an exact replication, one would have to incorporate identical strays, i.e., layout, wire lengths, clip leads, wood or metal table for the circuit (grounded or not), equip locations, batteries on wood or metal table (grounded or not), equipment grounding, known bias current, etc. But as far as I am concerned, even with the small differences in oscillation characteristics due to different strays, the two circuits perform similarly and provide similar measurements.
I suspect that any oscillator, connected to any battery (or pwr supply) with supply lead inductances that allow large AC excursions, measured similarly, would produce similar neg mean pwr results. Even a simple 555 with a 9V battery, under similar conditions with loads scaled accordingly and measured similarly, would very likely produce a neg mean pwr measurement if the true battery voltage were not used in the calculations.
At this time, based on .99's analysis and the work you have done, I believe the negative mean power measurement to be fully explained and reproducible, and that it is not an indication that the circuit is operating without drawing power from the batteries, or recharging them.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 27, 2012, 10:05:34 AM
(snip)
Yes, of course. They clearly state what each trace is in the video. ;) Yes, it was most likely set to AC coupling to make it easier to display. The presumption is that they multiplied the pink ("battery") and yellow (shunt) voltages, which are both on DC coupling, so there should be no problem with the MATH computation in that regard.
Yes, of course, they do clearly state that in the video, even if their letter points are mixed up. Yet on March 22, when I raised the same issue about the green trace in the locked thread, I got this answer from Ainslie:
TK said, "The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there."
and Ainslie said,
QuoteYet more of those egregious violations. LOL. This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal. Not even close. It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.
And several times later on when the issue was again raised by me, she continued to deny that the green trace was the drains and berated me richly about it over and over.
Yet she has never deigned to explain what, in her mind, the green trace "does" represent.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 12:27:07 PM
TK,
From my read of the Tek manual I concur with .99's answers regarding the 'scope.
The Tek injects a DC offset at the preamp input to allow DC to be "nulled" prior to amplification. This allows small AC details to be viewed on a signal with a large DC component without having to use AC coupling. "Position" is separate and only a display function on the Tek.
Its a bummer the 'scope isn't a house guest! So, you had to do all that driving just to get a few screen shots? I can understand your apparent frustration over having to do so.
Of course I didn't do all that driving just to get a few screen shots. I went to see Tek's momma about something else much more important and interesting, and Tar Baby just came along to play for a few minutes. I probably spend all of ten minutes disconnecting the scope from the (redacted), moving it into another room, taking Tar Baby out of the bag, hooking it up, testing the inverter, programming the raw integral into the scope, and taking the screenshots. I also took a short video that I might post later, if it's not too embarrassing when I review it this morning. I'm sure that if I'd spent half an hour, I probably could have found the bwl button to narrow the trace width, bumped up the sample rate, put in the appropriate constants of integration and XL in the math computation, and even remembered to set all channels to DC offset (actually I did but somewhere in there the scope decided it knew better than me and defaulted that channel back to AC for some reason. Maybe it was when I spilled my coffee into it.)
And of course if I'd had charged batteries the waveshapes would be better and so on and etc.
Quote
When I stated your replication was not exact, I did not mean it was materially different. To do an exact replication, one would have to incorporate identical strays, i.e., layout, wire lengths, clip leads, wood or metal table for the circuit (grounded or not), equip locations, batteries on wood or metal table (grounded or not), equipment grounding, known bias current, etc. But as far as I am concerned, even with the small differences in oscillation characteristics due to different strays, the two circuits perform similarly and provide similar measurements.
I suspect that any oscillator, connected to any battery (or pwr supply) with supply lead inductances that allow large AC excursions, measured similarly, would produce similar neg mean pwr results. Even a simple 555 with a 9V battery, under similar conditions with loads scaled accordingly and measured similarly, would very likely produce a neg mean pwr measurement if the true battery voltage were not used in the calculations.
At this time, based on .99's analysis and the work you have done, I believe the negative mean power measurement to be fully explained and reproducible, and that it is not an indication that the circuit is operating without drawing power from the batteries, or recharging them.
PW
I suspect so too, and certainly the negative power value is not an indication of battery recharging. It's too bad that Ainslie refuses to do any real test of whether the batteries are actually recharging, like several of those that I've done and others that have been proposed here. She won't be doing any of those definitive tests in the future either.... because they were first suggested to her at least three years ago... and what she came up with, we have seen in the video taken over a year ago now.
I think that Ainslie should not be allowed to recharge her batteries at all before any new testing. They are all over 12 volts, they are all still fully charged, according to her. Let's take her at her word for once and not allow her to start with known freshly-charged batteries.
Meanwhile, Ainslie tells us this:
QuoteThere is no way the scope can be used improperly. A setting is a setting. We cannot fudge the results.
QED.
On replications:
There are replications, and then there are "exact duplication" replications.
Consider a scenario: A claimant produces an unusual effect, like running a load without discharging batteries, and shows solid, credible evidence that the batteries are not discharging, by comparative load testing according to industry-standard protocol (something like this: http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/450-2002.html) and shows unambigously that there are no other conventional power sources like FGs or bias supplies or RF from the radio station next door.
A "replicator" then assembles a circuit using OTS components and the same schematic but uses a slightly different layout and sets up on his Formica-over-metal kitchen table instead of on the claimant's slate laboratory workbench surface. The replicator fails to find non-discharge under the IEEE test protocols, much less using a Dim Bulb test.
OK... now consider another scenario:
A claimant produces an unusual effect (but one which more experienced people have seen before.) Evidence in the form of scope shots and data dumps to spreadsheets confirm the _effect_ itself. The claimant also claims that this effect must indicate non-discharging batteries, but produces nothing but non-verifiable anecdotes in support of this major claim. Meanwhile, back in the Deep Bunker...
A "replicator" then assembles the same circuit using OTS components and the same schematic but uses a slightly different layout and sets up in his home laboratory instead of in a University broom closet. The "effect" appears, and is so robust that he is able to pack up the apparatus in a bag and take it anywhere and reproduce the same effect produced by the original claimant. But alas.... his batteries DO discharge when tested by standard protocols, or even rough informal ones like the Dim Bulb Test.
Now.... which "replicator" is justified in doing the extra effort to track down strays and strive for a more perfect "exact duplication" kind of replication?
cough cough... bullshit...
rep·li·ca·tion (rpl-kshn)
n.
1. A fold or a folding back.
2. A reply to an answer; a rejoinder.
3. Law The plaintiff's response to the defendant's answer or plea.
4. An echo or reverberation.
5. A copy or reproduction.
6. The act or process of duplicating or reproducing something.
7. Biology The process by which genetic material, a single-celled organism, or a virus reproduces or makes a copy of itself: replication of DNA.
8. In scientific research, the repetition of an experiment to confirm findings or to ensure accuracy.
New video from the Play Date last night is uploading now. I'm going to walk the wild animals and I'll post the link when I get back.
:o
(It's in the bag...)
ETA: Link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHxstOJkFtM
So... by cleverly setting the CVR trace to "AC coupling", have I perhaps eliminated a contribution of a DC component of the current to the math product, by removing any offset however small caused by it? Hence allowing the math trace to be computed using the AC oscillations alone, ignoring the DC component of the current in the CVR? In which direction is any DC current likely to be?
::)
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 02:35:05 AM
Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct. No one moreso than I wish it were not true. Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring. After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"?
PW
Guys - here's another one of those statements that we're meant to take on nothing more than good faith. Like picowatt's statement that he trains under 6's in the art of 'soldering'. Or that those same preschoolers have a functional intelligence which means - essentially - that they're adequately schooled in the 3 'r's to an acceptable and functioning adult level. LOL (by which I mean 'God help us). And now - in the face of TK's latest numbers - we have picowatt essentially seeing an ever greater reliance on Poynty Point's argument related to the battery average. And this is the argument that I will REALLY enjoy. Because then both TK and our resident in 'expert' picowatt - will be obliged to prove some interesting features related to the circuit's open condition during the oscillation phase. And then they'll try and infer that they have to explain things to me in words of one syllable - when we've already addressed this rather obvious end of the argument - at length in both our papers. And they haven't even 'reached' that argument. Yet. TK hasn't understood it. So he dismisses it as a 'word salad'. In fact I don't think that TK even sees where the evidence is pointing. picowatt's seen it. But he ducks answering under the 'spin' that I'm too dull witted to understand anything at all. LOL (By which I mean - what the hell) But what is particularly offensive - is that 'expressed' regret. Here it is again.
"Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct. No one moreso than I wish it were not true. Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring. After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"? "
My dear picowatt. IF you find that Poynty Point's analysis is correct - then you will most certainly need to justify it. Which you will NOT be able to do within the context of classical and mainstream assumptions. And IF you still do not see something 'unusual OR previously unnoticed' then the fault is NOT with the evidence but with your certain want of the required expertise to even understand that evidence. And frankly - I rather suspect that you PREFER to INFER and for that matter IMPLY that there's nothing unusual - because you're rather hoping that no-one will see the evidence for themselves. I need to disabuse you of any such hopes. I will MOST CERTAINLY explain this for our readers - with an appropriate series of videos that I hope will clarify these points ENTIRELY. These same points that TK is simply NOT able to address because he hasn't even seen them. He's still busy doing a refresher course in reactive power courtesy R J Smith. LOL (By which I mean - what an idiot)
Rosie Pose
Quotation from Miss Power Expert Ainslie:
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second- then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
Got that, Bubba?
Now go play in the street, Little Miss Mosfet. Until you can show unequivocal evidence that your batteries do not discharge while heating a load, then you can't show anything at all unusual or not perfectly well understood by those who have actually read that textbook, sat the exams, and didn't drop out of school when they encountered a simple algebra problem.
And TK - FOR THE RECORD
That 555 switch that you SAY you 'invented'? That's very elementary. In fact it was proposed to us by both Groundloop and by Stefan - and we made our own variation of it to test ourselves. Sadly, for you - it has obviated the ONLY remaining counter argument to our claim. So I'm delighted that you took that 'final' step. And clearly you did NOT see where it was pointing. Or I'm reasonably satisfied that you would not then have taken that trouble.
Don't you recall? How picowatt posted - 'so you've gone ahead and built this. Oh Well' - or words to that effect. I'm relying on my poor memory here so the words are loosely transcribed. But I knew precisely why he would have preferred that you DID NOT build that 555 switch. I certainly did NOT expect you to go the lengths of powering it from the battery supply source. But EVEN BETTER that you did.
Well done. And thank you. It seems that we've got the PERFECT debunker. He can't help but prove what he's trying to debunk. It's delicious.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 27, 2012, 04:29:02 PM
And TK - FOR THE RECORD
FOR THE RECORD you idiot....
Quote
That 555 switch that you SAY you 'invented'? That's very elementary. In fact it was proposed to us by both Groundloop and by Stefan - and we made our own variation of it to test ourselves.
In the first place there is NO "switch" in the circuit we have been using lately: the bias supply is straight DC. It's impossible for you to understand that the circuit that I am using inverts voltage and provides a MORE NEGATIVE voltage than it is supplied with. And it does NOT "switch" its output: it provides DC output. And nowhere do I say I "invented" it... I designed it for its present function, and I clearly state that I got it from a book. So you once again are WRONG in both your points. Maybe somebody can explain the operation of the circuit I'm using to you... I've posted its schematic at least twice now, but here it is again. What part of it do you not understand? I AM NOT USING ANY 555 SWITCH OR TIMER CIRCUIT as you call it (the mosfets are the switch anyway, the 555 timer is not a switch at all) and haven't been for a week, and neither you nor Stefan nor anyone else has proposed using a circuit of this type. The 555 chip in my inverter does not send any pulsating signal to the mosfets, it sends a voltage-reversed DC signal to them, just as an external battery would. Sadly for you.
QuoteSadly, for you - it has obviated the ONLY remaining counter argument to our claim. So I'm delighted that you took that 'final' step. And clearly you did NOT see where it was pointing. Or I'm reasonably satisfied that you would not then have taken that trouble.
On the contrary, Ainslie. I have known all along exactly where this has been going. When you acknowledge, as you have just done, that my circuit "proves" your claim..... then the real work begins, of demolishing your claim by dissecting Tar Baby right in front of your.
Quote
Don't you recall? How picowatt posted - 'so you've gone ahead and built this. Oh Well' - or words to that effect. I'm relying on my poor memory here so the words are loosely transcribed. But I knew precisely why he would have preferred that you DID NOT build that 555 switch. I certainly did NOT expect you to go the lengths of powering it from the battery supply source. But EVEN BETTER that you did.
Well done. And thank you. It seems that we've got the PERFECT debunker. He can't help but prove what he's trying to debunk. It's delicious.
Rosie Pose
So ... then... you acknowledge that I have duplicated your results and have even gone farther by using only the running batteries and that I have PROVEN what I am "trying to debunk".... your claim of overunity performance.
Right?
Is this a "switch"?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 27, 2012, 03:54:34 PM
Guys - here's another one of those statements that we're meant to take on nothing more than good faith. Like picowatt's statement that he trains under 6's in the art of 'soldering'. Or that those same preschoolers have a functional intelligence which means - essentially - that they're adequately schooled in the 3 'r's to an acceptable and functioning adult level. LOL (by which I mean 'God help us). And now - in the face of TK's latest numbers - we have picowatt essentially seeing an ever greater reliance on Poynty Point's argument related to the battery average. And this is the argument that I will REALLY enjoy. Because then both TK and our resident in 'expert' picowatt - will be obliged to prove some interesting features related to the circuit's open condition during the oscillation phase. And then they'll try and infer that they have to explain things to me in words of one syllable - when we've already addressed this rather obvious end of the argument - at length in both our papers. And they haven't even 'reached' that argument. Yet. TK hasn't understood it. So he dismisses it as a 'word salad'. In fact I don't think that TK even sees where the evidence is pointing. picowatt's seen it. But he ducks answering under the 'spin' that I'm too dull witted to understand anything at all. LOL (By which I mean - what the hell) But what is particularly offensive - is that 'expressed' regret. Here it is again.
"Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct. No one moreso than I wish it were not true. Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring. After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"? "
My dear picowatt. IF you find that Poynty Point's analysis is correct - then you will most certainly need to justify it. Which you will NOT be able to do within the context of classical and mainstream assumptions. And IF you still do not see something 'unusual OR previously unnoticed' then the fault is NOT with the evidence but with your certain want of the required expertise to even understand that evidence. And frankly - I rather suspect that you PREFER to INFER and for that matter IMPLY that there's nothing unusual - because you're rather hoping that no-one will see the evidence for themselves. I need to disabuse you of any such hopes. I will MOST CERTAINLY explain this for our readers - with an appropriate series of videos that I hope will clarify these points ENTIRELY. These same points that TK is simply NOT able to address because he hasn't even seen them. He's still busy doing a refresher course in reactive power courtesy R J Smith. LOL (By which I mean - what an idiot)
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
Around here, preschoolers are under five.
As I said in my answer to the first of the two questions you asked, I gave you my "opinion". You can no more argue against that then if you had asked "how do you feel".
As I have been weighing the evidence and the proposed reasons for the neg mean pwr measurement, the available data is, in my opinion, pointing towards .99's analysis. I do not have to justify or prove that to you, quite the contrary, the onus is on you to understand his analysis and prove it incorrect if that is what you believe.
Many possible explanations have been given for the mean neg pwr measurement including skew, FG power, equipment grounding, etc. Although some of these issues may in the end affect a battery run down test, the available data and the fact that TK is also able to produce a neg mean pwr, in my opinion, supports .99's analysis as it relates to the neg mean pwr measurement.
You are not having to take anything at all "on faith". I gave you my opinion. If you do not believe .99's analysis or my support of it to be correct, then perform the test I proposed with the cap bypassed battery supply and additional lead inductance if needed. Make a pwr measurement using the battery voltage as measured at the circuit terminals and another taken using the smoothed battery voltage. If a neg mean pwr is indicated in both measurements, as I said, I will have to reconsider my opinion. But again, the onus is on you to provide evidence against the most logical and rational explanation given to date.
I believe in the past you attempted to operate your circuit on capacitors instead of batteries without success. This to me, further supports the fact that power is being drawn from the batteries and that the indicated neg mean pwr measurement is again, incorrect as per .99's analysis.
As for your second question, I have no interest in arguing with you about AC conditions and how oscillators function when we cannot come to agreement on the very simple, non-oscillation dependent DC conditions. If you do not believe that in quiescent conditions, with the FG at negative offset, Q2 is biased on and passing current, with its DC return path thru the function generator, there is no need for further discussion. And, quite frankly, I am just not interested in any more tortured discussions.
My interst in your circuit was purely with respect to the indicated neg mean pwr measurement. To my satisfaction, the questions regarding that measurement have been answered. As time allows, I may do additional testing to further confirm .99's analysis, but as of now, the probability is very, very high that .99's analysis is correct.
If you wish to do additional testing that disproves .99's analysis, or do a battery run down test that far exceeds your battery's capabilities to run this circuit for 200-300 hours of operation, I would be interested in seeing that data. (assumes 60V, 60A/Hr battery and 13 watt draw from circuit).
For now, and at the very least, TK's circuit's ability to demonstrate a neg mean pwr should be 100% solid proof that such a measurement alone, under the conditions made, cannot be used to support evidence of overunity or COP>1.
In the end, a "wire" is not always "just a wire".
PW
@PW:
Ainslie said,
QuoteDon't you recall? How picowatt posted - 'so you've gone ahead and built this. Oh Well' - or words to that effect. I'm relying on my poor memory here so the words are loosely transcribed. But I knew precisely why he would have preferred that you DID NOT build that 555 switch. I certainly did NOT expect you to go the lengths of powering it from the battery supply source. But EVEN BETTER that you did.
Is that a true and correct representation of your feelings about my building any 555 circuits? Because I didn't realize that I was offending you so much. I apologize for doing Rosemary's homework for her. Whatever was I thinking?
And please do go on letting her believe that I powered a 555 "switch" from the battery supply source... when what I powered that way sends no switching signal to the mosfets at all.
@PW: There is also one other possible interpretation and Rosemary seems to be endorsing it, if I can decode her latest logorrhea. And that is, of course, that Tar Baby is overunity and the batteries are discharging for some other reason... like aliens. Or perhaps the silver-calcium enhanced lead electrode chemistry is important for this circuit when it wasn't for the COP>17 one. Or maybe it's the table top surface.
Or the white pegboard.
After all, there are replications.... and then there are _replications_.
And I think I was eight when I learned to solder, taught by the neighbor across the street who sold crystal radio kits on the side, and by our next-door neighbor who was a retired Navy radioman and had a ham shack full of great stuff in his back shed. I was a slow learner, I guess. I built my first one-tube regen receiver when I was nine and assembled a 5-tube 5-band shortwave receiver from a kit when I was ten. And it's all been downhill since then.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 05:28:53 PM
@PW:
Ainslie said,
Is that a true and correct representation of your feelings about my building any 555 circuits? Because I didn't realize that I was offending you so much. I apologize for doing Rosemary's homework for her. Whatever was I thinking?
And please do go on letting her believe that I powered a 555 "switch" from the battery supply source... when what I powered that way sends no switching signal to the mosfets at all.
TK,
To be honest, I have no idea what Rosemary is talking about in this post. If YOU are asking ME if I am somehow offended that you built the inverting charge pump, of course not. I can't for the life of me understand why I should or would be.
As for the "switching", possibly she was referring to the "switching" within the charge pump? Just looking for the benefit of the doubt here.
PW
She sees "555" and thinks switch.
Of course the 555 timer chip is functioning as an oscillator in the circuit. But the concept of a circuit that takes a positive 12 volt DC input and returns a negative 12 volt DC output must seem like magic to her, if she even believes it at all.
And perhaps "offended" was the wrong word. Worried, perhaps, that I might actually accidentally uncover the secret of Ainslie Overunity (tm) and blow our covers as agents of the MiBs. Which I suppose I have done. Sort of.
8)
So... getting back for a moment to the offset issue...
.99 said,
QuoteHowever, if there is an observable change in the "position" of the trace when changing from AC to DC coupling, then there WILL (or at least should) be an effect on the MATH computation when switching between the two.
So, in the CVR trace there are actually two superposed signals, right? I mean there is usually a bit of DC current in the forward conventional direction as well as the oscillations on top of that, and the oscillations can be of greater amplitude than the DC current. Right? At least this seems to be what's shown in the traces from the Ainslie papers.
So... if one were only interested in the power in the oscillations themselves and wanted to only count the contribution of the oscillations, and not the DC component, to the instantaneous power curve... how would one set up the scope for that?
It seems to me that a DC component in the conventional direction would raise the CVR trace above its baseline by some amount. Would this not then actually also raise up the negative average power value (bringing it closer to zero) computed from the multiplication and averaging?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 09:56:47 PM
So... getting back for a moment to the offset issue...
.99 said,
So, in the CVR trace there are actually two superposed signals, right? I mean there is usually a bit of DC current in the forward conventional direction as well as the oscillations on top of that, and the oscillations can be of greater amplitude than the DC current. Right? At least this seems to be what's shown in the trace below from the Ainslie papers.
So... if one were only interested in the power in the oscillations themselves and wanted to only count the contribution of the oscillations, and not the DC component, to the instantaneous power curve... how would one set up the scope for that?
It seems to me that a DC component in the conventional direction would raise the CVR trace above its baseline by some amount. Would this not then actually also raise up the negative average power value (bringing it closer to zero) computed from the multiplication and averaging?
TK,
I would think that if the CSR trace were AC coupled a small positive offest at the CSR due to DC bias may not be accounted for. This condition would be similar to connecting the FG or bias supply ground to the batt side of the CSR so that DC current is not accounted for by the CSR trace. As to the degree of error, it is somewhat difficult to predict. I would suspect no more than 50mV postive if Ibias were 200ma. As this current is modulated to some degree by the oscillation, it would likely be slightly less than that amount. The short answer is that by not including the DC current, the neg mean pwr measurement would be indicated as being greater negative than it actually is (the constant 50mV or so positive DC voltage at the CSR would reduce the neg mean). If you have an idea as to what your Ibias was at the time, possibly a correction can be applied that reflects that DC current. As for me, I was convinced that you had a neg mean pwr when you did the "add the dots".
Also, any asymmetry in the CSR waveform will cause the position of the trace to drift up or down depending on which polarity of the cycle is of greater magnitude. This effect would likely not affect the math calculations.
PW
Thanks, that is what I figured as well.
So, if all goes well we have another play date on Monday.... if I get my radiator back from the shop tomorrow as scheduled. For that one Tar Baby will have freshly charged batteries, five of them, and I'll be sure to use DC coupling on all traces... as appropriate.
If you could please remind me before then of some of the (short, easy) tests that you suggested I do with that scope, I'd appreciate it, and perhaps I'll be able to perform them, if Tek's momma isn't using it for (redacted) at the time.
Unfortunately, unlike the old LeCroy that I demoed some time ago, this Tek only seems capable of displaying a single math trace, but it can do fairly complex functions and nested algebra on that one trace. Of course I still haven't read the manual nor have I pushed all the buttons or turned all the knobs, so there might be hidden functionality that I'm not aware of. For example there is this whole "wave inspector" thing that could be useful if someone only understood it.
;D
picowatt. This is the post you refer to.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 02:35:05 AMThe Lecroy does not have a separate position control. I read the 300 series manual and it stated to use the offest control to adjust trace position. As well, the visual calculations from centerline agree very well with the indicated offset, and the observed FG drive during neg osc visually calculates to where it should be within a volt or two. If necessary, I will call LeCroy.
In the first instance you 'IMPLIED' that your analysis related to the 'offset' reading of the LeCroy was ENTIRELY representative of the the zero point positioning of the signs against the X axes center graticule - as it relates to zero. And what I TOLD you REPEATEDLY - is that this zero reference needs to be qualified against the 'coupling' that is manually applied to the voltage reading. Therefore is there no relevance related to representation of the voltage across the Gate of Q1. Remember? You said either the MOSFET had blown - OR - the Le Croy measurement was wrong. Well that OPINION is wrong. There is no resulting SKEW that also results in an incorrect math function as you INFERRED. Nor is there SKEW resulting in a MISREPRESENTATION of the zero crossing line across the current sensing resistor. Nor is there SKEW resulting in a MISREPRESENTATION of the battery voltage. Nor does the voltage across the Gate at Q2 represent the entire picture. It needs 'qualification' against that coupling. And further qualification against the the offset of the function generator. And as an 'expert' in the art of reading an oscilloscope - you should have KNOWN this. Instead of which, let me say this again, you DECLARED that either the MOSFET had blown. OR that there was a measurement's error. You were and are WRONG on both counts. Where I erred was in my poor efforts to explain this. But you do and did understand me. And you are and were pretending not to. In the same way that you pretend that preschoolers can capably handle a solder iron - or that they can read, write and do THE MATH - at an average and adult level competence.
Then you state...
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 02:35:05 AMIt seems you are reliably able to obtain the negative pwr figures. Now that you have that 'scope there, I wonder if you could be troubled to investigate bypassing the batteries with caps and adding wire if needed as discussed. You might even be able to solder a switch to a batt connector and the caps lead to allow you to bypass the batteries by merely using the switch when desired. Likely any additional wire added could remain in circuit for either test, and it might also increase the amplitude of the osc. With the 'scope there, doing the two tests would be pretty quick, none of that "add the dots" needed.
This is like MileHigh's proposal that the best way to evaluate the oscillation is to remove it. IF you apply a path for that counter electromotive force - away from the battery - then it will not be advantaged by the potential difference of those batteries. I would refer you to our introduction, discussion and conclusion in the second part of our two-part paper. You prove NOTHING by taking away the very property that we rely on to generate the oscillation. The argument is as good as saying water flows downhill. I can disprove this by putting a mountain in its path. Then within a certain limited supply of that water - I will PROVE that it no longer flows downhill.
Here is the effective paragraph from that paper that relates to this.
Effectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity. [/font]
Which following a logic that is REALLY skewed - you then state...
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 02:35:05 AMYes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct. No one moreso than I wish it were not true. Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring. After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"?
in the hopes of endorsing the 'spin' that you rely on - so heavily. There is no-one member or reader here, that also reads this thread with any level of impartiality - or even scientific detachment - that will EVER believe that you'd be 'SORRY' to find reason to dismiss our claim. I"ll move onto your last post to me hereafter.
Kindest regards nonetheless
Rosie Posie
Rosemary,
I caught up on some reading I must have missed on this thread.
While discussing with you how Q2 is turned on by the FG, I missed your argument, or did not at the time understand what you were saying, regarding their being no evidence of Q2 being turned on.
I assume by this you mean that no current flow is indicated across the CSR that would indicate Q2 is being turned on.
With regard to DC, Q2 does not turn on fully. It is being biased into a linear region of operation. Q2 will regulate the DC current flowing thru it in concert with the FG negative voltage and the FG's internal 50 ohm resistor such that the DC current flowing thru Q2 when it is biased on will be limited to 200 milliamps more or less. This current is referred to as "Ibias".
This amount of current would produce only +50 millivolts more or less of voltage at the CSR. At the 'scope settings used, and with the oscillation masking its view, this 50 millivolts would be difficult to see.
Additionlly, if the FG signal ground is connected to the battery side of the CSR, the Q2 DC bias current would not be indicated at all by the CSR trace, as the bias current would not be passing thru the CSR.
PW
picowatt
I'll get back here - when I've finally addressed that penultimate post to me. But for now this statement...
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 11:49:27 PM
With regard to DC, Q2 does not turn on fully. It is being biased into a linear region of operation. Q2 will regulate the DC current flowing thru it in concert with the FG negative voltage and the FG's internal 50 ohm resistor such that the DC current flowing thru Q2 when it is biased on will be limited to 200 milliamps more or less. This current is referred to as "Ibias".
This amount of current would produce only +50 millivolts more or less of voltage at the CSR. At the 'scope settings used, and with the oscillation masking its view, this 50 millivolts would be difficult to see.
Additionlly, if the FG signal ground is connected to the battery side of the CSR, the Q2 DC bias current would not be indicated at all by the CSR trace, as the bias current would not be passing thru the CSR.
If the LeCroy Wavejet is NOT able to accommodate those +50 millivolts - then it is NOT performing according to it's rating. NOTHING is masked in that oscillation measurement across the current sensing resistor. And I know perfectly well what you mean by Ibias. Are you implying that I'm that stupid? And are you STILL inferring that the oscilloscope measurements can't be relied on? Because that excuse is getting TIRED.
Again
Rosie Posie
Qualified the highlighted.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 11:36:52 PM
Thanks, that is what I figured as well.
So, if all goes well we have another play date on Monday.... if I get my radiator back from the shop tomorrow as scheduled. For that one Tar Baby will have freshly charged batteries, five of them, and I'll be sure to use DC coupling on all traces... as appropriate.
If you could please remind me before then of some of the (short, easy) tests that you suggested I do with that scope, I'd appreciate it, and perhaps I'll be able to perform them, if Tek's momma isn't using it for (redacted) at the time.
Unfortunately, unlike the old LeCroy that I demoed some time ago, this Tek only seems capable of displaying a single math trace, but it can do fairly complex functions and nested algebra on that one trace. Of course I still haven't read the manual nor have I pushed all the buttons or turned all the knobs, so there might be hidden functionality that I'm not aware of. For example there is this whole "wave inspector" thing that could be useful if someone only understood it.
;D
TK,
Do you have time to attach some caps across your batteries to eliminate AC at the batteries? Place the caps between the most negative terminal and the most positive terminal. Use whatever caps you have with sufficicient V rating and as many as you need to remove all AC when you scope the BATT+ terminal.
Also, if you want to use the ground point at your motherboard for all probe grounds, it might be necessary to add additional parallel runs of wire from the BATT- to the motherboard to reduce the BATT- lead inductance (or shorten the BATT- lead).
You'll have to analog 'scope across the batteries before you leave to make sure the AC is been fully removed from the batteries by the caps and that the oscillation, as measured at the motherboard BATT+ is not affected or squelched. If it is, add a bit more wire length between the BATT+ and your motherboard to get the oscillation going again (to replace the inductance lost when te batt interconnect wires were bypassed with the caps).
If this works without affectig the osc to any degree, you should be able to scope at the BATT+ and see amooth DC, and alternately you should be able to scope at the motherboard BATT+ connection and see the unchanged oscillation. You would have to work on this a bit tonight to ensure you can maintain the osc with the BATT bypassed. Again, several feet of wire can be added between BATT+ and the MB if needed.
You should then be able to make a measurement using the motherboard connection point as your Vbatt probe point with its AC signal riding on the DC and see the neg mean pwr.
A second measurement then taken with the Vbatt probe at the smoothed batt+ terminal should then indicate a pos mean pwr.
Ask more if this is not clear.
I can't believe you are going to do all that driving again.
If you do not have time for all this, no problem.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 27, 2012, 11:42:14 PM
picowatt. This is the post you refer to.In the first instance you 'IMPLIED' that your analysis related to the 'offset' reading of the LeCroy was ENTIRELY representative of the the zero point positioning of the signs against the X axes center graticule - as it relates to zero. And what I TOLD you REPEATEDLY - is that this zero reference needs to be qualified against the 'coupling' that is manually applied to the voltage reading. Therefore is there no relevance related to representation of the voltage across the Gate of Q1. Remember? You said either the MOSFET had blown - OR - the Le Croy measurement was wrong. Well that OPINION is wrong. There is no resulting SKEW that also results in an incorrect math function as you INFERRED. Nor is there SKEW resulting in a MISREPRESENTATION of the zero crossing line across the current sensing resistor. Nor is there SKEW resulting in a MISREPRESENTATION of the battery voltage. Nor does the voltage across the Gate at Q2 represent the entire picture. It needs 'qualification' against that coupling. And further qualification against the the offset of the function generator. And as an 'expert' in the art of reading an oscilloscope - you should have KNOWN this. Instead of which, let me say this again, you DECLARED that either the MOSFET had blown. OR that there was a measurement's error. You were and are WRONG on both counts. Where I erred was in my poor efforts to explain this. But you do and did understand me. And you are and were pretending not to. In the same way that you pretend that preschoolers can capably handle a solder iron - or that they can read, write and do THE MATH - at an average and adult level competence.
Then you state...This is like MileHigh's proposal that the best way to evaluate the oscillation is to remove it. IF you apply a path for that counter electromotive force - away from the battery - then it will not be advantaged by the potential difference of those batteries. I would refer you to our introduction, discussion and conclusion in the second part of our two-part paper. You prove NOTHING by taking away the very property that we rely on to generate the oscillation. The argument is as good as saying water flows downhill. I can disprove this by putting a mountain in its path. Then within a certain limited supply of that water - I will PROVE that it no longer flows downhill.
Here is the effective paragraph from that paper that relates to this.
Effectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity. [/font]
Which following a logic that is REALLY skewed - you then state...in the hopes of endorsing the 'spin' that you rely on - so heavily. There is no-one member or reader here, that also reads this thread with any level of impartiality - or even scientific detachment - that will EVER believe that you'd be 'SORRY' to find reason to dismiss our claim. I"ll move onto your last post to me hereafter.
Kindest regards nonetheless
Rosie Posie
Rosemary,
What you are saying regarding the 'scope and offset is true for the Tek, it operates differently than the LeCroy. I do not believe the same can be said for the LeCroy. I will call LeCroy in New York on Monday and put this to rest for good. At this time I stand by my assertion regarding Q1 in the figures discussed.
As for your discussion about SKEW I have no idea what you are talking about. I specifically stated I did not believe skew had anything to do with any error. Please read what I write and quit putting words in my mouth.
As for the rest of your rant, I suppose you are calling me a liar. I will just say you are wrong and if this is to be your tack, it is far from professional or supportive of you claim.
If you rely on "that property to generate the oscillation", then I suppose you will agree that by bypassing the batteries the oscillation must cease. What if the oscillation can be made to continue with the battery bypassed?
The test I propose may prove nothing to you, but it would prove something to me.
Do you propose that the battery voltage as indicated by the battery trace represents the true battery voltage? Do you really believe hundreds of amps are flowing to and from the battery?
Is it not more logical to believe that the inductance of the interconnect wires to and between the batteries are of a relatively high impedance with regard to the frequency of oscillation?
Do you believe that inducutive reactance is real or just imaginary?
PW
@PW:
It's perfectly clear, thanks, and it won't take too much time at all, and I have lots of caps big and small. I could put 40,000 uF across the 60 volt stack with no problem if necessary, and I can sub a 70,000 uF cap for a single battery as Mile High has suggested, if necessary. And yes... I'm aware of what 40,000 uF at 60 volts can do if it's mishandled... knock on wood. I don't want any batteries or caps catching fire on ME.
But Ainslie has a point too, and that's by removing the oscillations we are also removing any effect they might have on the battery. So of course we'd get a positive power flow using measurements from the battery, since the beneficial oscillations are being "captured" somehow by the filters and never get there. This is also the objection I had to the validity of the LEDs of Doom test: putting a diode, even a forward-biased one, would seem to block the oscillations or otherwise affect them, and so might block the beneficial effect if there is one.
So shouldn't I put my filter caps in an explosion shield, in case they charge up past their capacity and explode?
;)
I'm sure you've blown up a capacitor or two in your time. Those little electrolytic cans are especially neat when they blow: I've seen them eject the entire roll of electrode material like a party cracker firework thing.
But then there's the other special pleading, hand-waving explanation: the oscillations and the battery are a system. Both need to be involved for any special effect to show up. So if the oscs are prevented from reaching the battery maybe there's no possibility of OU anywhere, not even in the filter caps.
So, other than proving that if you prevent the oscs from reaching the battery, you don't get a negative mean power product .... what does the test intend to test? Is it of anything more than "academic" interest?
Rosemary,
Please keep in mind that a great deal of the current discussion is with regard to whether a neg mean pwr measurement as indicated on a 'scope can be relied upon as an indication of, or proof of, overunity or a COP>1.
Do you believe the neg mean pwr measurement definitely proves your circuit is COP>1?
PW
picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMAround here, preschoolers are under five.
Their actual age is immaterial. The fact is that no preschooler would be allowed to handle a solder iron - in the first instance - unless it's entirely disconnected from the supply. And NO preschooler is assumed to have an adult level of competence in reading, writing and arithmetic. What you were IMPLYING by INFERENCE - is that my own competence on both levels is therefore less than a preschoolers'. Where you 'errored' as it's been referred to - is by analogy to an entirely FALLACIOUS standard that was FABRICATED in order to INFER and IMPLY your MOST REQUIRED SPIN which is that I'm intellectually bereft and somewhat less than competent or average. Which, at BEST is SLANDEROUS. And at worst - it's ACTIONABLE SLANDER. And you EXPECT me to engage - on a co-operative basis - with this well published comment in full public view?
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMAs I said in my answer to the first of the two questions you asked, I gave you my "opinion". You can no more argue against that then if you had asked "how do you feel".
I do not give a tuppeny damn if that's an 'opinion' or if you're INFERRING it as a 'fact'. The evidence persists. There is a flow of current while the battery is evidently NOT discharging any current - unless it is discharging a negative current flow. AND THAT would need to be classed as anomalous. Unless your 'SPIN' requires you to STATE - REPEATEDLY - that there's 'nothing unusual'... 'mores the pity'... thing that you do. Over and over.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMAs I have been weighing the evidence and the proposed reasons for the neg mean pwr measurement, the available data is, in my opinion, pointing towards .99's analysis. I do not have to justify or prove that to you, quite the contrary, the onus is on you to understand his analysis and prove it incorrect if that is what you believe.
Pointy Point is the only one of your members that has actually even addressed the issues. He has shown that on his simulations he is able to obviate the negative wattage relative to the amount of inductance factored in over those wires. I have no reason to doubt Poynty's measurements. But then - what Poynty needs to do is show that there is a current discharge FROM the battery - in the first place - in order to apply those power measurements. You are all HOPING that this is fully explained as it relates to the ability of a function generator to pass current through its probes to allow this during the oscillation phase of the duty cycle. I am waiting to hear your arguments as it relates to the use of a 555. Because there is then no POSSIBLE distortion from the function generator. But you're right. There is NO REASON for you to explain your OPINION. Nor need you. We, on the contrary have explained it. And we'll do better. We'll both demonstrate it and explain it - AT LENGTH. You have none of you addressed the questions even. And your solutions, if such they are, are typical over simplifications of that evidence. Which has been the fall back of every single one of you all of you. Which calls your expertise to question.
continued/...
continued/...
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMMany possible explanations have been given for the mean neg pwr measurement including skew, FG power, equipment grounding, etc. Although some of these issues may in the end affect a battery run down test, the available data and the fact that TK is also able to produce a neg mean pwr, in my opinion, supports .99's analysis as it relates to the neg mean pwr measurement.
There is NO way that this can be 'disproved' IF - we, correspondingly CAN prove it. That's the object of the demonstration. Let me re-iterate. You are VERY well aware of the COP>17 claim - that has been ROUNDLY discounted by two of the major players in that replication. I shall start with that test and demonstrate that we not only are able to PROVE a COP>17 but that we can vastly IMPROVE on even those values. Then I'll move onto our NERD circuit array. Because that has the real merit of showing up the anomalies. How it performs is yet to be determined. But it will be determined against control - run concurrently with the experiment IN BOTH TESTS.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMYou are not having to take anything at all "on faith". I gave you my opinion. If you do not believe .99's analysis or my support of it to be correct, then perform the test I proposed with the cap bypassed battery supply and additional lead inductance if needed. Make a pwr measurement using the battery voltage as measured at the circuit terminals and another taken using the smoothed battery voltage. If a neg mean pwr is indicated in both measurements, as I said, I will have to reconsider my opinion. But again, the onus is on you to provide evidence against the most logical and rational explanation given to date.
That test PROVES NOTHING. It takes away the very factor that we rely on to induce that oscillation in the first instance. The only thing yet to be tested - is whether or not this impacts on the battery efficiencies. And that principle WE will test - under careful guidance - and with full and demonstrable proof - as required.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMI believe in the past you attempted to operate your circuit on capacitors instead of batteries without success. This to me, further supports the fact that power is being drawn from the batteries and that the indicated neg mean pwr measurement is again, incorrect as per .99's analysis.
The fact that the circuit does not operate with capacitors PROVES our claim rather than otherwise. But then you need to wrap you mind around that claim. We are NOT proving over unity. We're PROVING that circuit material is capable of 'generating' energy.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMAs for your second question, I have no interest in arguing with you about AC conditions and how oscillators function when we cannot come to agreement on the very simple, non-oscillation dependent DC conditions. If you do not believe that in quiescent conditions, with the FG at negative offset, Q2 is biased on and passing current, with its DC return path thru the function generator, there is no need for further discussion. And, quite frankly, I am just not interested in any more tortured discussions.
The logical fallacies of this statement is something that I suspect would give Wilby a 'field day'. If the 'effect' is unrelated to the function generator - then the the argument is VOID. A 555 switch proves that it is unrelated to a function generator.
continued/...
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMMy interst in your circuit was purely with respect to the indicated neg mean pwr measurement. To my satisfaction, the questions regarding that measurement have been answered. As time allows, I may do additional testing to further confirm .99's analysis, but as of now, the probability is very, very high that .99's analysis is correct.
How you can find this satisfactorily answers anything at all - is confusing. TK has NOT given us any measurements YET to indicate anything at all. I trust is about to do that 'battery draw down' number. And I'm satisfied that you, Poynty, MileHigh and sundry other contributors to TK's thread - will ENDORSE his conclusions. And then I will be in the happy position of testing this for myself. Our first test that TK ALSO claims to have 'debunked' being that COP>17 test - will, most assuredly - be TK's first VICTIM. I unequivocally undertake that we will demonstrate and PROVE that COP>17 number by more than COP>17. The NERD circuit array is yet to be tested under battery draw down conditions. I'll defer stating anything categorically here - because, frankly, I don't know.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMIf you wish to do additional testing that disproves .99's analysis, or do a battery run down test that far exceeds your battery's capabilities to run this circuit for 200-300 hours of operation, I would be interested in seeing that data. (assumes 60V, 60A/Hr battery and 13 watt draw from circuit).
OK. I've answered this. Yes. I will be DELIGHTED to prove the first. Am yet to find out about the second. But I would be entirely disinclined to rely on TK's evidence of this - either for or against. And those demonstrations will be in full public view on at least two forums.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMFor now, and at the very least, TK's circuit's ability to demonstrate a neg mean pwr should be 100% solid proof that such a measurement alone, under the conditions made, cannot be used to support evidence of overunity or COP>1.
VERY CONFUSING SPIN HERE picowatt. TK has YET to show us any evidence that he CAN'T generate a negative wattage. I keep hoping. And that negative number most certainly DOES NOT support over unity or COP>1. It supports INFINITE COP.
Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 05:28:26 PMIn the end, a "wire" is not always "just a wire".
I agree. It becomes all kinds of things when it's the subject of SPIN.
As ever,
Rosie Pose.
I took this over to three posts. Else each post fall off the page. Sorry guys.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 01:02:15 AM
@PW:
It's perfectly clear, thanks, and it won't take too much time at all, and I have lots of caps big and small. I could put 40,000 uF across the 60 volt stack with no problem if necessary, and I can sub a 70,000 uF cap for a single battery as Mile High has suggested, if necessary. And yes... I'm aware of what 40,000 uF at 60 volts can do if it's mishandled... knock on wood. I don't want any batteries or caps catching fire on ME.
But Ainslie has a point too, and that's by removing the oscillations we are also removing any effect they might have on the battery. So of course we'd get a positive power flow using measurements from the battery, since the beneficial oscillations are being "captured" somehow by the filters and never get there. This is also the objection I had to the validity of the LEDs of Doom test: putting a diode, even a forward-biased one, would seem to block the oscillations or otherwise affect them, and so might block the beneficial effect if there is one.
So shouldn't I put my filter caps in an explosion shield, in case they charge up past their capacity and explode?
;)
I'm sure you've blown up a capacitor or two in your time. Those little electrolytic cans are especially neat when they blow: I've seen them eject the entire roll of electrode material like a party cracker firework thing.
But then there's the other special pleading, hand-waving explanation: the oscillations and the battery are a system. Both need to be involved for any special effect to show up. So if the oscs are prevented from reaching the battery maybe there's no possibility of OU anywhere, not even in the filter caps.
So, other than proving that if you prevent the oscs from reaching the battery, you don't get a negative mean power product .... what does the test intend to test? Is it of anything more than "academic" interest?
TK,
Please keep in mind that this test is not intended to prove anything with regard to battery rundown, charging, etc. It is merely designed to show that both a neg mean pwr and pos mean pwr can be measured from the same circuit operating under identical conditions. This test only goes to the reliability of the neg mean pwr measurement as a true indicator of, or proof of, COP>1.
You don't need huge caps, you need caps that have good properties at the freq of osc. Big electrolytics will likely have too much inductance and ESR. A smaller 220uF electrolytic, a .22 poly, and/ or some ceramics in parallel will probably suffice. You will have to confirm that the osc is unaffected. As I said, add more wire if needed. Who knows, maybe it won't oscillate.
As well, maybe you'll see a neg mean at the decoupled battery. It is, after all, an "experiment"!
PW
Rosemary,
I glanced your three post whatever.
As soon as I saw your continuation of the discussion regarding preschoolers and soldering, and your apparent continued disbelief, and as I don't appreciate your continued insinuation that I am lying about that, I only bothered to skim a very small amount of the rest. Get over it, its fact.
I will address only one point. When I discuss the Fg and Q2 being biased on, it is not an "effect", it is a fact. And no, a FG is not specifically needed, a battery in series with a resistor, a power supply, a 555, all manner of sources may be used to bias Q2 on. Does Wilby believe that Q2 is not being biased on when the function generator output is a negative voltage? Is that what you are saying?
PW
Rosemary,
Did you forget me? I stated that the reason for the oscillation when the FG is at negative bias
is that the circuit behave as an Colpitts oscillator. You promised to get back on that.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 28, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Rosemary,
Did you forget me? I stated that the reason for the oscillation when the FG is at negative bias
is that the circuit behave as an Colpitts oscillator. You promised to get back on that.
GL.
No Groundloop. I most certainly did NOT forget you. The truth is that I can't argue it yet. We've had another series of public holidays. This time 'freedom day' and I couldn't find anyone to explain the Colpitt's number. I will, I assure you - get back to you.
Kindest regards
Rosie
emphasised the wrong point.
Rosemary,
Please keep in mind that you are totally free to believe in whatever you want.
If you wish to believe FG's can't pass current, that Q2 is not being biased on, that your positive half of the oscillation can only reach the battery via magic, that is your choice and you are welcome to it.
But also keep in mind that I too am allowed to believe whatever I want.
My belief system says FG's can pass current, Q2 is being biased on, and that the positive half of the waveform is AC coupled to the battery. I also believe that inductive reactance can act as a very real frequency dependent "resistor" to an AC signal in a fashion similar to a normal resistor regarding DC (with additional properties inherent to inductance).
So yes, I also believe a wire is not always just a wire, and that is not spin, that is again fact.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 28, 2012, 01:36:05 AM
No Groundloop. I most certainly did NOT forget you. The truth is that I can't argue it yet. We've had another series of public holidays. This time 'freedom day' and I couldn't find anyone to explain the Colpitt's number. I will, I assure you - get back to you.
Kindest regards
Rosie
emphasised the wrong point.
Rosemary,
Thank you. Looking forward to your answer.
Not much 'freedom day' over here. I have been working my butt off to try to get a micro controller to do my instructions.
But I got the worst fail off all, a random crash when run in real environment, but no crash in the simulator. LOL
Sorry TK, for the off topic comment.
Have a nice weekend. :-)
Regards,
GL.
picowatt
I see you want an answer. Who would have thought? The more so as you're NOT answering those rather glaring errors related to under 6 year olds with an adult competence in reading writing and arithmetic - and the manual dexterities to handle hot irons and soldering material. and that there's no 'retraction' related to the INFERENCES about my intelligence quotient being roughly the same as a 6 year old - which is to say that it's also on a par with your average 'parrot'. LOL. I want you to remember what I say here picowatt. And it's certainly NOT a threat. I will - one day - call you to task - and TK for that matter - on certain slanderous indulgences. But I'll bide my time. And I've yet to learn who TK is. It's not from want of trying. But I'll get there. While I'm entirely satisfied that you both are relying on that 'Rosemary is utterly stupid' thing I also KNOW that this technology will finally be VINDICATED - and with it those 'slurs' that the two of you apply with such reckless prodigality. Meanwhile - you both provide a valued service. You assume that because I'm a lonely voice on this thread - that I'm also 'alone' with this technology - these claims - this general 'reach' that we're making into new physics. Therefore you indulge in a series of actionably slanderous comments that variously amuse, engage or shock our readers and our members. It's that level of shock that serves our purposes. Very well indeed. Because it polarises opinion PRECISELY because it engages our readers in 'the quarrel' - and on an emotional level. If I saw no value to publicity then I would have desisted way back. But the value is that it 'spreads the word' - more capably than consensus. It is almost as if the merits of an argument are always best served under rather irresponsible abuses of your anonymity. And bad publicity is as good as any - for this purpose or indeed any purpose when the object is to advance anything at all. And especially so as that vindication will then be considerably more public and considerably wider spread. What could be better. Thereafter - I'll take the time and trouble to look for those apologies. Which most certainly WILL ensue. Or they'll be accountable.
Now. Regarding this latest post of yours...
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 01:43:01 AM
Please keep in mind that you are totally free to believe in whatever you want.
If you wish to believe FG's can't pass current, that Q2 is not being biased on, that your positive half of the oscillation can only reach the battery via magic, that is your choice and you are welcome to it.
A function generator DOES NOT pass a current flow to the circuit. It INITIATES a current flow on inductive components in that circuit. If it allowed a flow of current from its own SUPPLY SOURCE - then it would defeat the basis of the Laws of Induction.
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 01:43:01 AMBut also keep in mind that I too am allowed to believe whatever I want.
My belief system says FG's can pass current, Q2 is being biased on, and that the positive half of the waveform is AC coupled to the battery. I also believe that inductive reactance acts as a very real frequency dependent "resistor" to an AC signal in a fashion similar to a normal resistor regarding DC.
Then you do INDEED rely on belief. And belief has no part to play in any science at all.
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 01:43:01 AMSo yes, I also believe a wire is not always just a wire, and that is not spin, that is again fact.
So YES. You are not constraining your OPINIONS to scientific FACT. BUT. As you say - you are free to do as you please.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 05:23:12 PM
snip...
Is this a "switch"?
That 555 inverter circuit you posted is neat. Do you have any idea what the -12 /volt maximum current output can be ?
Interested for use in an unrelated experiment.
Cheers
Is it just me, or is the most interesting thing discussed on this whole thread so far been the (redacted) that Tek's momma's working on?
*has
Quote from: hoptoad on April 28, 2012, 02:52:00 AM
That 555 inverter circuit you posted is neat. Do you have any idea what the -12 /volt maximum current output can be ?
Interested for use in an unrelated experiment.
Cheers
Thanks, Hoptoad. You do realize that Rosemary thinks that you are me, or I am you, or something, right? Now she'll say we're both nuts because we talk to ourself.
No, I don't know what its max output is. I'm still testing it.
As you might know (because it's there in plain sight on the board) I have a 0.3 ohm CVR in the bias circuit at the "FG+" input position, as well as the main CVR in the normal place. Here's a trace across that 0.3R CVR in the bias line, while running on the inverter circuit powered by the main battery, no external supply.
The baseline is indicated by the bright line (the other trace grounded and moved into position as a marker.) Horizontal is 2 microsec/div and vertical is 0.2 v/div.
Note that Rosemary again has claimed in no uncertain terms that the FG cannot put current into the system. This means, of course, that when her FG is set to produce the long-period, negative signal, causing the oscillations for minutes at a time, NO CURRENT flows from or to the FG to or from the circuit.
Right?
This is easily testable. Even Rosemary could test it. If she only had someone to hook it up for her and explain what the numbers mean.
We've already tested it for Tar Baby, haven't we? I can't recall if we did it using the FG alone or just with the external DC power supply. No matter.... we know that the Interstate F43 is a "magic" function generator already. So it shouldn't surprise anyone if it does manage to stuff current up Tar Baby somehow. But of course Ainslie's IsoTech 324.... which nobody can find on the internet anywhere..... can't do this at all, it only makes VOLTAGE.
Right?
Quote from: polln8r on April 28, 2012, 03:04:00 AM
Is it just me, or is the most interesting thing discussed on this whole thread so far been the (redacted) that Tek's momma's working on?
I could tell you.... but then I'd have to explain why you just died laughing. Besides, I'm under a strict NDA, so all I can tell you is that it involves an oscilloscope, and it has edible portions.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 03:30:53 AM
I could tell you.... but then I'd have to explain why you just died laughing. Besides, I'm under a strict NDA, so all I can tell you is that it involves an oscilloscope, and it has edible portions.
TK,
How goes the oscillation with the batt decoupled. Did you give it a try yet?
PW
Ains-lie said,
QuoteTK has NOT given us any measurements YET to indicate anything at all.
Liar. Baldfaced ignorant liar.
I've shown more actual real measurements in the past month than you have in all the years you have been jacking people around with this bogus claim of yours.
And every time I do, you do the same thing: you fill up PAGES of the thread with more of your ignorant bloviating, to cover up the issues and to hide the fact that YOU understand nothing, and YOU have to have somebody at your elbow whispering in your ear even to make as little sense as you manage.
The measurements are not at issue, Rosemary. Not for this circuit and not for the COP>17 battery charger either. What is important is whether or not YOUR BATTERIES DISCHARGE. And that is so simple to test that I've done it 4 times now in the last two weeks.
YOU ARE STALLING. And as I've said before.... since all of your batteries are still over 12 volts, still fully charged... you should NOT be allowed to charge them at all before you start the current tests.
You can't anyway because I'm still preventing you, remember?
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 03:41:13 AM
TK,
How goes the oscillation with the batt decoupled. Did you give it a try yet?
PW
No, because these batteries are depleted and I have done a Dim Bulb Test and they are now being recharged and I won't be able to run the circuit again before tomorrow, probably afternoon, since I'll be putting the radiator back in my car in the morning, hopefully.
Unfortunately the program crashed during the time-lapse video so I only have a portion of the test on video. But it shows the expected result. At first when I hooked up the bulbs it seemed like it was taking a really long time for the TB bulbs to start dimming.... but they eventually did, and died well before there was any perceptible dimming on the set-aside batteries.
Meanwhile there's a new video up, demonstrating the charge-pump inverter again and showing some clean, and some noisy, oscillations using it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Vrd1zG5r4
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 03:46:07 AM
No, because these batteries are depleted and I have done a Dim Bulb Test and they are now being recharged and I won't be able to run the circuit again before tomorrow, probably afternoon, since I'll be putting the radiator back in my car in the morning, hopefully.
Unfortunately the program crashed during the time-lapse video so I only have a portion of the test on video. But it shows the expected result. At first when I hooked up the bulbs it seemed like it was taking a really long time for the TB bulbs to start dimming.... but they eventually did, and died well before there was any perceptible dimming on the set-aside batteries.
Meanwhile there's a new video up, demonstrating the charge-pump inverter again and showing some clean, and some noisy, oscillations using it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Vrd1zG5r4
TK,
When were you planning on visiting the Tek again?
PW
Monday-- the day after the day after tomorrow, that is -- if all goes well. There are many things that could go less than well, though.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 04:02:56 AM
Monday-- the day after the day after tomorrow, that is -- if all goes well. There are many things that could go less than well, though.
TK
I watched the vid, seems your osc ampliude is lower. Not sure you will get a mean neg with that level. Was it that low when you used the Tek?
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 03:14:20 AM
Thanks, Hoptoad. You do realize that Rosemary thinks that you are me, or I am you, or something, right? Now she'll say we're both nuts because we talk to ourself.
snip...
That's hilarious ..... KneeDeep... I'm me ..... I think ?
Quote
No, I don't know what its max output is. I'm still testing it.
snip...
Curious to know. Thanks in advance for any further info.
Cheers
QuoteA function generator DOES NOT pass a current flow to the circuit. It INITIATES a current flow on inductive components in that circuit. If it allowed a flow of current from its own SUPPLY SOURCE - then it would defeat the basis of the Laws of Induction.
Word salad lite! lol Plus the "Laws of Induction" make an appearance!
Rosemary you are clearly demonstrating that you don't have a grasp of basic circuit analysis. The simple modelling for a function generator has been used in this thread 500 times and you still don't have a clue.
Nor do you have a mastery of the five or six basic concepts associated with MOSFETs so you are unable to discuss how they work. Even though you have been playing with a MOSFET circuit for years.
You couldn't grasp the basic power analysis concepts that Poynt tried to review with you a month or two ago. The circuit was a single resistor connected to a battery if I recall correctly.
So where does that leave you Rosemary?
I can tell you: You are not in any position to pass judgement on anybody with respect to electronics. I note that recently we had a dose of your fake swagger also.
The only place that leaves you is empirical evidence. You really and truly don't understand what is going on in your circuit on a basic electronics level so
your only option is empirical evidence - do a round of
dim bulb testing and leave it at that.
We'll join in the jamboree at the big batt test!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTr5EC0pV7E
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 03:14:20 AM
Thanks, Hoptoad. You do realize that Rosemary thinks that you are me, or I am you, or something, right? Now she'll say we're both nuts because we talk to ourself.
WHAT? It's like that thing where you keep talking to Leon? WHO is Leon? It has NEVER occurred to me that Hoptoad is you. Why would you think that? For starters I like hoptoad. Admittedly he doesn't like either me or our work. But who cares? I get the general feeling that he actually DOES support OU. Unfortunately he also has something of a crush on you - which means that he also admires bullies. But there you go. It's just one of the hazards related to your quality of posting. It brings out the 'pack' in the animal. LOL
Rosie Posie
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 04:07:59 AM
TK
I watched the vid, seems your osc ampliude is lower. Not sure you will get a mean neg with that level. Was it that low when you used the Tek?
PW
Those batteries are _flat_. I wouldn't try to make much of casual estimates of magnitudes under those conditions. We'll know more once everything is recharged. It takes about 4-5 hours to recharge each battery properly using the Penske 706261 Automatic Charger. One is done, three to go for a running set, two more makes all six.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 28, 2012, 09:24:45 AM
WHAT? It's like that thing where you keep talking to Leon? WHO is Leon? It has NEVER occurred to me that Hoptoad is you. Why would you think that? For starters I like hoptoad. Admittedly he doesn't like either me or our work. But who cares? I get the general feeling that he actually DOES support OU. Unfortunately he also has something of a crush on you - which means that he also admires bullies. But there you go. It's just one of the hazards related to your quality of posting. It brings out the 'pack' in the animal. LOL
Rosie Posie
It's really too bad that they don't have Google in South Africa.
One can really learn a lot from Google. If one knows how to use a computer at all, that is. Of course if one has to ask one's eight year old nephew for help to turn it on... perhaps needlepoint is a safer hobby. It will likely result in much less mockery from the audience.
"They're just questions, Leon."
Google returns About 27,700,000 results (0.33 seconds)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=brI41rgDKdE
TK, PW.
I would suggest that rather than decoupling across the entire battery array, that each battery receive ample decoupling. In fact, only one battery need be decoupled for this test. Assume all batteries are of the same SOC and internal resistance, and use only ONE for the calculation.
By decoupling only the batteries (and not the interconnecting wires between them), there will be no effect on the oscillations, they will persist. There won't be any need to add more wire.
Alternately, when they are fully charged, there should be much less AC evident across each individual battery, and therefore the measurement could be taken directly across ONE battery's terminals. This is what I would suggest be done first thing. To summarize, I would suggest the following TK:
1) With fresh batteries, confirm the neg pwr measurement by sampling VBAT from the load side of the battery line. This is the "reference" measurement.
2) Do you have a differential probe available? If so, take a VBAT measurement directly across ONE of the batteries, and do the power computation in the scope. If the pwr computation is now positive, then multiply by the number of batteries to get a final value of the whole battery array.
3) If the pwr is still negative, apply several high quality low value capacitors across this ONE battery. At 2MHz, a 0.47uF cap has a Z of 0.17 Ohms, 4.7uF has a Z of 0.017 Ohms etc. Don't bother with any electrolytics IMHO. If you can get about 10-20uF (the more the better) of high quality capacitance across that one battery, it should smooth out the AC quite a lot. Now do the same test as in 2).
You're now getting excessively repetitive MileHigh. I've warned TK about this. It's likely to make people skim your posts. You need to keep your observations 'fresh' - if you're intending to make some kind of effective 'dent' in my reputation.
Now. Regarding this post of yours...
Quote from: MileHigh on April 28, 2012, 08:51:17 AM
Word salad lite! lol Plus the "Laws of Induction" make an appearance!
I assure you that the function generator does NOT pass a current to the circuit. It can ONLY induce a current flow. If you don't know this then you should NOT be commenting. It means that you've also been SEDUCED by TK's sad little overly simplistic video representations of current flow from a function generator. IF the function generator passed any of its energy via current flow - directly to the circuit as opposed to passing an INDUCED current flow on circuit material resulting from an applied voltage on inductive and conductive circuit material - then it would be achieving feats of magic far in excess of over unity. And it would then need to show the more remarkable proof of this by allowing less energy at its input than its output - as required by Kirchhoff. And this point is NOT a nicety. It's relevant.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 28, 2012, 08:51:17 AMRosemary you are clearly demonstrating that you don't have a grasp of basic circuit analysis. The simple modelling for a function generator has been used in this thread 500 times and you still don't have a clue.
It IS a simple modelling. In fact it's SIMPLISTIC. And it HAS been used. Extensively. In fact it's been over used and grossly abused. But I don't think as often as 500 times. And in any event. It's still wrong. And I have a reasonable grasp of the laws of physics which is all that's needed here. It's your own and TK's and picowatt's knowledge that shows a want of understanding related to basic physics and the laws of induction. Perhaps you too need that refresher course offered by RJ Smith. It's all there. Just go read it.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 28, 2012, 08:51:17 AMNor do you have a mastery of the five or six basic concepts associated with MOSFETs so you are unable to discuss how they work. Even though you have been playing with a MOSFET circuit for years.
As ever, you and picowatt and TK rely on my abysmal stupidity. While I, in turn, rely on that reliance.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 28, 2012, 08:51:17 AMYou couldn't grasp the basic power analysis concepts that Poynt tried to review with you a month or two ago. The circuit was a single resistor connected to a battery if I recall correctly.
If and when I don't understand Poynty Point - I ask. So far I've followed his argument very well thank you. It's you who has NOT followed our argument.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 28, 2012, 08:51:17 AMSo where does that leave you Rosemary? I can tell you: You are not in any position to pass judgement on anybody with respect to electronics. I note that recently we had a dose of your fake swagger also.
'Fake swagger?' I like that. You really do have the occasional MOST excellent turn of phrase. But no MileHigh. I'm too OLD to fake anything. Unfortunately.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 28, 2012, 08:51:17 AMThe only place that leaves you is empirical evidence. You really and truly don't understand what is going on in your circuit on a basic electronics level so your only option is empirical evidence - do a round of dim bulb testing and leave it at that. We'll join in the jamboree at the big batt test!
Good thinking and a good suggestion. I'll oblige you all. With pleasure.
Rosie Pose
My dear hoptoad,
I would urgently caution you against believing everything that TK 'insinuates, infers or implies'. He's never allowed the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it - to pollute his argument.
Quote from: hoptoad on April 28, 2012, 04:23:53 AM
That's hilarious ..... KneeDeep... I'm me ..... I think ?
So. NO. Not actually. I have NEVER assumed that you are TK. What I have understood is that you're certainly one of his rather uncritical acolytes. And you'd probably do better if you applied those critical faculties of yours. But feel free to 'laugh' - with or without reason. Because that's always a good thing.
Regards,
Rosie
Will somebody else besides me please put a meter in series with the function generator hooked up to Ainslie's circuit, negative pulse drive mode, extra long period, just to SEE if she is right in her assertion?
.99, you can do this in the simulation, I think, and probably already have, and likely, RA has already denied your sim's validity because of it.
We have been talking for some time here about how the bias supply.... whatever it is.... injects power into the circuit. We have shown that the bias supply, whatever it is, is in strict series with the main battery. And we have shown by instrumental measurements -- not handwaving conjectures and assertions by someone who makes unsupported claims every day and is refuted every day on something or other that she's claimed --- actual MEASUREMENTS have shown the existence, the magnitude and the direction of this current from the bias source. And these are measurements that ANYONE can make (except of course Rosemary Ainslie) and see for themselves: The bias source, whether it is FG, 555, a nine-volt battery or probably even zipons, adds power to the circuit. Even running the bias off of one of the running batteries itself, AS ONLY I HAVE SHOWN, adds extra power to the circuit that would not otherwise be there and drains that battery faster than otherwise.
A nine-volt battery used for the bias source will RUN DOWN fairly quickly.... this has been established many times.
So, since Rosemary is always right, there must be something wrong at Agilent. Those fools... what do they know about test equipment.
Or maybe she just can't open .pdf files because her computer has been hacked again and can't read or understand their explanation of what a function generator IS and how it is USED.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2012, 09:45:07 AM
TK, PW.
I would suggest that rather than decoupling across the entire battery array, that each battery receive ample decoupling. In fact, only one battery need be decoupled for this test. Assume all batteries are of the same SOC and internal resistance, and use only ONE for the calculation.
By decoupling only the batteries (and not the interconnecting wires between them), there will be no effect on the oscillations, they will persist. There won't be any need to add more wire.
Alternately, when they are fully charged, there should be much less AC evident across each individual battery, and therefore the measurement could be taken directly across ONE battery's terminals. This is what I would suggest be done first thing. To summarize, I would suggest the following TK:
1) With fresh batteries, confirm the neg pwr measurement by sampling VBAT from the load side of the battery line. This is the "reference" measurement.
2) Do you have a differential probe available? If so, take a VBAT measurement directly across ONE of the batteries, and do the power computation in the scope. If the pwr computation is now positive, then multiply by the number of batteries to get a final value of the whole battery array.
3) If the pwr is still negative, apply several high quality low value capacitors across this ONE battery. At 2MHz, a 0.47uF cap has a Z of 0.17 Ohms, 4.7uF has a Z of 0.017 Ohms etc. Don't bother with any electrolytics IMHO. If you can get about 10-20uF (the more the better) of high quality capacitance across that one battery, it should smooth out the AC quite a lot. Now do the same test as in 2).
She's doing it again, .99, filling up the thread with ridiculous conjectures and insults against me and my "acolytes"..... I've now been elevated to the Pope of Bunkum, I suppose.... so that the real issues can be buried from sight.
No, I can't seem to find a diff probe here, but I might be able to get around the issue other ways. But I also see no problem with moving the inductances away from the battery stack and just decoupling the whole thing as PW suggested, or individually if I can find enough "highquality" caps. I do have a few, like the little orange ceramic one in this photo....
The only problem I can see with your proposal -- and PW's and MileHigh's etc. is that... of course.... RA will not see them as valid tests nor will she allow them to be applied to her device.
TK,
Here is a shot of the FG current and M2 (Q2) Source current. Even though the M2 Source current has a higher negative peak current, the average current of both is about -182mA as shown.
As I suggested TK, I recommend keeping it simple, practical, and easy with as little disruption to the circuit as possible.
Alter ONE battery only (by adding filtering across it if necessary) and do the measurements using that ONE battery. No changes to the wiring necessary, and the oscillations will be unchanged.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2012, 10:58:52 AM
As I suggested TK, I recommend keeping it simple, practical, and easy with as little disruption to the circuit as possible.
Alter ONE battery only (by adding filtering across it if necessary) and do the measurements using that ONE battery. No changes to the wiring necessary, and the oscillations will be unchanged.
Thanks for the current shot. What does Rosie Poser say about that?
And sure, I have no problem with the test of a single battery, but she won't accept the measurement of a single battery, you know that. I can do the most negative in the stack without the need for a diff probe, right?
Poynt:
I second that motion for just decoupling a single battery. Sounds like a plan.
TK:
You have a 700,000 uF cap. So if we assume 200 mA drain on that cap, the delta-v is in one second is:
delta-v = 0.2/(700,000x10^-6) = 0.28 volts. I didn't have a handle on the current drain before so I was worried. This is actually pretty good news.
For example, if you charge the cap to 14.6 volts and run the setup until the cap discharges to 10.6 volts your run time should be about 14 seconds. That's enough time to get it going, then show the delicious oscillations on your scope with the apparent negative power, and then move the camera over to a multimeter showing the cap slowly draining in voltage.
For those new to the thread, we are talking about substituting one of the Tar Baby batteries for a big capacitor. The capacitor will decrease in voltage over time proving that the Tar Baby NERD replication is not "COP infinity," even though the Tar Baby acts the same way as the NERD circuit and has the same schematic and uses the same components.
If you crunch the numbers you can also deduce the power consumption of the Tar Baby circuit, which means that the NERD circuit would have a comparable power consumption. Zipons be damned!
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 11:13:50 AM
I can do the most negative in the stack without the need for a diff probe, right?
If you can place both scope probe gnd leads directly on the battery's neg terminal, yes. That means no negative battery lead wire between the battery terminal and the scope gnd leads.
TK:
I think that there will be minimal disturbance with decoupling just one battery, to be confirmed with the scope display.
When you think about it, the substitution of just one battery for a capacitor is also a strategy for minimal disturbance of the setup. It's decoupled by definition and the "current measurement" is indicated by the change in voltage on the cap.
"Vee equals one-over-cee integral aye dee-tee." "Aye equals cee dee-vee dee-tee."
Plus the presentation in the clip will have impact. Everybody can relate to a sinking voltage reading on a capacitor. Capacitor voltage sinking into the Depths of Doom like the Titanic dragging the NERD circuit down, down, down to it's doom! Muh-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!
I know that you stated that you did it before but somehow I missed it.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2012, 10:58:52 AM
As I suggested TK, I recommend keeping it simple, practical, and easy with as little disruption to the circuit as possible.
Alter ONE battery only (by adding filtering across it if necessary) and do the measurements using that ONE battery. No changes to the wiring necessary, and the oscillations will be unchanged.
.99,
I see where your going here.
Absent the diff probe, how about:
A. Place caps across first battery above ground. Reduce inductance of the BATT- wire to the ciruit board with addition of parallel runs or braid if needed, measure first battery V+ for battery AVG.
B Connect a 10K resistor at the boards BATT+ connection. Place caps between board/measurement ground and free end of 10K. Use the 10K/cap juction as battery AVG.
As TK said, bypassing the entire battery string and adding additional wire if needed to maintain osc would prove additional points as well and may be a nice demo for others using switchers and osc's.
I for one am already convinced your analysis is correct.
In fact, if TK's circuit demonstrates a neg mean pwr (which I believe it has), and his circuit is proven to not be COP>1, or even claimed as not being COP>1 by others, the point has already been made that such a measurement cannot by itself be relied upon as an indication of COP>1, overunity, non-conventional operation or whatever others are calling it.
PW
TK,
I would go back to whatever operating conditions gave you the previous neg numbers (bias supply, Ibias, etc).
Do a quick test to see how difficult it will be to maintain similar osc waveforms with the entire string of batteries decoupled and then decide the best route to take.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2012, 10:53:20 AM
TK,
Here is a shot of the FG current and M2 (Q2) Source current. Even though the M2 Source current has a higher negative peak current, the average current of both is about -182mA as shown.
Poynty - here's the thing. We put our function probe directly on the Gate at Q1 (right) and the terminal (ground?) directly on the Gate at Q2. Alternatively - we put that ground on the source rail - before the current sensing resistor.
I'm not sure that you're reading the right place with the ground positioning.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 28, 2012, 12:29:02 PM
We put our function probe directly on the Gate at Q1 (right) and the terminal (ground?) directly on the Gate at Q2.
Rosemary,
As do I. The FG connections are the same as in your first paper, but my diagram is drawn differently (I included the parasitic inductance in the Q2 Gate). My Q1 is on the left, but the connections (which is what counts) are the same.
Rosemary:
QuotePoynty - here's the thing. We put our function probe directly on the Gate at Q1 (right) and the terminal (ground?) directly on the Gate at Q2. Alternatively - we put that ground on the source rail - before the current sensing resistor.
For starters, in order to avoid mass confusion, the right MOSFET, designated as "M2" in the schematic, is modelling what normally has been referred to as the "Q2 array." Therefore "M1" on the left is modelling what has normally been referred to as "Q1." I wish that everybody would stick to this terminology.
More precisely, what are you trying to measure? You mention two measurements without stating what you are trying to measure and both of them look highly suspect. But before commenting further please explain what you are trying to measure.
You have this horrible habit of not providing all of the required information when discussing circuits and measurements. Review your prose before you post it and resolve the ambiguities.
Also, I can't tell you how many times we have read you making reference to (presumably) DC current passing through the gate input of a MOSFET. This is annoying and tedious in the extreme. One more nonsensical reference from you about DC current flowing through the gate input of a MOSFET and I will let you know in no uncertain terms.
All that being said, please make a new posting where you clearly describe what you are trying to measure and precisely where you place both terminals of your probe.
Also, use nomenclature that makes sense and is not ambiguous. For example, for a battery you never say the "source" or the "source rail" or the "drain" or the "drain rail." You say the negative and positive terminals, or the negative and positive rails. That's just the way it is. Stop mixing up battery terminology and MOSFET terminology. You have been at this for years, and it's time for you to demonstrate that you are capable of learning and using the standard terminology that you yourself read every day.
MileHigh
.99,
Regarding your sim schematic, is there a reason you chose position 4 instead of position 3 as the ground point?
I would think this would exclude the CSR and its inductance from the M2 feedback network.
PW
@MH: 70,000 uF, not 700,000 uF. (71,000 actually.) I wish....
I do have a 1 Farad cap.... at 3.5 volts.
And those "good" ceramics I have there are only 500pF and I only have about 20 of them.
But I'll manage somehow, probably.
So we still are having a lot of trouble getting Ainslie to understand that a Function Generator will provide current and in this circuit does act in series, either adding voltage (in the negative bias mode) or subtracting it (in the positive gate pulse mode) to that of the main battery. When the mosfet(s) are conducting there is a closed circuit for this power to flow, and it has a total DC resistance made up of the load, the battery's ESR, the CVR, the mosfet's Rds at the gate charge level seen, and the function generator's impedance. If this total resistance is on the order of 300 Ohms, with a battery voltage of 48 volts and a FG drive of 10-12 volts..... well, Do the Math (tm RA).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98QB6HTA6s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98QB6HTA6s)
8 or 12 views even before I posted a link...... spooky.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
@MH: 70,000 uF, not 700,000 uF. (71,000 actually.) I wish....
I do have a 1 Farad cap.... at 3.5 volts.
And those "good" ceramics I have there are only 500pF and I only have about 20 of them.
But I'll manage somehow, probably.
So we still are having a lot of trouble getting Ainslie to understand that a Function Generator will provide current and in this circuit does act in series, either adding voltage (in the negative bias mode) or subtracting it (in the positive gate pulse mode) to that of the main battery. When the mosfet(s) are conducting there is a closed circuit for this power to flow, and it has a total DC resistance made up of the load, the battery's ESR, the CVR, the mosfet's Rds at the gate charge level seen, and the function generator's impedance. If this total resistance is on the order of 300 Ohms, with a battery voltage of 48 volts and a FG drive of 10-12 volts..... well, Do the Math (tm RA).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98QB6HTA6s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98QB6HTA6s)
8 or 12 views even before I posted a link...... spooky.
TK,
I would consider MH's "series cap replacing a battery" as a second (excellent) test of a "rundown" type test independent of the pos/neg mean pwr test bypassing all or one of the batteries.
Have you tried placing some caps across the batteries yet just to see how this affects osc?
PW
TK:
What difference does it make? After all the capacitor only INITIATES a current flow on the inductive components in that circuit. If it allowed a flow of current from its own CHARGE IMBALANCE - then it would defeat the basis of the Laws of Induction. The potential is PRESUMED to be COUPLED from the imbalance of CAPACITIVE electron flux. Therefore a smaller capacitance will still not defeat the basis of the Laws of Capacitive Reaction in a pulse modulation context.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 01:59:41 PM
.99,
Regarding your sim schematic, is there a reason you chose position 4 instead of position 3 as the ground point?
I would think this would exclude the CSR and its inductance from the M2 feedback network.
PW
It didn't look right when I changed it, now I see why, thanks. I've updated the schematic. Should be ok now.
The battery power measurement changed to -32W (-128W accounting for R
CSR=0.25), and the average current for both the FG and Q2 Source is now 210mA.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 28, 2012, 03:43:34 PM
TK:
What difference does it make? After all the capacitor only INITIATES a current flow on the inductive components in that circuit. If it allowed a flow of current from its own CHARGE IMBALANCE - then it would defeat the basis of the Laws of Induction. The potential is PRESUMED to be COUPLED from the imbalance of CAPACITIVE electron flux. Therefore a smaller capacitance will still not defeat the basis of the Laws of Capacitive Reaction in a pulse modulation context.
MileHigh
Can I get some scrambled eggs with that tossed salad?
;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BUH3Gd9qAA
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2012, 05:27:44 PM
It didn't look right when I changed it, now I see why, thanks. I've updated the schematic. Should be ok now.
The battery power measurement changed to -32W (-128W accounting for RCSR=0.25), and the average current for both the FG and Q2 Source is now 210mA.
.99,
Looking good.
Is this the sim that has issues with Rgen=50R? Even with V1 at more like -12V to -15V?
I really like your sim work...
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2012, 05:27:44 PM
It didn't look right when I changed it, now I see why, thanks. I've updated the schematic. Should be ok now.
The battery power measurement changed to -32W (-128W accounting for RCSR=0.25), and the average current for both the FG and Q2 Source is now 210mA.
.99,
Also, just to be a bit "picky", the FG/ M1 source current is bypassing the CSR due to the FG common being at ground. Can you connect the FG common to the top of the CSR (or location 4)?
I am not exactly sure of the best location for Losc with this modification.
MODIFIED, removed "...cut the trace...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 02:57:20 PM
TK,
I would consider MH's "series cap replacing a battery" as a second (excellent) test of a "rundown" type test independent of the pos/neg mean pwr test bypassing all or one of the batteries.
Have you tried placing some caps across the batteries yet just to see how this affects osc?
PW
No, still charging batteries.
But I did get my radiator back from the shop--- they had initially welded it back together with the top tank on backwards.... and I installed it and put some kind of fluorescent pink chemical wetting agent in with the water and a little coolant (15 percent mix) and took it out for a half-hour spin at 70-75 mph... and my cooling problem is solved !! It's too bad I didn't actually test a before-and-after with the pink wetting agent, but the overall result is dramatic. Of course a cleaned out radiator and going to more water in the mix makes a lot of difference and the signal from the wetting agent would be riding on top of that, so to speak....
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 06:14:56 PM
No, still charging batteries.
But I did get my radiator back from the shop--- they had initially welded it back together with the top tank on backwards.... and I installed it and put some kind of fluorescent pink chemical wetting agent in with the water and a little coolant (15 percent mix) and took it out for a half-hour spin at 70-75 mph... and my cooling problem is solved !! It's too bad I didn't actually test a before-and-after with the pink wetting agent, but the overall result is dramatic. Of course a cleaned out radiator and going to more water in the mix makes a lot of difference and the signal from the wetting agent would be riding on top of that, so to speak....
TK,
Seems a bit lite on the coolant.
How long do you think before batts are topped off?
Other than the big electolytics, and the 500pF's, no other caps around? If I could throw that far, I'd heave some .22 polys and a handfull of .1 ceramics your way! Any old PC supplies, etc. laying about to scrounge from?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 06:22:35 PM
TK,
Seems a bit lite on the coolant.
It's what the expensive bottle of pink stuff recommended for passenger cars. Racing: use pure water plus this stuff. By the time I'm in cold weather again I'll richen the mix with glycol, but now in the Texas early summer.... so far so good.
Quote
How long do you think before batts are topped off?
I dunno. Two done, one almost done, one still flat, and the two "setasides" won't take as long, probably. Then I "usually" like to let them set for some time, check opencircuit voltages and so on.
Don't worry... we'll get there in time for the funeral.
Quote
Other than the big electolytics, and the 500pF's, no other caps around? If I could throw that far, I'd heave some .22 polys and a handfull of .1 ceramics your way! Any old PC supplies, etc. laying about to scrounge from?
PW
Oh, I have a few other caps lying around. I've got about a hundred or so 30kV, 400pF doorknobs for example, N4700, but you probably don't want me to use those.
Man, this is a tough crowd tonight. Do you know what this reminds me of? When I was working on the Mylow farce, his proponent here WattsUp who moderated the thread we were on, kept denying that Mylow could have done it the way I said he did, and he kept coming up with more and more tests to perform. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofkXAtAhqO8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofkXAtAhqO8)
Meanwhile.... I found a few other capacitors in my boxes.
The blue ones are RIFA PHE 820 M, 1 microFarad 275 V. The silver cylinders are 10000pF poly 500V and are indeed quite snappy even if low in capacity. I cut one open with a bandsaw once and it STILL was able to give me a shock, just the half-capacitor. And the little cylinders with axial leads are 0.1 uF monolithics, 100 V.
What do you think? (ETA: I also have some tantalums but I don't really want to subject them to the Ainslie component-destroyer. But if necessary..... why not. )
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 06:00:46 PM
Is this the sim that has issues with Rgen=50R? Even with V1 at more like -12V to -15V?
All my sims of this circuit have an issue with the 50R resistance. It's not an issue of bias voltage or current (i.e. the bias voltage makes no difference), the problem is the AC impedance presented by the 50 Ohms. As I said many times, with the sim at least, there has to be a low impedance path to ground for the oscillation, and 50 Ohms is too high. 4 Ohms works perfectly with the sim.
Quote
I really like your sim work...
PW
Thanks.
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 06:09:36 PM
.99,
Also, just to be a bit "picky", the FG/ M1 source current is bypassing the CSR due to the FG common being at ground. Can you connect the FG common to the top of the CSR (or location 4)?
This particular schematic is reflective of the video demonstration "as-built" apparatus in terms of where the CSR is and how the FG is connected.
I can do another one (later) with the proper connections if you want, no problem.
Quote
I am not exactly sure of the best location for Losc with this modification.
Can't I simply connect it as the first diagram, but use point 3 as gnd?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2012, 08:39:38 PM
This particular schematic is reflective of the video demonstration "as-built" apparatus in terms of where the CSR is and how the FG is connected.
I can do another one (later) with the proper connections if you want, no problem.
Can't I simply connect it as the first diagram, but use point 3 as gnd?
.99.
That is what I thought you were going to do to the first dwg, just move the ground from 4 to 3.
Since you are using sim current probes, either way the question that TK asked regarding Q2 bias current has been answered.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 07:58:17 PM
It's what the expensive bottle of pink stuff recommended for passenger cars. Racing: use pure water plus this stuff. By the time I'm in cold weather again I'll richen the mix with glycol, but now in the Texas early summer.... so far so good.I dunno. Two done, one almost done, one still flat, and the two "setasides" won't take as long, probably. Then I "usually" like to let them set for some time, check opencircuit voltages and so on.
Don't worry... we'll get there in time for the funeral.
Oh, I have a few other caps lying around. I've got about a hundred or so 30kV, 400pF doorknobs for example, N4700, but you probably don't want me to use those.
Man, this is a tough crowd tonight. Do you know what this reminds me of? When I was working on the Mylow farce, his proponent here WattsUp who moderated the thread we were on, kept denying that Mylow could have done it the way I said he did, and he kept coming up with more and more tests to perform. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofkXAtAhqO8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofkXAtAhqO8)
Meanwhile.... I found a few other capacitors in my boxes.
The blue ones are RIFA PHE 820 M, 1 microFarad 275 V. The silver cylinders are 10000pF poly 500V and are indeed quite snappy even if low in capacity. I cut one open with a bandsaw once and it STILL was able to give me a shock, just the half-capacitor. And the little cylinders with axial leads are 0.1 uF monolithics, 100 V.
What do you think? (ETA: I also have some tantalums but I don't really want to subject them to the Ainslie component-destroyer. But if necessary..... why not. )
TK,
You have plenty of caps. I'd try one of each in the photo in parallel.
I think anyone who ever visited a surplus store in the past has some of those axial lead glass .1uF ceramics!
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 03:28:26 AM
Note that Rosemary again has claimed in no uncertain terms that the FG cannot put current into the system. This means, of course, that when her FG is set to produce the long-period, negative signal, causing the oscillations for minutes at a time, NO CURRENT flows from or to the FG to or from the circuit.
Right?
This is easily testable. Even Rosemary could test it. If she only had someone to hook it up for her and explain what the numbers mean.
We've already tested it for Tar Baby, haven't we? I can't recall if we did it using the FG alone or just with the external DC power supply. No matter.... we know that the Interstate F43 is a "magic" function generator already. So it shouldn't surprise anyone if it does manage to stuff current up Tar Baby somehow. But of course Ainslie's IsoTech 324.... which nobody can find on the internet anywhere..... can't do this at all, it only makes VOLTAGE.
Right?
Back to this statement of TK's. YES. This is right. The function generator NEVER passes current other than back to it's own plug source. What it does on the circuit is it applies a voltage as a result of it's current flow. That applied voltage, in turn, induces a current flow on the circuit where the voltage is applied. So. Well done TK. It seems you're getting it. You see this now. Thank you God. Because, then, self-evidently - it would be following the Laws of Induction. And without those laws of induction it would not be able to generate any current flow at all. It's not a 'power supply source'. That passes current. It ONLY applies a voltage.
Rosie Pose
Had to modify this. Somewhat. LOL
Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
.99.
That is what I thought you were going to do to the first dwg, just move the ground from 4 to 3.
Since you are using sim current probes, either way the question that TK asked regarding Q2 bias current has been answered.
PW
One of them was, anyway. Clearly there is bias current... as we have also determined theoretically and in the hardware. So theory, simulation, and hardware agree.
The second question was about Anslie's response to the information from .99's sim. How can the sim result (not to mention the hardware and the theory) be reconciled with Ainslie's categorical denial that current flows through the FG or that the FG can be a source of power to the circuit?
Preserved intact for posterity:
TK said,
Quote
Note that Rosemary again has claimed in no uncertain terms that the FG cannot put current into the system. This means, of course, that when her FG is set to produce the long-period, negative signal, causing the oscillations for minutes at a time, NO CURRENT flows from or to the FG to or from the circuit.
Right?
This is easily testable. Even Rosemary could test it. If she only had someone to hook it up for her and explain what the numbers mean.
We've already tested it for Tar Baby, haven't we? I can't recall if we did it using the FG alone or just with the external DC power supply. No matter.... we know that the Interstate F43 is a "magic" function generator already. So it shouldn't surprise anyone if it does manage to stuff current up Tar Baby somehow. But of course Ainslie's IsoTech 324.... which nobody can find on the internet anywhere..... can't do this at all, it only makes VOLTAGE.
Right?
And Ainslie said:
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 28, 2012, 11:30:37 PM
Back to this statement of TK's. YES. This is right. The function generator NEVER passes current other than back to it's own plug source. What it does on the circuit is it applies a voltage as a result of it's current flow. That applied voltage, in turn, induces a current flow on the circuit where the voltage is applied. So. Well done TK. It seems you're getting it. You see this now. Thank you God. Because, then, self-evidently - it would be following the Laws of Induction. And without those laws of induction it would not be able to generate any current flow at all. It is a 'generator'. Not a 'power supply source'.
Rosie Pose
And then TK laughed and laughed. A "generator". Not a "power supply source". "Induces" a current according to the "Laws of Induction". Do you mean Faraday's Law of Induction? Or your country's military draft laws? Because neither have anything to do with how the FG functions in your circuit.
I wonder how I was able to use a Function Generator to charge a small battery, light up LEDs, drive a motor..... Oh.. that's right, I have magic bench equipment that does what nobody else's equipment does. After all... who ever heard of an Interstate "high voltage function generator"? That right there gives the whole story away. TK is using HIGH VOLTAGE !!
Therefore aliens.
My dear Poynty Point
Again. If this is the schematic that you're relying on to represent our circuit - then it's wrong. I have no other way of telling you this. Your ground terminal is at the wrong place. It needs to be ON the gate of Q2. Nowhere else. Unless you choose to put it on the source leg - because it actually makes very little difference. But it is not where you've indicated it on your schematic. Nowhere near.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 11:35:31 PM
One of them was, anyway. Clearly there is bias current... as we have also determined theoretically and in the hardware. So theory, simulation, and hardware agree.
The second question was about Anslie's response to the information from .99's sim. How can the sim result (not to mention the hardware and the theory) be reconciled with Ainslie's categorical denial that current flows through the FG or that the FG can be a source of power to the circuit?
TK,
It can't be reconciled and I doubt it ever will be. In spite of all the sim evidence, hardware evidence, mfg literature, and standard electronic theory, nothing has changed. A horse can be led to water, but cannot be made to drink. Personally, I no longer care.
So you still "boiling batteries"? How much time are you going to have with the Tek? Do you feel the need to do any manual reading as prep? At least, hopefully, your trip will not be hindered with car issues!
PW
Can anybody tell me anything at all about the "IsoTech GFG 324" function generator? Why is it crippled?
I mean, I know for a fact that the Instech unit used in the demo can do everything that my Interstate can do, just not with the peak "high voltage" of 40 v p-p.
But I can't find any information anywhere about the "IsoTech GFG 324" that could explain why it acts differently than any other function generator in the world and doesn't push Current, through a Resistance, when it applies Voltage.
My dear TinselKoala
You've misquoted me. Who would have thought? Did you ALTER my post? I'll get back there.
Meanwhile - back to business...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
And then TK laughed and laughed. A "generator". Not a "power supply source". "Induces" a current according to the "Laws of Induction". Do you mean Faraday's Law of Induction? Or your country's military draft laws? Because neither have anything to do with how the FG functions in your circuit.
I wonder how I was able to use a Function Generator to charge a small battery, light up LEDs, drive a motor..... Oh.. that's right, I have magic bench equipment that does what nobody else's equipment does. After all... who ever heard of an Interstate "high voltage function generator"? That right there gives the whole story away. TK is using HIGH VOLTAGE !!
Therefore aliens.
Delighted to see you're amused. Yes I mean Faraday's Laws of Induction. No I do not mean our country's military draft laws. We have none. I DID NOT see anything related to you charging a non rechargeable battery. On the contrary I saw an obsessive need to apply a non rechargeable battery to power your 555 because you needed to prove that it would ONLY discharge. Golly. It performed as expected. That's what non rechargeable batteries do. You then rather fatuously argued that it loses energy. Which is also as expected. What you DID NOT DO was use a battery that could benefit from all that INDUCED oscillation in order to determine the amount of energy that is is ACTUALLY transferred THROUGH INDUCTIVE PRINCIPLES back to the 555's battery supply. CLEARLY. Because you USED THE WRONG BATTERY. And that would have DEFEATED your argument. Sorry. For 'argument' read 'spin'.
Your LED's lit up because the resistance on the wire was enough to induce a small voltage which then collapsed as that square wave signal changed - which then produced power proportional to the square of the applied voltage on both halves of that square wave applied signal. You drove your motor on precisely those same principles. So. TK. Let us know how you managed to defeat Faraday's Laws of Induction.
Rosie Pose
edited
@PW:
I'll have as much time as I need, don't worry about that. That is, unless something exciting has happened with (redacted). But the chances of that, IMHO, are on a par with Ainslie's.
And I'd like to read the manual, yes; I'm actually not afraid of information, as long as it's not too expensive. Do you have a link to a .pdf? I couldn't find a free one that my browser liked.
TK,
Are you going to use your bias source with its ground at the battery ground, as shown in .99's sim schematic which is identical to the March video? Or are you going to connect the bias source ground to point 4 as per the schematic in the first paper?
PW
QuoteYour LED's lit up because the resistance on the wire was enough to induce a small voltage which then collapsed as that square wave signal changed - which then produced power proportional to the square of the applied voltage on both halves of that square wave applied signal. You drove your motor on precisely those same principles. So. TK. Let us know how you managed to defeat Faraday's Laws of Induction.
Every time I think that you can't possibly come up with anything else as stupid as some of the things you've said... you prove me wrong again.
This is unbelievable. We are trying to discuss electronics with someone from the Bizarro Universe who thinks that a FG turns a mosfet on by electromagnetic induction, who thinks that a three-second DC pulse is somehow a "square wave".... that Agilent are totally wrong about their FGs passing or sourcing current.....
Un believe able.
ANYBODY WITH A FUNCTION GENERATOR CAN PROVE FOR THEMSELVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG in ten minutes. Or less.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 12:10:33 AM
@PW:
I'll have as much time as I need, don't worry about that. That is, unless something exciting has happened with (redacted). But the chances of that, IMHO, are on a par with Ainslie's.
And I'd like to read the manual, yes; I'm actually not afraid of information, as long as it's not too expensive. Do you have a link to a .pdf? I couldn't find a free one that my browser liked.
TK,
How about this one:
http://www.trs-rentelco.com/Manual/TEK_DPO4034_Manual.pdf
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 12:16:50 AM
Every time I think that you can't possibly come up with anything else as stupid as some of the things you've said... you prove me wrong again.
This is unbelievable. We are trying to discuss electronics with someone from the Bizarro Universe who thinks that a FG turns a mosfet on by electromagnetic induction, who thinks that a three-second DC pulse is somehow a "square wave".... that Agilent are totally wrong about their FGs passing or sourcing current.....
Un believe able.
ANYBODY WITH A FUNCTION GENERATOR CAN PROVE FOR THEMSELVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG in ten minutes. Or less.
It is YOU who refers to that wave as a 'square wave' - IN YOUR VIDEO. A function generator most CERTAINLY either allows or prevents current flow from the circuit supply - depending on the transistor type - and by APPLYING A SIGNAL - NOT A DISCHARGE OF CURRENT. And I do not give a tuppeny damn about what you 'CLAIM' is within the capabilities of a function generator. It CANNOT pass a current flow. It can ONLY enable an INDUCED current flow.
That's it. Contradict this as often a you please. You are WRONG.
Again and ever,
Rosie Pose
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 12:15:22 AM
TK,
Are you going to use your bias source with its ground at the battery ground, as shown in .99's sim schematic which is identical to the March video? Or are you going to connect the bias source ground to point 4 as per the schematic in the first paper?
PW
I can do either one.
However, I am TRYING to use the same points and the same circuit that Ainslie claims to produce her effect. We have asked several times for her to be SPECIFIC and CATEGORICAL and let us know the TRUE schematic. Since the one-mosfet circuit, the demo diagram shown in the demo, the actual demo circuit, the diagram in the first paper, and the diagram in the second paper are ALL DIFFERENT and none of them have been CORRECTED BY THE CLAIMANT (sorry, I have to shout to reach the peanut gallery evidently) it's still in question which one I should waste my time on.
I am using the diagram below, and my board incorporates the 555 timer circuit and the 555 inverting charge pump circuit, both of which can be disconnected by jumpers and either or both of which can be connected by jumpers in place of the FG or bias battery.
(I've also provisionally dumped the power resistors and installed a 0.2 ohm single actual CVR in place. If I can still get the negative power product I'll leave this one in place. If not I'll change back to the cement resistors.)
(There is also a 0.3 ohm CVR in series with the 10R at the "FG+" input point on the board. This can be used to view the current coming to or going from the FG or other bias source. According to Rosemary, this voltage drop should always be zero across this resistor, since no current flows through or from the FG in her circuit.)
TK,
I watched the Mylow vid. Rather than have the large disc permanent magnet motor driving the little motor with fishing line and then taking the output from the little motor and using its generated voltage to backdrive the wall wart to power your house, have you considered putting coils on the PM motor to generate directly? Might be more efficient.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 12:26:38 AM
TK,
I watched the Mylow vid. Rather than have the large disc permanent magnet motor driving the little motor with fishing line and then taking the output from the little motor and using its generated voltage to backdrive the wall wart to power your house, have you considered putting coils on the PM motor to generate directly? Might be more efficient.
PW
Made my day. Now I can sleep easy, thank you....
;D
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 12:26:05 AM
I can do either one.
However, I am TRYING to use the same points and the same circuit that Ainslie claims to produce her effect. We have asked several times for her to be SPECIFIC and CATEGORICAL and let us know the TRUE schematic. Since the one-mosfet circuit, the demo diagram shown in the demo, the actual demo circuit, the diagram in the first paper, and the diagram in the second paper are ALL DIFFERENT and none of them have been CORRECTED BY THE CLAIMANT (sorry, I have to shout to reach the peanut gallery evidently) it's still in question which one I should waste my time on.
I am using the diagram below, and my board incorporates the 555 timer circuit and the 555 inverting charge pump circuit, both of which can be disconnected by jumpers and either or both of which can be connected by jumpers in place of the FG or bias battery.
TK,
So that would be identical to .99's sim schematic with the FG/bias source ground moved to point 4, which would make that sim schematic similar to the first paper schematic. That way Ibias is accounted for by the CSR trace.
I knew you knew that.
PW
TK,
Was the Tek manual link a good one for you?
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 12:16:50 AM
Every time I think that you can't possibly come up with anything else as stupid as some of the things you've said... you prove me wrong again.
This is unbelievable. We are trying to discuss electronics with someone from the Bizarro Universe who thinks that a FG turns a mosfet on by electromagnetic induction, who thinks that a three-second DC pulse is somehow a "square wave".... that Agilent are totally wrong about their FGs passing or sourcing current.....
Un believe able.
ANYBODY WITH A FUNCTION GENERATOR CAN PROVE FOR THEMSELVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG in ten minutes. Or less.
Which means - TK - that what's actually UNBELIEVABLE is that you are all overlooking this FACT. Here's the thing. That you power a string of LED's - that you turn a motor - that you do anything at all with electric current it ALWAYS obeys those INDUCTIVE LAWS. And by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect. It shows a want of precision that is entirely inappropriate to the study of science. And it reflects - not on my competence - but on your own. I am VERY well aware of what you can 'infer' by 'implying' that the function generator itself is passing its current to the circuit. The induced current flow that results from its applied signal can only return to the probe and to the terminal of that probe and back to its own source. Nowhere else. And then any current that is induced as a result of that flow of current between the terminal probes will return to ITS source. And so on. Ad infinitum. If a current cannot find its source then it will SPARK - it will manifest some discharge to ground or it will not resolve that applied voltage as current flow.
Rosie Posie
And you can contradict this as often as you please. It will ALWAYS be wrong.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 12:31:28 AM
TK,
So that would be identical to .99's sim schematic with the FG/bias source ground moved to point 4, which would make that sim schematic similar to the first paper schematic. That way Ibias is accounted for by the CSR trace.
I knew you knew that.
PW
Yes, that's right, but of course that is NOT the way the circuit was wired in the demo video-- which only _refers_ to the claims and circuit(s) contained in the papers. There, the "minus" lead from the FG can be seen to be connected to the common ground point on the battery side of the "shunt". The FG leads are the red alligator clip and the black clip, and the red clip is connected to the gate of Q1 and the sources of Q2 (mistakenly labeled "F" on the board) , and the black clip is connected to the common ground bus, not on the transistor side of the shunt.
And TK - you have NOT answered this post. Here it is again.
My dear TinselKoala
You've misquoted me. Who would have thought? Did you ALTER my post? I'll get back there.
Meanwhile - back to business...
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
And then TK laughed and laughed. A "generator". Not a "power supply source". "Induces" a current according to the "Laws of Induction". Do you mean Faraday's Law of Induction? Or your country's military draft laws? Because neither have anything to do with how the FG functions in your circuit.
I wonder how I was able to use a Function Generator to charge a small battery, light up LEDs, drive a motor..... Oh.. that's right, I have magic bench equipment that does what nobody else's equipment does. After all... who ever heard of an Interstate "high voltage function generator"? That right there gives the whole story away. TK is using HIGH VOLTAGE !!
Therefore aliens.
Delighted to see you're amused. Yes I mean Faraday's Laws of Induction. No I do not mean our country's military draft laws. We have none. I DID NOT see anything related to you charging a non rechargeable battery. On the contrary I saw an obsessive need to apply a non rechargeable battery to power your 555 because you needed to prove that it would ONLY discharge. Golly. It performed as expected. That's what non rechargeable batteries do. You then rather fatuously argued that it loses energy. Which is also as expected. What you DID NOT DO was use a battery that could benefit from all that INDUCED oscillation in order to determine the amount of energy that is is ACTUALLY transferred THROUGH INDUCTIVE PRINCIPLES back to the 555's battery supply. CLEARLY. Because you USED THE WRONG BATTERY. And that would have DEFEATED your argument. Sorry. For 'argument' read 'spin'.
Your LED's lit up because the resistance on the wire was enough to induce a small voltage which then collapsed as that square wave signal changed - which then produced power proportional to the square of the applied voltage on both halves of that square wave applied signal. You drove your motor on precisely those same principles. So. TK. Let us know how you managed to defeat Faraday's Laws of Induction.
Rosie Pose
edited
Nor this.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 12:16:50 AM
Every time I think that you can't possibly come up with anything else as stupid as some of the things you've said... you prove me wrong again.
This is unbelievable. We are trying to discuss electronics with someone from the Bizarro Universe who thinks that a FG turns a mosfet on by electromagnetic induction, who thinks that a three-second DC pulse is somehow a "square wave".... that Agilent are totally wrong about their FGs passing or sourcing current.....
Un believe able.
ANYBODY WITH A FUNCTION GENERATOR CAN PROVE FOR THEMSELVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG in ten minutes. Or less.
Which means - TK - that what's actually UNBELIEVABLE is that you are all overlooking this FACT. Here's the thing. That you power a string of LED's - that you turn a motor - that you do anything at all with electric current it ALWAYS obeys those INDUCTIVE LAWS. And by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect. It shows a want of precision that is entirely inappropriate to the study of science. And it reflects - not on my competence - but on your own. I am VERY well aware of what you can 'infer' by 'implying' that the function generator itself is passing its current to the circuit. The induced current flow that results from its applied signal can only return to the probe and to the terminal of that probe and back to its own source. Nowhere else. And then any current that is induced as a result of that flow of current between the terminal probes will return to ITS source. And so on. Ad infinitum. If a current cannot find its source then it will SPARK - it will manifest some discharge to ground or it will not resolve that applied voltage as current flow.
Rosie Posie
And you can contradict this as often as you please. It will ALWAYS be wrong.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 12:40:05 AM
Yes, that's right, but of course that is NOT the way the circuit was wired in the demo video-- which only _refers_ to the claims and circuit(s) contained in the papers. There, the "minus" lead from the FG can be seen to be connected to the common ground point on the battery side of the "shunt". The FG leads are the red alligator clip and the black clip, and the red clip is connected to the gate of Q1 and the sources of Q2, and the black clip is connected to the common ground bus, not on the other side of the shunt.
TK,
Yes, you are correct. Just as .99 said with regard to his sim schematic, it is a representation of the March demo's schematic as the circuit was actually connected at that time.
I agree that you should stay with the alternate FG/bias supply current return path, and connect to the non-batt end of the CSR, as you are doing, and as is done in the first paper schematic. That way the current flowing thru the FG/bias supply is also flowing thru the CSR and accounted for via the CSR trace.
PW
The FG turns on the mosfets by applying a charge to the gate. There is very little current flow associated with this and when the gate is "full"of charge the mosfet simply stays on with no additional gate current except for tiny leakage. This has NOTHING to do with Faraday's Law of Induction, which says that a changing current induces a voltage in another conductor that is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field of the first current. All current flow that you will encounter does obey this law and the induced voltages around your circuit are what is making the feedback. This has nothing to do with steady-state DC currents, it only applies when the current and its magnetic field are changing. If a FG is making a pulse that is below 10 Hz into small inductances... it might as well be making DC pulses. And if it is making two-minute long pulses... then it IS making DC.
As usual, your citation of Faraday's Law or some other unspecified "Laws of Induction" betray your ignorance more than any erudition that may have soaked in through your thick skull over the years.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 12:35:09 AM
TK,
Was the Tek manual link a good one for you?
PW
Yes, it was good for me. Was it good for you, too?
:P
Thanks, I just got it. I've been dealing with another issue that took a few minutes.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 01:22:10 AM
Yes, it was good for me. Was it good for you, too?
:P
Thanks, I just got it. I've been dealing with another issue that took a few minutes.
TK,
Yes, it was good for me to....
Now you have some late night reading material. All digital and phosphor like.
Hopefully "it" is not gibberish.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2012, 12:43:27 AM
Nor this.
Which means - TK - that what's actually UNBELIEVABLE is that you are all overlooking this FACT. Here's the thing. That you power a string of LED's - that you turn a motor - that you do anything at all with electric current it ALWAYS obeys those INDUCTIVE LAWS. And by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect. It shows a want of precision that is entirely inappropriate to the study of science. And it reflects - not on my competence - but on your own. I am VERY well aware of what you can 'infer' by 'implying' that the function generator itself is passing its current to the circuit. The induced current flow that results from its applied signal can only return to the probe and to the terminal of that probe and back to its own source. Nowhere else. And then any current that is induced as a result of that flow of current between the terminal probes will return to ITS source. And so on. Ad infinitum. If a current cannot find its source then it will SPARK - it will manifest some discharge to ground or it will not resolve that applied voltage as current flow.
Rosie Posie
And you can contradict this as often as you please. It will ALWAYS be wrong.
Well, I'll just keep contradicting you then, but when I do it I will always provide evidence that I am right and you are wrong. You can only provide... words with no evidence, and words that continue to make stupid claims that a child could refute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpOzcCJMstI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpOzcCJMstI)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 28, 2012, 10:07:59 AM
My dear hoptoad,
I would urgently caution you against believing everything that TK 'insinuates, infers or implies'. He's never allowed the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it - to pollute his argument. So. NO. Not actually. I have NEVER assumed that you are TK. What I have understood is that you're certainly one of his rather uncritical acolytes. And you'd probably do better if you applied those critical faculties of yours. But feel free to 'laugh' - with or without reason. Because that's always a good thing.
Regards,
Rosie
I took TK's inference that you thought he might be me, or I might be he, as nothing more than a bit of tongue in cheek levity on his behalf.
Rosemary, I have no personal feelings either positive or negative towards you or TK. I disagree with most of your interpretations of TK's presented data and circuit analysis. I do, however, admire your passion and persistence, if not your technical understanding and ability. I also admire TK's methodology, which compels him to "leave no stone unturned" in his search for answers based on empirical evidence.
As for being anyone's acolyte, well, you can call me anything you like, just don't call me late for supper.!!
Cheers
Rosemary:
QuoteWhich means - TK - that what's actually UNBELIEVABLE is that you are all overlooking this FACT. Here's the thing. That you power a string of LED's - that you turn a motor - that you do anything at all with electric current it ALWAYS obeys those INDUCTIVE LAWS. And by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect. It shows a want of precision that is entirely inappropriate to the study of science. And it reflects - not on my competence - but on your own. I am VERY well aware of what you can 'infer' by 'implying' that the function generator itself is passing its current to the circuit. The induced current flow that results from its applied signal can only return to the probe and to the terminal of that probe and back to its own source. Nowhere else. And then any current that is induced as a result of that flow of current between the terminal probes will return to ITS source. And so on. Ad infinitum. If a current cannot find its source then it will SPARK - it will manifest some discharge to ground or it will not resolve that applied voltage as current flow.
Rosie Posie
And you can contradict this as often as you please. It will ALWAYS be wrong.
I have told you about your severe problems with your communication skills when it comes to circuits and electronics. Your description of the current flow is severely lacking and enigmatic.
Please post a drawing of the current flow. Note also that previous drawings that you have posted have been totally unacceptable. Post a clear drawing with the full, complete circuit that shows exactly how the current flows through the circuit. You can mark up an existing drawing or draw the circuit out by hand, we don't care.
Your drawing MUST be complete and it MUST be clear and it MUST show EXACTLY how the current flows in the circuit according to you.
Right now nobody reading the thread can understand your description of the current flow. This is FACT, I assure you, so you must clear up this problem by providing a drawing.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
I have a suggested study assignment for you. Do a Google search on "output impedance of a function generator" and start reading the links and work on understanding how the function generator really works. Task yourself with getting a mastery over the concepts related to the output impedance of a function generator.
If you can master the material uncovered in the Google search then what should fall out of that newly gained knowledge on your behalf will be the end of this ridiculous "current vs. no current" debate.
One more time, I am challenging you to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and climb up the learning curve so we can have more rational and more productive discussions with you.
MileHigh
QuoteAnd you can contradict this as often as you please. It will ALWAYS be wrong.
A little slip there, that betrays your guilty knowledge? Yes, Rosemary....your "this" will ALWAYS be the "it" that is wrong.
Yet another magic function generator does the impossible: sources a current that lights an LED and moves the coil of a moving coil ammeter. And at no time do I ever saw anyone in half !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEPFy-aFxM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEPFy-aFxM)
The magic function generators in the DeepBunker can perform even more stupendous feats: they can use an external BATTERY to provide a DC OFFSET which is reflected in the total voltage of the two Power Sources in series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11q28mKtNlE
Stunned silence. Crickets chirping.
Or is that the sound of the....
IsoTech GFG 324. That's the function generator that was used in the "papers". Isn't it?
What is it?
Where can I find information about the IsoTech GFG324? This must be the only function generator made anywhere in the world that can produce Voltage but not current, and that does not allow an external current to flow through it.
Specific Heat CC, Cape Town, South Africa.
https://www.google.com/search?q=specific+heat+cc+cape+town+south+africa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs (https://www.google.com/search?q=specific+heat+cc+cape+town+south+africa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs)
??
PW,
Here is the schematic with the FG connection according to the first paper.
The resulting calcs. are the same as the first schematic, i.e. PBat = -36W, and both the FG and Q2 Source currents are -182mA.
Some Google searches:
specific heat cc cape town south africa
https://www.google.com/search?q=specific+heat+cc+cape+town+south+africa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs
"Specific Heat" and "Ikram Ebrahim" :
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Specific+Heat%22+%22Ikram+Ebrahim%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs
"Ikram Ibrahim" "Cape Town" :
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ikram+Ibrahim%22+%22Cape+Town%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs
specific heat ibrahim south africa :
https://www.google.com/search?q=specific+heat+ibrahim+south+africa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs
"Heating element" manufacturer "South Africa" :
https://www.google.com/search?q=specific%22Heating+element%22+manufacturer+%22South+Africa%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs
FINALLY! They seem to have an address in the neighborhood with another heat element manufacturer/ dealer but no web presence:
Specific Heat CC: 287a Lansdowne Rd, Cape Town 7780 South Africa
Telephone: (021) 674-1036 , (021) 6 (sic)
Fax: (021) 674-3759
Heat Terminology CC: 361 Lansdowne Road, Cape Town 7779, South Africa 021 6972266 http://heatterminology.weebly.com/
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 09:24:00 AM
PW,
Here is the schematic with the FG connection according to the first paper.
The resulting calcs. are the same as the first schematic, i.e. PBat = -36W, and both the FG and Q2 Source currents are -182mA.
.99,
Looks good. Regarding the 36W figure, how was this arrived at?
The indicated 182ma would account for around 13 watts.
PW
@.99, PW:
What explains the fact that there is no difference in the current or power calcs?
It would seem to me from inspecting the schematic that there should be less current in the CVR when the FG or other bias source is connected to the common ground. However, in the TB hardware, it also doesn't seem to make much if any difference in scope traces which side of the CVR it's connected to.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 10:13:53 AM
.99,
Looks good. Regarding the 36W figure, how was this arrived at?
Same as before: AVG[V7(t) x V4(t)]
Quote
The indicated 182ma would account for around 13 watts.
Sure, sounds about right. I will test the actual battery power and post the result.
ETA: OK, measured the total battery power, and it is +12.5W.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 10:21:52 AM
@.99, PW:
What explains the fact that there is no difference in the current or power calcs?
It would seem to me from inspecting the schematic that there should be less current in the CVR when the FG or other bias source is connected to the common ground. However, in the TB hardware, it also doesn't seem to make much if any difference in scope traces which side of the CVR it's connected to.
TK,
I believe the answer to this is that .99 is using current probes at the indicated locations, and not measuring the voltage across the CSR for current measurements.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 10:29:10 AM
Same as before: AVG[V7(t) x V4(t)]
Sure, sounds about right. I will test the actual battery power and post the result.
ETA: OK, measured the total battery power, and it is +12.5W.
.99,
Are the sim current probes AC and DC, or can you choose one or the other?
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 10:21:52 AM
@.99, PW:
What explains the fact that there is no difference in the current or power calcs?
It would seem to me from inspecting the schematic that there should be less current in the CVR when the FG or other bias source is connected to the common ground. However, in the TB hardware, it also doesn't seem to make much if any difference in scope traces which side of the CVR it's connected to.
There is a difference isn't there?
With the FG connected to the high side of the CSR (schema 01 and 03), the battery power is -36W, and current -182mA. With the FG connected to the GND rail (schema02), the battery power is -32W, and current -210mA.
For the power calculations, I am using the two voltages as previously noted, V7, and V4. This is not accounting for the 0.25 Ohm value for the CSR however.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 10:34:18 AM
.99,
Are the sim current probes AC and DC, or can you choose one or the other?
PW
The sim current probes are DC, so they measure 0Hz ~ 10
100 Hz
Quote...by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect. It shows a want of precision that is entirely inappropriate to the study of science. And it reflects - not on my competence - but on your own. I am VERY well aware of what you can 'infer' by 'implying' that the function generator itself is passing its current to the circuit...
Um... Seriously?? I mean, REALLY ROSEMARY?!? A FG produces NO CURRENT??
That IS what you're saying right? A function generator doesn't put ANY current into a circuit AT ALL?? Can I quote you on that?? (Oh wait, I just did...)
I have an old FG that is coming in the mail (hopefully early next week) so I will definitely be testing that statement. My collection of analog uA meters (ranging from 0-15uA to 2mA) will show me the (un)truth of your statement in a moment... How to explain those moving needles? More magic??
You should be thanking TK (and the rest of the gang, you know who) for STILL trying to educate you on your own 'invention'... Wow...
I've only known about the RA circuit for less than a year and I'm already tired of her endless deflections and denials... Amazing patience you guys. Excellent work TK!! I can keep up with most of what you are doing and I'm no electronics expert.
Sorry to crap up your excellent research thread, I'm just irritated that RA continues to disparage your work when clearly (to me anyways) you have been trying to leave no stone unturned. Must be low on caffeine..
PC
A daily reader ;)
@All,
If the circuit draws under 200ma, and the batteries are 60A/Hr batteries, one would reasonably expect this circuit to run for in excess of 275 hours.
But, in reality, one would need to know the A/Hr rating of the batteries at this <200ma load. Battery A/Hr ratings are usually specified using a specific load or discharge rate. If a battery is rated at 60A/Hr with a 5 amp discharge rate, its A/Hr rating may far exceed 60A/Hr if the load current is very much less than the specified 5 amp load. This is typically true for most battery chemistries. Absent mfg data related to this discharge rate, a load test at this rate could be performed to arrive at the true A/Hr rating at this discharge rate.
Again, possibly the manufacturer has data available at this low 200ma discharge rate, but I would not be surprised if this circuit could run for well in excess of 300Hrs. To expect as much as (or even more than) 550Hrs may not be unreasonable at this discharge rate with the 60A/Hr batteries utilized.
PW
TK,
If you have trouble maintaining the osc with the full battery string bypassed, consider coiling up some hookup wire and adding that in series with the battery. Seems there was some noise a time ago regarding your Rload not having enough L anyway. Coiling it up 3"-4" diameter will also help keep TB compact and portable.
Good luck,
PW
@PW:
No, I have no trouble maintaining oscillations. I'm not _that_ old yet.... ;D
But I have noticed a very interesting thing that I don't fully understand, and that's how the amplitude of the CVR oscillations changes radically as I move that channel's ground reference point up the negative battery wire towards the battery.
For this, I'm using freshly charged batteries, monitoring battery voltage at the battery itself, probe tip to most positive pole, probe ground to most negative pole, directly with no intervening wires and no decoupling caps.
I'm supplying a DC negative bias using the regulated PS and the pot/10R series resistor, no 50R, and adjusting so that the inline ammeter at the battery negative reads about 170-180 mA.
And I'm monitoring the CVR at the board, with the probe tip on the transistor side and the probe ground clipped directly to the other side of the CVR itself. (This is using the new 0.2 ohm 3 Watt commercial current viewing resistor).
Done this way, the p-p amplitude of the CVR trace is about 4 V p-p.
Now, making no other changes, I move the CVR ground lead only, to the point where the negative lead from the battery clips to the board. This is less than 1 inch of buswire and a couple of solder joints and nothing else intervening. Now the CVR amplitude is about 5 v p-p and the inline ammeter is solidly at 180 mA.
Now, making no other changes, I move the CVR ground lead only, to the other end of the green negative lead from the battery, about 18 inches of wire, to where the inline ammeter is clipped in. Now the CVR p- amplitude is offscreen and requires an amplifier attenuation change (more volts/div) to display its new p-p amplitude of about 20 V. And the inline ammeter goes up too, to 250 or 300 mA.
Now, I simply disconnect the ground lead altogether for the CVR channel. The scope is still grounded by the other channel's lead at the battery negative pole. The magnitude of the oscillations goes up again to about 40 v p-p !! And the inline ammeter goes to 350 mA or so, the mosfets clearly get warm and the load clearly heats.
Before, I would have said that the apparent amplitude increase is due to the inductance, similarly to the Joule Thief measurement pitfall I've illustrated before. But since the inline meter and the load heating both indicate that the increased current is at least partially real.... I dunno.
I suppose the moral of this story is that the circuit is extremely sensitive to where and how it's measured, and even just moving ground leads from one "electrically equivalent" position to another can make radical changes in the measurements.
I'd like to know what happens in .99's sim under similar conditions. Of course since he's using current probes this effect might not be reproducible in the sim, unless he sets up CVRs and looks at voltage drop with a voltage probe referenced to the appropriate (or inappropriate) nodes in the circuit.
The presence or absence of the decoupling caps that I've tried seems to make no basic difference in this. I noticed it in fact when I was trying a decoupling cap stack at the main battery, so I removed the caps and the effect remained.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 12:55:22 PM
@PW:
No, I have no trouble maintaining oscillations. I'm not _that_ old yet.... ;D
But I have noticed a very interesting thing that I don't fully understand, and that's how the amplitude of the CVR oscillations changes radically as I move that channel's ground reference point up the negative battery wire towards the battery.
For this, I'm using freshly charged batteries, monitoring battery voltage at the battery itself, probe tip to most positive pole, probe ground to most negative pole, directly with no intervening wires and no decoupling caps.
I'm supplying a DC negative bias using the regulated PS and the pot/10R series resistor, no 50R, and adjusting so that the inline ammeter at the battery negative reads about 170-180 mA.
And I'm monitoring the CVR at the board, with the probe tip on the transistor side and the probe ground clipped directly to the other side of the CVR itself. (This is using the new 0.2 ohm 3 Watt commercial current viewing resistor).
Done this way, the p-p amplitude of the CVR trace is about 4 V p-p.
Now, making no other changes, I move the CVR ground lead only, to the point where the negative lead from the battery clips to the board. This is less than 1 inch of buswire and a couple of solder joints and nothing else intervening. Now the CVR amplitude is about 5 v p-p and the inline ammeter is solidly at 180 mA.
Now, making no other changes, I move the CVR ground lead only, to the other end of the green negative lead from the battery, about 18 inches of wire, to where the inline ammeter is clipped in. Now the CVR p- amplitude is offscreen and requires an amplifier attenuation change (more volts/div) to display its new p-p amplitude of about 20 V. And the inline ammeter goes up too, to 250 or 300 mA.
Now, I simply disconnect the ground lead altogether for the CVR channel. The scope is still grounded by the other channel's lead at the battery negative pole. The magnitude of the oscillations goes up again to about 40 v p-p !! And the inline ammeter goes to 350 mA or so, the mosfets clearly get warm and the load clearly heats.
Before, I would have said that the apparent amplitude increase is due to the inductance, similarly to the Joule Thief measurement pitfall I've illustrated before. But since the inline meter and the load heating both indicate that the increased current is at least partially real.... I dunno.
I suppose the moral of this story is that the circuit is extremely sensitive to where and how it's measured, and even just moving ground leads from one "electrically equivalent" position to another can make radical changes in the measurements.
I'd like to know what happens in .99's sim under similar conditions. Of course since he's using current probes this effect might not be reproducible in the sim, unless he sets up CVRs and looks at voltage drop with a voltage probe referenced to the appropriate (or inappropriate) nodes in the circuit.
The presence or absence of the decoupling caps that I've tried seems to make no basic difference in this. I noticed it in fact when I was trying a decoupling cap stack at the main battery, so I removed the caps and the effect remained.
TK, When you do what you do to increase Vpp of the osc, any noted changes in waveshape? (i.e., clipping, more distortion, etc)
As for maintaining oscillations, I am glad you can still dance.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 01:04:42 PM
TK, When you do what you do to increase Vpp of the osc, any noted changes in waveshape? (i.e., clipping, more distortion, etc)
As for maintaining oscillations, I am glad you can still dance.
PW
TK,
Also, are you running off your inverter and with no other probes attached? (i.e., is the circuit fully floated as you do what you do when you do what it is you do?)
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 11:03:35 AM
@All,
If the circuit draws under 200ma, and the batteries are 60A/Hr batteries, one would reasonably expect this circuit to run for in excess of 275 hours.
But, in reality, one would need to know the A/Hr rating of the batteries at this <200ma load. Battery A/Hr ratings are usually specified using a specific load or discharge rate. If a battery is rated at 60A/Hr with a 5 amp discharge rate, its A/Hr rating may far exceed 60A/Hr if the load current is very much less than the specified 5 amp load. This is typically true for most battery chemistries. Absent mfg data related to this discharge rate, a load test at this rate could be performed to arrive at the true A/Hr rating at this discharge rate.
Again, possibly the manufacturer has data available at this low 200ma discharge rate, but I would not be surprised if this circuit could run for well in excess of 300Hrs. To expect as much as (or even more than) 550Hrs may not be unreasonable at this discharge rate with the 60A/Hr batteries utilized.
PW
Yep, that repeats a calculation I've done several times as well. Again, using Rosemary's stated criteria for a "fully charged battery" which is that it measures over 12 volts open-circuit..... and the low current drain.... in the purely negative bias mode heating a load to low heat (50C) the circuit will run for a long long time and still be "fully charged".
This is why there should be three restrictions placed on the Ainslie testing:
First, the High-Heat, positive gate drive mode should be required, since that is a more robust test of performance and, absent battery non-discharging, should take a lot less time, since the current levels are 10 times higher than in the low heat, negative gate drive mode. The papers claim that this mode also doesn't discharge the batteries, and of course the demo does, and Ainslie herself has done so many times. 25.6 million Joules of times, in fact. (Correctly it is seconds. But since 1 Joule = 1 Watt and one Second is one Watt per Joule, the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE, bubba.)
Second.... she should not be allowed to recharge her batteries before the test begins, since she has repeatedly told us that they are still fully charged.
And third, in the High heat, positive gate drive mode, she must be required to use all six batteries for a pack voltage of 72 volts.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 01:09:31 PM
TK,
Also, are you running off your inverter and with no other probes attached? (i.e., is the circuit fully floated as you do what you do when you do what it is you do?)
PW
The waveshape is broadly similar but becomes more sinusoidal as the amplitude increases and the relative contribution of the distortions decreases.
For this run here, as I thought I said in the post, I am using the regulated PS and the pot/10R series resistance, no 50R, and yes, the bias is floating. I am not, therefore, using the inverter, just straight DC from the PS, hooked up "backwards" to the FG inputs at the board, so that the negative supply lead goes to the Q2 sources and the Q1 gate and the positive supply lead goes to the Q1 source and the Q2 gates. The power supply is set to about 5 volts or so and is adjusted to make osc amplitude increase and to regulate the current through the system as indicated on the CVR and the inline ammeter. This is the easiest and most stable way to make the oscillations and the waveshapes that result in negative mean power products.
A battery can be substituted for the PS and the only difference is that the bias voltage is no longer regulated and will decrease. The inverter running off the PS or external battery, ditto. The inverter running off the lowest of the main battery does cause some differences in the waveshape but as I've shown the negative power product still emerges.
So I have the A channel probe at the battery itself, tip to +48 V nominal, reference at 0V right at the battery terminals with no intervening wires and no decoupling capacitors, and it stays there. And I have the B channel tip directly on the CVR right at the body of the resistor, on the transistor side. And I am moving only the B channel reference lead from one point to another.
The effect of moving the probe reference lead on the CVR trace is about the same when I am using decoupling caps, which do smooth the battery trace considerably (but not yet perfectly) or when I am not.
I made a video but I'm hesitant to post it because it will start another three-page rant from YKW. Oh.... what the hell. I'll process and upload it. Should be viewable in half an hour or so.
Quote from: PhiChaser on April 29, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Um... Seriously?? I mean, REALLY ROSEMARY?!? A FG produces NO CURRENT??
That IS what you're saying right? A function generator doesn't put ANY current into a circuit AT ALL?? Can I quote you on that?? (Oh wait, I just did...)
I have an old FG that is coming in the mail (hopefully early next week) so I will definitely be testing that statement. My collection of analog uA meters (ranging from 0-15uA to 2mA) will show me the (un)truth of your statement in a moment... How to explain those moving needles? More magic??
You should be thanking TK (and the rest of the gang, you know who) for STILL trying to educate you on your own 'invention'... Wow...
I've only known about the RA circuit for less than a year and I'm already tired of her endless deflections and denials... Amazing patience you guys. Excellent work TK!! I can keep up with most of what you are doing and I'm no electronics expert.
Sorry to crap up your excellent research thread, I'm just irritated that RA continues to disparage your work when clearly (to me anyways) you have been trying to leave no stone unturned. Must be low on caffeine..
PC
A daily reader ;)
Thanks, PC, for your comment, and don't worry about "crapping up the thread". Your post definitely isn't crap, you are pointing out facts.
I hope you didn't buy the old FG just for this purpose.
Meanwhile the last couple of videos show pretty clearly that an old FG can produce current, move a meter coil, etc. But Rosemary has such strong ego defense mechanisms operating that she will accuse us of faking, hiding batteries, and lying about FG behavior before she admits that she is wrong. And there is also the other special pleading excuse she will try: "Oh, a FG might push current through ordinary circuits, but in MY special circuit it cannot and does not."
???
TK,
I would suggest you keep the probe gnd leads as short as possible, and together at all times.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 01:21:00 PM
The waveshape is broadly similar but becomes more sinusoidal as the amplitude increases and the relative contribution of the distortions decreases.
For this run here, as I thought I said in the post, I am using the regulated PS and the pot/10R series resistance, no 50R, and yes, the bias is floating. I am not, therefore, using the inverter, just straight DC from the PS, hooked up "backwards" to the FG inputs at the board, so that the negative supply lead goes to the Q2 sources and the Q1 gate and the positive supply lead goes to the Q1 source and the Q2 gates. The power supply is set to about 5 volts or so and is adjusted to make osc amplitude increase and to regulate the current through the system as indicated on the CVR and the inline ammeter. This is the easiest and most stable way to make the oscillations and the waveshapes that result in negative mean power products.
A battery can be substituted for the PS and the only difference is that the bias voltage is no longer regulated and will decrease. The inverter running off the PS or external battery, ditto. The inverter running off the lowest of the main battery does cause some differences in the waveshape but as I've shown the negative power product still emerges.
So I have the A channel probe at the battery itself, tip to +48 V nominal, reference at 0V right at the battery terminals with no intervening wires and no decoupling capacitors, and it stays there. And I have the B channel tip directly on the CVR right at the body of the resistor, on the transistor side. And I am moving only the B channel reference lead from one point to another.
The effect of moving the probe reference lead on the CVR trace is about the same when I am using decoupling caps, which do smooth the battery trace considerably (but not yet perfectly) or when I am not.
I made a video but I'm hesitant to post it because it will start another three-page rant from YKW. Oh.... what the hell. I'll process and upload it. Should be viewable in half an hour or so.
TK,
Sounds like strays, added inductance, or possibly, if you were to add more L, you are resonating a real or stray C.
You should never have used a green wire. As in the JT vid, , green wires are magical.
PW
By the way, all....
I realize that the YT video quality is not all that great. I shoot the videos in 16:9 full-res HD on my Panasonic camera and they are typically 500 MB-1GB in size in .mpg format. Then I downconvert them to .avi using WinFF which compresses by about a factor of 10. Then YT does its own thing converting and compressing to .flv or whatever.
Anyway, I have the full resolution copies of most of the videos still available and they do look much better than what's on YT. If anyone wants a particular high-resolution version of something you've seen on YT from me, let me know and I'll upload it to a file-sharing site and you can download it for your viewing pleasure.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 01:36:31 PM
TK,
I would suggest you keep the probe gnd leads as short as possible, and together at all times.
Gladly. Would you mind making the same suggestion to ...er..... never mind.
Whatever is happening in the probe leads it's also causing real changes in the oscillation amplitude in the circuit, as shown by increased load heating and the real current on the inline ammeter. So the increase in the CVR amplitude is a "real artefact" in the sense that it is actually happening and causing more current through the mosfets, but is caused by the fiddling with the probe ground positioning.
Right?
Agreed.
If waving your hands around the circuit can affect the oscillation amplitude and heating, it's not unreasonable to expect that probe grounding can have an equal effect on things.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 02:02:09 PM
Gladly. Would you mind making the same suggestion to ...er..... never mind.
Whatever is happening in the probe leads it's also causing real changes in the oscillation amplitude in the circuit, as shown by increased load heating and the real current on the inline ammeter. So the increase in the CVR amplitude is a "real artefact" in the sense that it is actually happening and causing more current through the mosfets, but is caused by the fiddling with the probe ground positioning.
Right?
TK,
Right?... Right
I've always felt that the osc amplitude could be increased for a given Ibias, which I assmue is remaining constant.
As to the rest.. smart ass.
PW
Here is a simulated test that TK is going to perform, or at least how I envision it:
I start with the lower battery with added internal inductance, LVBat6. This results in about 3Vp-p oscillation ripple as seen in TK's video.
The first group of 3 pictures shows the schematic with no filtering (well 10pF is nothing really) and the resulting wave forms and power computation for the battery. PBat = -0.141W, so it is still negative, even though we are directly across the physical battery terminals.
The second group of 3 pictures shows the results with 10uF of filtering across this same battery terminals. You can see the oscillation ripple has decreased a lot, and the resulting PBat is now +0.525W.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 02:06:09 PM
If waving your hands around the circuit can affect the oscillation amplitude and heating
can you sim this? ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 02:12:25 PM
Here is a simulated test that TK is going to perform, or at least how I envision it:
I start with the lower battery with added internal inductance, LVBat6. This results in about 3Vp-p oscillation ripple as seen in TK's video.
The first group of 3 pictures shows the schematic with no filtering (well 10pF is nothing really) and the resulting wave forms and power computation for the battery. PBat = -0.141W, so it is still negative, even though we are directly across the physical battery terminals.
The second group of 3 pictures shows the results with 10uF of filtering across this same battery terminals. You can see the oscillation ripple has decreased a lot, and the resulting PBat is now +0.525W.
.99,
Dose a similar sim result occur if the entire batt string is decoupled and additional L added to the Batt+ wire to replace batt and interconnect L?
PW
chuckle... I see an analogy for Team Posie here... It's like getting your learner's permit and getting two hours of driving time under your belt. The next morning you wake up and say to yourself, "I think I am going to enter a Formula One race today."
TK, your experience with the moving of the probe lead changing the AC peak-to-peak across the CVR and the increased power drain makes my "get conservative" alarm bells start ringing. What I mean by that is it makes me think that there is a possibility that all measurements are suspect. I am not saying that they are, just stating that the possibility exists. Certainly this stuff is beyond the good old "wet the tip of you finger and touch a circuit node to see what happens" trick. It just goes to show that working in the relatively low frequency range of a 1-2 MHz fundamental is not trivial with a circuit that is switching and has "daddy long legs" wire lead lengths.
If you displace a wire and you observe changes in the scope traces then that tells you that the circuit is "living" in it's immediate ambient environment and the relative permittivity and permeability and conductivity of the immediate 3D surroundings will affect it. Since we are all bags of salty water we are a "lossy medium" and just standing next to the setup will change its operating frequency and suck some of the energy out of the it because we are shorting out the near-field AC.
Poynt mentioned how sometimes you need a true differential probe which could be placed directly across the CVR, etc, but I know that they are expensive.
The circuit is some kind of quivering and buzzing capacitive-inductive octopus monster that lives in it's near-field radiation environment. Apparently just waving your hand near the octopus makes it change colour.
It's something we have all seen before I am sure, but it certainly makes it more of a challenge to do measurements
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 02:59:48 PM
chuckle... I see an analogy for Team Posie here... It's like getting your learner's permit and getting two hours of driving time under your belt. The next morning you wake up and say to yourself, "I think I am going to enter a Formula One race today."
TK, your experience with the moving of the probe lead changing the AC peak-to-peak across the CVR and the increased power drain makes my "get conservative" alarm bells start ringing. What I mean by that is it makes me think that there is a possibility that all measurements are suspect. I am not saying that they are, just stating that the possibility exists. Certainly this stuff is beyond the good old "wet the tip of you finger and touch a circuit node to see what happens" trick. It just goes to show that working in the relatively low frequency range of a 1-2 MHz fundamental is not trivial with a circuit that is switching and has "daddy long legs" wire lead lengths.
If you displace a wire and you observe changes in the scope traces then that tells you that the circuit is "living" in it's immediate ambient environment and the relative permittivity and permeability and conductivity of the immediate 3D surroundings will affect it. Since we are all bags of salty water we are a "lossy medium" and just standing next to the setup will change its operating frequency and suck some of the energy out of the it because we are shorting out the near-field AC.
Poynt mentioned how sometimes you need a true differential probe which could be placed directly across the CVR, etc, but I know that they are expensive.
The circuit is some kind of quivering and buzzing capacitive-inductive octopus monster that lives in it's near-field radiation environment. Apparently just waving your hand near the octopus makes it change colour.
It's something we have all seen before I am sure, but it certainly makes it more of a challenge to do measurements
MileHigh
MH,
"Wet the tip of your finger and touch a circuit node to see what happens"
Shocking, just plain shocking...
PW
Yup... I should be able to do the comparison between one battery decoupled with caps and one battery naked.
So this will be done with and without decoupling caps right at the battery, but the battery probe at the board itself?
If I put the battery probe on the battery, then I'll have the issue with probe grounds at different points; if I put the battery probe at the power entry points at the board, then I'll have those long battery leads....
Well, I guess I'll just do it everywhichaway and see what happens.
At this point it looks like the logistics are good to go, anyhow... I mean my car is back together and except for my housemates being in the hospital... all is good for tomorrow's play date.
Meanwhile here's the video of what we've been discussing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPESB5-5iTA
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 02:56:40 PM
.99,
Dose a similar sim result occur if the entire batt string is decoupled and additional L added to the Batt+ wire to replace batt and interconnect L?
PW
Across the battery/jumper string, or across the entire works including the connecting wires to the apparatus?
In other words, across points 1 & 2, or across points 7 & 3?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 03:47:22 PM
Across the battery/jumper string, or across the entire works including the connecting wires to the apparatus?
In other words, across points 1 & 2, or across points 7 & 3?
.99
Across the entire decoupled battery string with additional L in batt+ wire.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 03:53:24 PM
.99
Across the entire decoupled battery string with additional L in batt+ wire.
PW
So across points 1 & 2, correct?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 03:45:03 PM
Yup... I should be able to do the comparison between one battery decoupled with caps and one battery naked.
So this will be done with and without decoupling caps right at the battery, but the battery probe at the board itself?
If I put the battery probe on the battery, then I'll have the issue with probe grounds at different points; if I put the battery probe at the power entry points at the board, then I'll have those long battery leads....
Well, I guess I'll just do it everywhichaway and see what happens.
At this point it looks like the logistics are good to go, anyhow... I mean my car is back together and except for my housemates being in the hospital... all is good for tomorrow's play date.
Meanwhile here's the video of what we've been discussing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPESB5-5iTA
TK,
Have you decided not to try the test with the entire battery string decoupled and added Batt+ wire?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 03:54:29 PM
So across points 1 & 2, correct?
.99,
Yes, decouple across 1&2 and lump all the battery string L together by increasing one of the L's in the batt+ lead wire to the right of 1.
Then do what you do... Using 1 as Vbatt and then comparing results using the top of Rload as Vbatt for your pwr calcs.
PY
Poynt:
I just noticed those new simulations and the how the addition of the filtering switches the battery power calculation over. Very impressive!
TK:
I just saw your clip demoing the CVR voltage change and I will share some thoughts with you.
Let's assume that wire impedance at the operating frequency + harmonics and other capacitive/inductive effects mean that the whole setup is like a slinky festival in a mosh pit.
So, you really need to define a "home base." Let's call the negative terminal of the lowest battery in the totem pole your home base. I would move your CVR off of the circuit board and solder it to the negative battery post. This is not going to change the replication and Rosie has no argument about this not being a replication because of this.
So in theory your returning current will be viewed between the negative battery post and the CVR. It's unlikely that you will see dramatic changes in the voltage across the CVR with this setup.
Now here is the key: Needless to say your second channel will use the same negative battery post for the probe ground. Now your second channel signal probe can "go off on an adventure" to see what the rest of the circuit looks like relative to "home base," the negative battery terminal. Even if you have to add a longer length to the ground clip lead to make measurements that are far away from the battery post, stick with the "home base" philosophy.
So you can imagine "snaking" your second channel probe through the rest of the circuit, where you look at the potentials every three or four inches of wire length. You will probably find that your whole circuit board and load resistor setup is "bouncing up and down" relative to your home base.
Once you get a feel for how the CVR voltage is behaving then you can disconnect that channel from the CVR and "send that scope probe out on an adventure" also. So you can have two channels on your scope tied to your "home base" master reference ground point while you examine the "bouncing" going on at different points in the circuit.
Notice that if you line up the ground references for each channel of your scope, and have the gain for each scope channel the same, you will get a live visual display of the differential potential with respect to time between any two points in the circuit.
With enough interactive probing of the whole setup, you should be able to get a feel for how the major parts of the circuit are fluctuating in potential with respect to home base, i.e.; the slinky fest in a mosh pit.
Also note that if you do this measurement setup it makes adding capacitive decoupling to the bottom-most battery quite simple and elegant. You are just a step away from measuring the current and the capacitively-decoupled potential across that single battery in order to measure how much power is being output by that single battery.
MileHigh
P.S.: It may be worth it to strip off some wire insulation as needed in order to see what is going on as your probes snake their way away from home base.
Hey TK,
As always your doing a nice job ;)
I'm curious what would happen if you leave your oscilloscope(s) grounded from the 120 volt utility power connection and isolate the 120 volt utility power utility ground connection from your function generator by using a old style receptacle ground adapter. ??? I'm not sure of a huge testing equipment safety issue with any large peak to peak voltages to harm anything which all seem low.
This might eliminate your testing equipment ground loops if any exist. I do remember somewhere in all the hundreds of NERD RAT postings that Rosemary did , she had removed the plug ground tab on some piece of 240 volt European testing equipment ... I'm still looking.
FTC
:)
Just one question for the true oscilloscope experts here:
One thing I was never certain about comes into play for my previous post. The question is do you need to use the ground leads on the probes themselves or can you just make a robust connection between the common scope ground terminal (which may be on the face of the scope) and the negative battery terminal? That way you can remove the scope channel ground leads.
This may tie into the scope probe compensation. At the frequencies in question at least you are still not really in transmission line territory for the shielded probe cables.
Honestly it's just one of those things that I have never been sure of, I must have used scope probes with the ground leads and with a common ground connection and no ground leads.
Perhaps the experts would comment. If you can get away with using just the common ground connection it certainly would make it easier to probe the circuit to your heart's delight. With enough probing it should be possible to visualize what the circuit is doing in your head.
If my skills were really honed and I had real experience in analog RF and I refreshed myself on how amplified negative-feedback oscillators work, I would be tempted to figure out the true mechanism for the current reversal though the CVR and draw up a timing diagram for the whole shebang. I still believe that PW got it right when he mentioned that AC was being capacitively coupled through the Q2 array gates and that is one of the main agents responasble for the current reversal through the CVR. The heart of the oscillator is in the Q2 array, and there may be a wire inductance and a MOSFET capacitance coupled with the amplification that turns the Q2 array into an oscillator that is broadcasting AC throughout the circuit.
MileHigh
P.S.: TK, off topic: I am on a Win 7 computer, ASUS motherboard, Core2Quad and my keyboard periodically "nods out" and skips typed characters. I see the lights flashing like it is doing a soft reset or something. It drives me crazy sometimes. Some times whole words are lost and sometimes words I type are chopped but are still proper words so the spell check does not highlight them. Combine that with how it is difficult to spot your own freshly written prose for errors and it can drive me nuts sometimes. Besides switching to Linux ;D do you have any uber-nerd suggestions?
PhiChaser,
Quote from: PhiChaser on April 29, 2012, 10:45:16 AMUm... Seriously?? I mean, REALLY ROSEMARY?!? A FG produces NO CURRENT??
WHERE have I stated that a function generator does not pass current? You referenced my own quote which stated this...
>>...by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect.
Of COURSE the function generator passes a current. How else could it apply a voltage to any inductive or conductive circuit material in series with that current? But what it applies, or generates in that inductive and conductive circuit material is an applied voltage. When the current through those materials is increasing then the energy is transferred from the circuit to magnetic fields that are measured as VOLTAGE. And when the current decreases and ONLY then - is this energy returned. And that induced VOLTAGE then generates a current flow in that inductive and conductive circuit material that is in anti phase to the flow of current from the generator. That's generally speaking. Specifically in the NERD circuit - we apply that current so that it induces a VOLTAGE signal at the MOSFET gates. And we apply the probe of the function generator directly to the gates of Q1 and Q2. That applied VOLTAGE is either in or out of synch with the polarity from the supply batteries. Which then enables a flow of current ACROSS THE GATES - OR NOT - from that battery supply source. It does NOT enable a flow of current from the function generator. EVER.
Quote from: PhiChaser on April 29, 2012, 10:45:16 AMThat IS what you're saying right? A function generator doesn't put ANY current into a circuit AT ALL?? Can I quote you on that?? (Oh wait, I just did...)
It is NOT what I'm saying. So. NO. You may NOT quote me. Unless you quote it in context. Which is what TK and picowatt and MileHigh - are all trying to do - rather frantically - while they continue to SPIN the tale that I know not whereof I speak. Since I'm talking basic laws of physics and NOT electronics - I'm more than competent to comment. And I most assuredly am right.
Quote from: PhiChaser on April 29, 2012, 10:45:16 AMI have an old FG that is coming in the mail (hopefully early next week) so I will definitely be testing that statement. My collection of analog uA meters (ranging from 0-15uA to 2mA) will show me the (un)truth of your statement in a moment... How to explain those moving needles? More magic??
Which comments show me how effective is all that SPIN. I am not the one dealing with magic. I'm dealing with FACTS. They're the one's who imply 'magic' in order to advance the 'spin'. And that spin is intended to get those less versatile members here believe precisely what they've managed to get YOU to believe. And this point related to current flow is not a NICETY. TK et al are depending on this to carry their argument that the current flows through the Gate of Q2 to the source - during the 'off period' of each switching cycle. The only ones who are seriously engaged in this study are Groundloop and Poynty. At least they're the only ones with intellectual honesty. Nor do either of them agree with me. But follow their arguments if you want an appropriate argument. The other three major contributors have a mission here. I'm sorry you're not aware of it.
(Sorry about all the changes. I've been trying to get this into readable posts. Clearly I'm obsessive)
Quote from: PhiChaser on April 29, 2012, 10:45:16 AMYou should be thanking TK (and the rest of the gang, you know who) for STILL trying to educate you on your own 'invention'... Wow...
I've only known about the RA circuit for less than a year and I'm already tired of her endless deflections and denials... Amazing patience you guys. Excellent work TK!! I can keep up with most of what you are doing and I'm no electronics expert.
I am preparing a detailed transcript and report of every single video that TK has made. I will post that report with appropriate comments and with links to those videos - when I'm ready. THEN feel free to comment on my 'deflections and denials'. But I would strongly recommend that you defer your opinion until then. Meanwhile just remember this - if you indeed want to pretend to any balance at all - is that TK first debunked our COP>17 test. That debunk FAILED - and TK was obliged to withdraw because we had a public replication of that test. The replicators then DENIED their own results and those same deniers are right here ON THIS THREAD - assisting TK in his argument. I assure you that not only will we demonstrate the effectiveness of our early claim about this circuit of ours - that COP>17 being a 'variant' - but we will exceed that x17 by a significant factor. And that test and our NERD circuit test will be done under a battery draw down comparison test. So. Spare me this your opinion - unless you want to parade the extent to which you've been thoroughly DUPED.
And as for this...
Quote from: PhiChaser on April 29, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Sorry to crap up your excellent research thread, I'm just irritated that RA continues to disparage your work when clearly (to me anyways) you have been trying to leave no stone unturned. Must be low on caffeine..
Irritation is an inappropriate response. Better that you apply your critical facilities if you still have any. I am most certainly disparaging their work. It's not even pretending to impartiality. I know what motivates it. And if you took the trouble to work out their spin you'd see why. I'm entitled to defend my work. I see that I've not convinced you. And I've not convinced hoptoad. Probably I haven't convinced the majority of you. YET. But my turn will come when we do our demonstrations. And I assure you that our demonstrations will be CONCLUSIVE. I KNOW how the COP>17 test will pan. I'm not sure how the NERD circuit will perform but have a shrewd idea. And our tests will be publicly run for the DURATION.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
<<< I have to edit this posting because I got confused with respect to Rosemary's two postings. I thought that there was only one posting. >>>
QuoteWHERE have I stated that a function generator does not pass current? You referenced my own quote which stated this...
>>...by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect.
Of COURSE the function generator passes a current. How else could it apply a voltage to any inductive or conductive circuit material in series with that current? But what it applies, or generates in that inductive and conductive circuit material is an applied voltage. When the current through those materials is increasing then the energy is transferred from the circuit to magnetic fields that are measured as VOLTAGE. And when the current decreases and ONLY then - is this energy returned. And that induced VOLTAGE then generates a current flow in that inductive and conductive circuit material that is in anti phase to the flow of current from the generator. That's generally speaking. Specifically in the NERD circuit - we apply that current so that it induces a VOLTAGE signal at the MOSFET gates. And we apply the probe of the function generator directly to the gates of Q1 and Q2. That applied VOLTAGE is either in or out of synch with the polarity from the supply batteries. Which then enables a flow of current ACROSS THE GATES - OR NOT - from that battery supply source. It does NOT enable a flow of current from the function generator. EVER.
Your paragraph about current flowing through the function generator was the usual nonsensical word salad. Did you do some homework? I would think not.
Draw a circuit diagram that shows EXACTLY how the current flows through the circuit.
QuoteAnd that spin is intended to get those less versatile members here believe precisely what they've managed to get YOU to believe.
Then there were the 'conspiracy' allegations yet again. Exxon is very worried about a little old lady in South Africa that can't string six words together about electronics that make sense... not.
QuoteWhich then enables a flow of current ACROSS THE GATES
QuoteTK et al are depending on this to carry their argument that the current flows through the Gate of Q2 to the source
You also made two separate references to current flowing through the gates of the MOSFETs. Only in the Bizarro Universe Rosemary. That's where the source and drain pins block current and current flows through the gate.
TK never said that current flows through the GATE.
STOP THIS NONSENSICAL IDIOT TALK ABOUT CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE GATES.
What you and the readers are witnessing is convergence. As more and more data comes in, it's all pointing to a conventional under unity setup where the batteries discharge their energy to heat up some MOSFETs and a load resistor all the while being helped in this task by the function generator. With the current flowing straight through the function generator itself.
When you do your battery draw-down tests and the shock of reality hits you I think you should just walk away from the whole thing.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 07:03:27 PM
Just one question for true oscilloscope experts here:
One thing I was never certain about comes into play for my previous post. The question is do you need to use the ground leads on the probes themselves or can you just make a robust connection between the common scope ground terminal (which may be on the face of the scope) and the negative battery terminal? That way you can remove the scope channel ground leads.
This may tie into the scope probe compensation. At the frequencies in question at least you are still not really in transmission line territory for the shielded probe cables.
Honestly it's just one of those things that I have never been sure of, I must have used scope probes with the ground leads and with a common ground connection and no ground leads.
Perhaps the experts would comment. If you can get away with using just the common ground connection it certainly would make it easier to probe the circuit to your heart's delight. With enough probing it should be possible to visualize what the circuit is doing in your head.
If my skills were really honed and I had real experience in analog RF and I refreshed myself on how amplified negative-feedback oscillators work, I would be tempted to figure out the true mechanism for the current reversal though the CVR and draw up a timing diagram for the whole shebang. I still believe that PW got it right when he mentioned that AC was being capacitively coupled through the Q2 array gates and that is one of the main agents responasble for the current reversal through the CVR. The heart of the oscillator is in the Q2 array, and there may be a wire inductance and a MOSFET capacitance coupled with the amplification that turns the Q2 array into an oscillator that is broadcasting AC throughout the circuit.
MileHigh
MH,
Typically for high frequencies (>15MHz) it's better to gnd the probe ends. For lower frequency work, I can often get away with a gnd wire I have made from silver plated RF braid run between scope gnd and device under test gnd. There are lots of times the gnd loop formed with multiple probes being grounded at the ends can be a problem, and I only attach one. There are also times when I cap couple the gnd clip lead of the scope probes to reduce LF gnd loops. Cap coupling the probe gnds allows the probe leads to be grounded at both ends at RF, but only at one end with regard to LF.
When I am using my braid as a gnd, I try to make the probe leads follow the same path as the braid as much as is practical, often attaching thm together for as long as possible. Some times I will use both the braid and the probe gnds, with probe gnds and braid connected to the DUT at the same location. Most times I would rather extend a probe gnd if needed rather than attach to a different gnd point on the DUT. Single point gnd is always best to maintain. All grounds should "flow" to one point.
My measurement bench can see down to about -135dBv or better with long average FFT's. To acheive this noise floor, my system gnd is three braided copper lightning cables running between a copper gnd rod/buss bar on the bench to a triangular array of three gnd rods in a flower bed immediately outside the wall by that bench. I can't salt the rods (preferred for increased gnd conductivity), as that would kill flowers, which would, well, "create a problem". But the rods (and the flowers) do get watered regularly. (I was doing fine with a lesser system until a cell tower went up about 1/4 mile away and I had to improve it for RF) At the bench, equipment grounds go to the copper buss bar. I have mostly BNC cables with the braid connected to the BNC shell at both ends, but do have some with the braid conected only at one end for when I need to break a loop. Most times I will pick one piece of test equipment on the bench that is connected to the main bench gnd and make all grounds flow to that one piece of test equipment. All AC gnd pins are lifted with adapters as well. I have an AC gnd wire (133 strand #6) runing about 20' between the AC panel gnd and the center of the triad of ground rods (splits off to each rod along with the lightning cable). Sometimes I will let one piece of equip on the bench have an AC ground conected, most of the times not. This is of course not code, as many times a test lead or BNC is all there is for a chassis safety gnd, oh well.
I do a lot of THD measuement. I typically can acheive -104dB THD out to about 140Kc, -100dB to 250Kc, and stay below -90 to -92dB out to about 500Kc. This is not all that easy and current loops from multiple ground points or paths will show up as harmonics. (and this is typically with 40dB of gain in the DUT). Many times my signal sources are treated as floated devices, and are the only piece of equip that has its own gnd path to the DUT. Sometimes this is not always practical, and a loop must intentionally be formed.
The short of it is, use what works best for what you're doing. You may have to experiment a bit to get your best measurements and flattest frequency response (least amount of ringing) for the particular measurement you are making. Even at DC with a 6 digit meter, ground currents can neasily throw off precision measurements. But always try to use a single point for the gnd connection at the DUT, and attempt to make gnds on all connected equipment flow to one point.
Apologies for being long winded, grounding is an art unto itself!
PW
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 29, 2012, 06:54:33 PM
Hey TK,
As always your doing a nice job ;)
I'm curious what would happen if you leave your oscilloscope(s) grounded from the 120 volt utility power connection and isolate the 120 volt utility power utility ground connection from your function generator by using a old style receptacle ground adapter. ??? I'm not sure of a huge testing equipment safety issue with any large peak to peak voltages to harm anything which all seem low.
This might eliminate your testing equipment ground loops if any exist. I do remember somewhere in all the hundreds of NERD RAT postings that Rosemary did , she had removed the plug ground tab on some piece of 240 volt European testing equipment ... I'm still looking.
FTC
:)
Thanks....
The issue of ground loops is an important one and we've discussed it before. On my equipment, the grounding schemes are as follows:
HP180a scope: probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Tektronix RM503 scope: probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Interstate F43 HV FG: output "negative" or BNC shields are all connected to chassis ground and line cord ground.
WaveTek Model III FG: output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground -- UNLESS it's connected to some other bit of kit in which case it's grounded through the negative or BNC shield.
Elenco XP-581 regulated PS: output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.
Philips PM6676 counter: input BNC shields/signal grounds are connected to chassis and line cord ground.
Simpson Model 464 DMM: inputs floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.
And the Tek DSO that I sometimes use is grounded, all probe grounds are connected together and to the line cord ground.
(But if anyone has a Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeter, its probe grounds are isolated from each other and from the instrument chassis ground and the line cord power adapter (which doesn't even have a third pin). A very handy feature if it's understood and not misused. Unfortunately... the ones I use are at another location right now.)
For the past week or more we have NOT been using the FGs at all. We have been using either a 9v battery supply for bias (floating) or the Elenco PS (floating) or the circuit's main battery lowest unit ( grounded to the main circuit of course.)
The scope is grounded back to the power line ground but nothing else connected to the circuit is grounded. The only GLpossible in the "current" setup is between the scope probe ground leads.
Most of the time when I use the FG, I'm running a direct connection using BNC from the FG to either the scope's external trigger input or to a channel input or both... this means that the FG and scope are mutually grounded no matter what I do to ground plugs.... and the same will likely be true for the NERD equipment, but I am not completely certain about that.
I want to emphasise here that the negative average mean power measurements that I've been making do not use anything other than the one scope hooked to the circuit, no other equipment grounded or otherwise is used during these measurements. The bias source has been either the regulated PS (floating), the external 9v battery, or the circuit's own main battery, for all my power determinations. Unlike in the NERD demonstration.
So.... the bottom line is that even by cutting off a pin from the grounding adapter, as long as an oscilloscope with grounded probe grounds is connected to the same point as the function generator "negative" or BNC shield, the FG will still be common-grounded back to the line, through the scope grounds. The only way to isolate the scope and the FG completely is to use differential voltage probes and/or non-contact current probes. Or by floating both instruments by ungrounding them both, but they still will be connected through their shields.
I think.
WHAT is the "IsoTech GFG 324" function generator claimed to be used in the papers? What is its grounding scheme?
My dear MileHigh
Your efforts are laudable. Your technique transparent. Your criticisms repetitive. And your complaint as ever, would be better applied to your own good self.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PM
I see that you backtracked and edited down your posting. Your paragraph about current flowing through the function generator was the usual nonsensical word salad. Did you do some homework? I would think not.
I edited NOTHING other than the paragraph spacing and the splitting of this post.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMThen there were the 'conspiracy' allegations yet again. Exxon is very worried about a little old lady in South Africa that can't string six words together about electronics that make sense... not.
I made NO conspiracy allegations. I merely stated that you and picowatt and TK have a 'mission' to deny. But you're right. I am well aware of a conspiracy. I'd need to be utterly naive to assume otherwise. Why else would TK and picowatt be working so long - SO MANY HOURS - at this? It's beggars belief. If this were simply about the delusions of a little old lady - then? Let me do my test 'unmolested'. Because it will simply FAIL - if you're opinion is also based on 'belief' or, as you put it - 'the real truth'. Of COURSE there's a conspiracy. And it's CRITICAL that this work of ours is disparaged. And my name along with it.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMYou also made two separate references to current flowing through the gates of the MOSFETs. Only in the Bizarro Universe Rosemary. That's where the source and drain pins block current and current flows through the gate.
WHERE? Where did I make two separate references to current flowing through the gates of the MOSFETs? I did NOT. THAT - MilesOutOfLine - is SIMPLY NOT THE 'REAL TRUTH'.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMWhat you and the readers are witnessing is convergence. As more and more data comes in, it's all pointing to a conventional under unity setup where the batteries discharge their energy to heat up some MOSFETs and a load resistor all the while being helped in this task by the function generator. With the current flowing straight through the function generator itself.
WHAT? On the strength of those videos of TK? I'm working on that dissertation MileHigh. You'll have a detailed analysis of the nonsense related to those vidoes. Just sit tight. It'll be posted by tomorrow - if I get to finish it then. Else wait for Tuesday.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMWhen you do your battery draw-down tests and the shock of reality hits you I think you should just walk away from the whole thing.
INDEED. Let's wait and see. I know EXACTLY how the one test will pan - because we've already rerun it. It's the NERD circuit that's yet to be tested. And I'd prefer it that TK post his results FIRST.
Rosie Pose :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2012, 07:43:51 PM
I am preparing a detailed transcript and report of every single video that TK has made. I will post that report with appropriate comments and with links to those videos - when I'm ready.
Rosemary
Rosemary or Dooziedont or whatever ....
Why don't you log in and post your comments at YouTube where the videos are published ??
You have several accounts there at YouTube so use them if you have some more half ass comments to make, this way the "WHOLE" world can see what your thinking process is. Then your not just posting on a single thread on one forum. Personally you sound like a broken record saying the same crap over and over, wheres your expert authors at there sure hiding from you, me and this or any forum?? We the Open Source community need someone who has a formal education in electronics from your South African NERD RAT team where are they, it's only been three years with a "NO" show from not a single sole you bloviate about constantly.
Don't you have testing to do yourself at Stefans request .... where is it ?? Did you take the COP>INFINITY experimental device apart to destroy all the evidence like you did the COP>17 device of yours ?? How about getting a photograph or some verified detailed manufacture information on your .25 ohm shunt resistor assembly on this proposed COP>INFINITY device ??
FTC
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 03:45:03 PM
Yup... I should be able to do the comparison between one battery decoupled with caps and one battery naked.
So this will be done with and without decoupling caps right at the battery, but the battery probe at the board itself?
If I put the battery probe on the battery, then I'll have the issue with probe grounds at different points; if I put the battery probe at the power entry points at the board, then I'll have those long battery leads....
Well, I guess I'll just do it everywhichaway and see what happens.
At this point it looks like the logistics are good to go, anyhow... I mean my car is back together and except for my housemates being in the hospital... all is good for tomorrow's play date.
Meanwhile here's the video of what we've been discussing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPESB5-5iTA
TK,
You might consider beefing up the batt- lead to your board. Try multiple runs of short wire (tightly bundled individually insulated parallel runs is sometimes better for reducing inductance than going with a large wire) Do you have any braid? (works very well). Of course you could always drag out some copper pipe.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 08:11:31 PM
Thanks....
The issue of ground loops is an important one and we've discussed it before. On my equipment, the grounding schemes are as follows:
HP180a scope: probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Tektronix RM503 scope: probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Interstate F43 HV FG: output "negative" or BNC shields are all connected to chassis ground and line cord ground.
WaveTek Model III FG: output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground -- UNLESS it's connected to some other bit of kit in which case it's grounded through the negative or BNC shield.
Elenco XP-581 regulated PS: output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.
Philips PM6676 counter: input BNC shields/signal grounds are connected to chassis and line cord ground.
Simpson Model 464 DMM: inputs floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.
And the Tek DSO that I sometimes use is grounded, all probe grounds are connected together and to the line cord ground.
(But if anyone has a Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeter, its probe grounds are isolated from each other and from the instrument chassis ground and the line cord power adapter (which doesn't even have a third pin). A very handy feature if it's understood and not misused. Unfortunately... the ones I use are at another location right now.)
For the past week or more we have NOT been using the FGs at all. We have been using either a 9v battery supply for bias (floating) or the Elenco PS (floating) or the circuit's main battery lowest unit ( grounded to the main circuit of course.)
The scope is grounded back to the power line ground but nothing else connected to the circuit is grounded. The only GLpossible in the "current" setup is between the scope probe ground leads.
Most of the time when I use the FG, I'm running a direct connection using BNC from the FG to either the scope's external trigger input or to a channel input or both... this means that the FG and scope are mutually grounded no matter what I do to ground plugs.... and the same will likely be true for the NERD equipment, but I am not completely certain about that.
I want to emphasise here that the negative average mean power measurements that I've been making do not use anything other than the one scope hooked to the circuit, no other equipment grounded or otherwise is used during these measurements. The bias source has been either the regulated PS (floating), the external 9v battery, or the circuit's own main battery, for all my power determinations. Unlike in the NERD demonstration.
So.... the bottom line is that even by cutting off a pin from the grounding adapter, as long as an oscilloscope with grounded probe grounds is connected to the same point as the function generator "negative" or BNC shield, the FG will still be common-grounded back to the line, through the scope grounds. The only way to isolate the scope and the FG completely is to use differential voltage probes and/or non-contact current probes. Or by floating both instruments by ungrounding them both, but they still will be connected through their shields.
I think.
WHAT is the "IsoTech GFG 324" function generator claimed to be used in the papers? What is its grounding scheme?
TK,
Like I said, grounding is an art!
PW
My dear MileHigh - regarding this edit of yours...
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PM
Rosemary:
TK never said that current flows through the GATE.
STOP THIS NONSENSICAL IDIOT TALK ABOUT CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE GATES.
TK's ENTIRE argument depends on current passing through the gate. He's shown great reams of video on EXACTLY THIS POINT. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. AND WHAT are you talking about?
Rosie Pose
Guys,
I always know when I've hit a home run. That's when FTC and picowatt start posting reams of text in the hopes of closing the page. LOL
Regards,
Rosemary
PW and TK:
Thanks for that very informative discussion. It was most impressive, amazing!
I have qualified Rosie, and I have qualified PW.
It's comical to see Rosie take PW on. All due respect to you TK but I am in awe with respect to PW.
It's like a little yellow rubber duckie trying to take on an ocean liner. lol
MileHigh
Oh MileHigh! Such PERFECT transparency. It's almost endearing.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:31:35 PM
PW and TK:
Thanks for that very informative discussion. It was most impressive, amazing!
I have qualified Rosie, and I have qualified PW.
It's comical to see Rosie take PW on. All due respect to you TK but I am in awe with respect to PW.
It's like a little yellow rubber duckie trying to take on an ocean liner. lol
MileHigh
Rosie Posie
:)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2012, 08:30:14 PM
Guys,
I always know when I've hit a home run. That's when FTC and picowatt start posting reams of text in the hopes of closing the page. LOL
Regards,
Rosemary
Just ignoring your gibberish...
picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 08:36:45 PM
Just ignoring your gibberish...
I'm looking forward to a full disclosure of your identy picowatt. That our readers can connect a few 'dots'.... Or perhaps you'll come out and admit the truth? One day? It will be a change from all this deception. Especially as it relates to the training of little children in the art of soldering anything at all - while they exercise their adult grasp of reading writing and arithmetic. And while you NEVER engage in anything other than scientific discussions - based on 'belief'. LOL
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2012, 08:28:26 PM
My dear MileHigh - regarding this edit of yours...TK's ENTIRE argument depends on current passing through the gate. He's shown great reams of video on EXACTLY THIS POINT. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. AND WHAT are you talking about?
Rosie Pose
YOU LIE AGAIN like a mangy dog.
I have NEVER said that a mosfet passes current through the gate by any means other than its capacitance. NO VIDEO THAT I HAVE EVER MADE shows this. If you think that there is one, LINK TO IT you idiot.
YOU ARE A LIAR and you are willfully ignorant. That's just one thing that is WRONG WITH YOU.
Rosemary:
PW, TK, myself, anyone on here is under no obligation to reveal his or her identity. I have already told you that I have read several postings by little kitchen table top experimenters making pulse motors that made it very clear that they were packing guns and would "fight to the death" if the "MIB" came after them.
So you stop your ridiculousness. The internet has from the beginning allowed people to protect their identity if they want to. If I want my identity to be revealed I can go on Facebook. I am not exposing myself to the small chance of being shot dead in the street by a FUCKING NUTCASE. Do you understand?
Likewise, stop chasing after PW for teaching children to solder under supervised conditions. What you are doing is simply awful, it's disgusting. He is a good decent man and you are trying to imply he has done something unethical. It's SICK, and you are the one being unethical. I will complain to Stephan if you dare mention that again.
QuoteWHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. AND WHAT are you talking about?
That's the question we ask about you.
Dedicated to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcjSDZNbOs0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcjSDZNbOs0)
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
TK,
Like I said, grounding is an art!
PW
Hi PW,
Grounding is a art .... here is a few images I made up that we used several years ago in the COP>17 experimentation discussion showing differences between countries utility voltage systems. This image example is for a barn with a milking parlor, one of the most sensitive areas requiring the best grounding and bonding methods available or the cows might not even enter the barn.
FTC
;)
@MH: Change the Keyboard !! First try plugging it in to a different USB port. But from your symptoms the first thing I'd do is change the keyboard. Then if the problem persists, go up the "usb" chain of command: use different USB input jacks.
I see now that Ainslie is doing her usual thing: she's now claiming that she hasn't been claiming that the FG can't pass current, now that I have made it impossible for her to deny that it does and HER ADVISORS have told her what's what.
But all of us reading here know that she has in fact denied it most vehemently until just today.
Ainlsie, you liar, I see you've been going back and editing to CHANGE THE MEANING of your old posts again, you liar.
But the meaning of these statements you made are clear:
QuoteIt is YOU who refers to that wave as a 'square wave' - IN YOUR VIDEO. A function generator most CERTAINLY either allows or prevents current flow from the circuit supply - depending on the transistor type - and by APPLYING A SIGNAL - NOT A DISCHARGE OF CURRENT. And I do not give a tuppeny damn about what you 'CLAIM' is within the capabilities of a function generator. It CANNOT pass a current flow. It can ONLY enable an INDUCED current flow.
QuoteYou state as a FACT that the current is flowing through Q2 and the function generator resulting in a negative voltage. I will entirely disabuse you of that opinion when we do our demonstration. And I assure you that we will show you PRECISELY the same negative voltage with the use of a 555 switch. And then you CANNOT use the excuse of the function generator enabling any current flowing through it. Again. Because we will show precisely the same results with the use of both the function generator and the 555 switch. So. No, is the short answer. You must certainly have NOT enabled my 'better understanding' from your discussions. If I were to understand your thinking I would first need to ignore the evidence.
QuoteA function generator DOES NOT PASS CURRENT. What it does is apply a voltage that then enables a current flow.
And there are still more that you haven't changed yet... but I have the entire thread archived and you can't edit that.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2012, 08:43:06 PM
picowatt
I'm looking forward to a full disclosure of your identy picowatt. That our readers can connect a few 'dots'.... Or perhaps you'll come out and admit the truth? One day? It will be a change from all this deception. Especially as it relates to the training of little children in the art of soldering anything at all - while they exercise their adult grasp of reading writing and arithmetic. And while you NEVER engage in anything other than scientific discussions - based on 'belief'. LOL
Rosie Pose
I never said "adult grasp", those are your words...
But they could read, write, and count...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2012, 08:30:14 PM
Guys,
I always know when I've hit a home run. That's when FTC and picowatt start posting reams of text in the hopes of closing the page. LOL
Regards,
Rosemary
YOU are the one bloviating and again making distortions, lies, and insults. YOU are the one trying with all your might to get this thread closed because your ego is threatened by what you are reading here.
QuoteI made NO conspiracy allegations. I merely stated that you and picowatt and TK have a 'mission' to deny. But you're right. I am well aware of a conspiracy. I'd need to be utterly naive to assume otherwise. Why else would TK and picowatt be working so long - SO MANY HOURS - at this? It's beggars belief. If this were simply about the delusions of a little old lady - then? Let me do my test 'unmolested'. Because it will simply FAIL - if you're opinion is also based on 'belief' or, as you put it - 'the real truth'. Of COURSE there's a conspiracy. And it's CRITICAL that this work of ours is disparaged. And my name along with it.
Priceless. Making conspiracy allegations while claiming not to make them, in the same breath.
I work long hours at this, Rosemary, because YOU ARE A LIAR and I will not have it. Like I said many times before... if you had simply corrected your bogus calculation the first time it was pointed out to you and posted a correction and a retraction of the conclusion based on it... I would have walked away at that point and let you hang yourself by your own petard in peace. But you did not do that... instead you insulted me and everybody else who tried to tell you how wrong you are. And you continue to lie and misinterpret and put words in people's mouths that they did not say. You also are lying about the COP>17 work as well.
So now you've engendered my ire, and I won't quit until you do.
You have made direct threats against me... some have even called them death threats.... and if you ever DO find out my identity and start annoying my family, my friends, or my employers..... there will be consequences for you, I promise you that.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
TK,
Have you decided not to try the test with the entire battery string decoupled and added Batt+ wire?
PW
No, I've not decided that. I'm still experimenting with decoupling caps. I would prefer to do it across the entire battery string because that would be most comparable to the other data I've got. But I will likely do it both ways anyway... if I can maintain my enthusiasm in the face of the latest rounds of lies and distortions and threats from Ainslie.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
TK,
You might consider beefing up the batt- lead to your board. Try multiple runs of short wire (tightly bundled individually insulated parallel runs is sometimes better for reducing inductance than going with a large wire) Do you have any braid? (works very well). Of course you could always drag out some copper pipe.
PW
Thanks... if I were testing some important bit of RF gear or trying to develop an improvement to my SSTC or Hodowanec Gravity Wave Detector... I'd probably do just that. But I'm making a Tar Baby, that performs just like NERD in all significant respects.
Yes, I have braid in several sizes, Litz wire, copper pipe and even flat copper ribbon, for serious work involving LARGE cap discharges where inductance MUST be minimised for complete power coupling to the load. Did I ever show you my wire explosion work? Probably not, sorry, I'll see if I can dig it up.
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:32:23 PM
No, I've not decided that. I'm still experimenting with decoupling caps. I would prefer to do it across the entire battery string because that would be most comparable to the other data I've got. But I will likely do it both ways anyway... if I can maintain my enthusiasm in the face of the latest rounds of lies and distortions and threats from Ainslie.
TK,
Go to your happy place now...
I think all the work you have put into this will have more value for readers here and elsewhere than as it just pertains to this circuit. For example, and as but one instance, there have been JT type circuits that also exhibit a neg mean pwr when measured with a 'scope with math functions. I suspect that just about any oscillator with a fair degree of inductance in its supply leads, and with the battery voltage taken from a point removed by the battery via that inductance, will likely also produce a neg mean pwr number.
If nothing else, your work will answer many questions regarding such a measurement and demonstrate that a neg mean pwr measurement, taken under similar conditions, cannot by itself be considered evidence of, well, how about we call it NCO (non-conventional operation) just to avoid semantic wars.
Hang in there,
PW
Greetings All,
I've been following this thread since its beginning. I've signed up for an account here so that I could offer my thanks and admiration for this thread and topic. A special shout out to TK whose videos and explanations even I can understand. I've learned a great deal, though I've been required to stop and start the videos from time to time and sometimes go back and Google something. The Open Source model is being demonstrated here in all of its colorful glory. Thanks to all the participants.
I can't really add a lot to the technical discussion as I am merely keeping up. That said, I can add something topical which I believe many of you may appreciate. It's science, just not very electronic.
Two words and a YouTube link: Dunning - Kruger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
Tar Baby Rulz ...
ReFried
PW,
This is for you, as requested. ;)
Note; I did not add any inductance. It oscillates nicely with the filtering across all the batteries.
Also note that 3.3W x 4 = 13.2W, precisely the same value obtained by using the power probe on one battery and multiplying by 6x.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 06:21:55 PM
Poynt:
I just noticed those new simulations and the how the addition of the filtering switches the battery power calculation over. Very impressive!
TK:
I just saw your clip demoing the CVR voltage change and I will share some thoughts with you.
Let's assume that wire impedance at the operating frequency + harmonics and other capacitive/inductive effects mean that the whole setup is like a slinky festival in a mosh pit.
So, you really need to define a "home base." Let's call the negative terminal of the lowest battery in the totem pole your home base. I would move your CVR off of the circuit board and solder it to the negative battery post. This is not going to change the replication and Rosie has no argument about this not being a replication because of this.
So in theory your returning current will be viewed between the negative battery post and the CVR. It's unlikely that you will see dramatic changes in the voltage across the CVR with this setup.
Now here is the key: Needless to say your second channel will use the same negative battery post for the probe ground. Now your second channel signal probe can "go off on an adventure" to see what the rest of the circuit looks like relative to "home base," the negative battery terminal. Even if you have to add a longer length to the ground clip lead to make measurements that are far away from the battery post, stick with the "home base" philosophy.
So you can imagine "snaking" your second channel probe through the rest of the circuit, where you look at the potentials every three or four inches of wire length. You will probably find that your whole circuit board and load resistor setup is "bouncing up and down" relative to your home base.
Once you get a feel for how the CVR voltage is behaving then you can disconnect that channel from the CVR and "send that scope probe out on an adventure" also. So you can have two channels on your scope tied to your "home base" master reference ground point while you examine the "bouncing" going on at different points in the circuit.
Notice that if you line up the ground references for each channel of your scope, and have the gain for each scope channel the same, you will get a live visual display of the differential potential with respect to time between any two points in the circuit.
With enough interactive probing of the whole setup, you should be able to get a feel for how the major parts of the circuit are fluctuating in potential with respect to home base, i.e.; the slinky fest in a mosh pit.
Also note that if you do this measurement setup it makes adding capacitive decoupling to the bottom-most battery quite simple and elegant. You are just a step away from measuring the current and the capacitively-decoupled potential across that single battery in order to measure how much power is being output by that single battery.
MileHigh
P.S.: It may be worth it to strip off some wire insulation as needed in order to see what is going on as your probes snake their way away from home base.
Bumped to the front so I don't have to search back through post after post of Ains-lies.
Her typical tactic is in use again: whenever there's an important point raised she goes off on post after post of misrepresentation, misinterpretation and outright lying in order to deflect discussion from the true issues.
Refutations of her points don't matter...she simply ignores them, UNTIL, as at present, her advisors at her elbow tell her that we here are right, and then she's got to start spinning and trying to change the meaning of her own previous posts.
What is the "IsoTech GFG 324" function generator? I would like to see a link to some internet information about this unit.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 09:45:19 PM
PW,
This is for you, as requested. ;)
60 uf sounds more like it. One or 5 helps but there is still noticeable ripple. But I can only get to about 40 uF with all my blue RIFAs.
Quote from: ReFried on April 29, 2012, 09:43:46 PM
Greetings All,
I've been following this thread since its beginning. I've signed up for an account here so that I could offer my thanks and admiration for this thread and topic. A special shout out to TK whose videos and explanations even I can understand. I've learned a great deal, though I've been required to stop and start the videos from time to time and sometimes go back and Google something. The Open Source model is being demonstrated here in all of its colorful glory. Thanks to all the participants.
I can't really add a lot to the technical discussion as I am merely keeping up. That said, I can add something topical which I believe many of you may appreciate. It's science, just not very electronic.
Two words and a YouTube link: Dunning - Kruger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
Tar Baby Rulz ...
ReFried
ReFried,
I got a good chuckle over how he ended the video... "two words"
Feel free to ask questions if you have any, I am sure most here would try to provide you an anwer.
PW
@ReFried:
Thanks for stepping in!
And also thanks for that reference to the D-K effect. I've often thought the same, myself, with reference to our main subject.
Of course.... if one does not believe in objective measures of competency or knowledge, one is all the more subject to the D-K effect. When I make a "C" on a test, I know that I'm probably of average ability. When somebody else makes a "C" on a test, she thinks that the test was unfair, that the textbooks are wrong, and that the professor is FOS.
Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
:P
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:49:32 PM
60 uf sounds more like it. One or 5 helps but there is still noticeable ripple. But I can only get to about 40 uF with all my blue RIFAs.
TK,
I believe some time ago I suggested something like 220uF electro with smaller caps paralleled to decouple the electros internal L. Dig out an old PC supply and grab a 100-470uF or whatever for LF, and then parallel a pretty blue and one of your .1 glass. But yeah, beat me up, I did say one of each in your picture..
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:49:32 PM
60 uf sounds more like it. One or 5 helps but there is still noticeable ripple. But I can only get to about 40 uF with all my blue RIFAs.
10uF was sufficient across a single battery, that's why I multiplied by 6 to get 60uF across all 6 batteries.
In other words, for the single battery test if you do it, you'll only need 10uF or so to cause a significant change in the computed power, but of course the more the better.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 09:45:19 PM
PW,
This is for you, as requested. ;)
Note; I did not add any inductance. It oscillates nicely with the filtering across all the batteries.
Also note that 3.3W x 4 = 13.2W, precisely the same value obtained by using the power probe on one battery and multiplying by 6x.
99,
Thanks poynt. I envy your sim work. Gotta' get me some. What software/version do you use?
I understand what you are saying regarding just decoupling one battery and then multiplying, and I know I will accept a measurement taken that way. There is just something a bit more "magical" when one can demonstrate a totally different measurement taken at opposite ends of an ordinary wire. A wire is not always just a wire.
PW
@PW:
You said, "I think all the work you have put into this will have more value for readers here and elsewhere than as it just pertains to this circuit. "
Thanks... I hope that the main benefit will be in the information about the use of the oscilloscope to make actual measurements rather than pretty colored lines.
I've seen a lot of scope displays on these unconventional science (sic) forums that make it clear that scoposcopy is a lost art, and that people need numbers in boxes these days, that the basic operation of the scope is often misunderstood, and that artefacts are almost never considered.
The shots below are typical of the Ainslie shots from the "old days" and show nothing more than aliasing and poor triggering, yet they were presented as representative of overunity performance.
(NOTE also the description in the figure caption: Channel 1 is described as the "integral of voltage across the current sensing resistor (Rshunt)." But it is not an integral at all. The LeCroy can only display a single math trace, and that's being used to display the product of 1 and 2. Trace 1 is not an integral, it probably is just the raw voltage drop across the CVR.)
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 10:07:14 PM
99,
Thanks poynt. I envy your sim work. Gotta' get me some. What software/version do you use?
I understand what you are saying regarding just decoupling one battery and then multiplying, and I know I will accept a measurement taken that way. There is just something a bit more "magical" when one can demonstrate a totally different measurement taken at opposite ends of an ordinary wire. A wire is not always just a wire.
PW
Orcad PSpice, v10.5. Thanks.
I just tried it again, but reduced the 60uF down to 10uf again, and the results are the same; +3.3W and -37.6W.
So it appears only a modest amount of filtering is required to show a significant change in the computed battery power.
Re. a wire not always being a wire? I can show you comments I made in this forum regarding the original COP>17 claim and the work I did on it back then (about 3 or 4 years) where I repeated the very same mantra. ;D
Note also that this added filtering capacitor does NOT include additional hookup wire inductance, and is an ideal capacitor.
I don't recall if you can enter a constant in the Tek scope to multiply against any channel, but I believe you can.
TK, if you want, try placing your DMM meter across V1-V2 and see if you get a sensible stable voltage reading. If you do, enter this value as a constant multiplier with the VCSR and you'll have an accurate PBat computation. You can try this with and without the capacitor filtering across the batteries. Pending little RF interference in the meter, this should give you a relatively solid and accurate VBat reading.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 09:59:29 PM
TK,
I believe some time ago I suggested something like 220uF electro with smaller caps paralleled to decouple the electros internal L. Dig out an old PC supply and grab a 100-470uF or whatever for LF, and then parallel a pretty blue and one of your .1 glass. But yeah, beat me up, I did say one of each in your picture..
PW
Well, I thought we wanted to stay away from electrolytics. But sure, I have caps in that range and I don't even have to take anything apart to get to them.
There just might be something in this box I could use. The ones at top left are Mallorys and Spragues, mostly.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 10:10:40 PM
@PW:
You said, "I think all the work you have put into this will have more value for readers here and elsewhere than as it just pertains to this circuit. "
Thanks... I hope that the main benefit will be in the information about the use of the oscilloscope to make actual measurements rather than pretty colored lines.
I've seen a lot of scope displays on these unconventional science (sic) forums that make it clear that scoposcopy is a lost art, and that people need numbers in boxes these days, that the basic operation of the scope is often misunderstood, and that artefacts are almost never considered.
The shots below are typical of the Ainslie shots from the "old days" and show nothing more than aliasing and poor triggering, yet they were presented as representative of overunity performance.
TK,
Regarding "scoposcopy" as you call it, I agree. I think everyone should have to use an analog 'scope without cursors for a while before they jump to cursors and moreso, digital scopes. Even with the DSO's, if that is a first scope, I'd recommend that the math and measurement functions not be used until the display grid on the screen, timebase, vertical sensitivity, AC-DC and triggering are fully understood and proficiency with visual measurements achieved. But I do love cursors.
Of course I miss "valves", so what does that say?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 10:22:51 PM
I don't recall if you can enter a constant in the Tek scope to multiply against any channel, but I believe you can.
TK, if you want, try placing your DMM meter across V1-V2 and see if you get a sensible stable voltage reading. If you do, enter this value as a constant multiplier with the VCSR and you'll have an accurate PBat computation. You can try this with and without the capacitor filtering across the batteries. Pending little RF interference in the meter, this should give you a relatively solid and accurate VBat reading.
Yes, you can. The Tek that Tar Baby plays with has only one math channel too, but it can be programmed for two numerical constants to be used with whatever nested set of arithmetic and integrating operations you like on live or stored or combinations of live and stored traces. At least that's what it looked like on-screen; I haven't RTFM yet.
I could also have the scope compute a simple average of the battery trace and use that in the power computation, the equivalent of heavy filtering.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 10:29:50 PM
Well, I thought we wanted to stay away from electrolytics. But sure, I have caps in that range and I don't even have to take anything apart to get to them.
There just might be something in this box I could use. The ones at top left are Mallorys and Spragues, mostly.
TK,
I saw more oil than electros in that bin!
You don't need to get carried away. 100-470uF electrolytic for bulk uF and then parallel a couple of the smaller caps to improve the HF characteristics of the electro. Very common practice. MH with his digital experience I am sure will attest to this.
In any event, I am sure you fully grasp what I am saying. It's probably just another low ball.
I wish you good luck, safe driving, and no more vehicle issues regarding tomorrow's journey!
PW
There are a few oil filled motor caps of low capacity in there, but most of them are indeed higher value electrolytics. The short grey cylinders are 4700 uF 50 VDC and there are about 20 of them in there, and there are also several more power supply filter electrolytics buried under there, some multiple section filter caps, and even a couple of high-voltage caps in there. The white cylinders are just a few of the 400pF30kV doorknobs that I have lying about. (These can be seen in action on my "dirod" video and similar ones are used in my "bonetti" videos.)
I don't have a lot of mica caps, though, and I wish I did.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 11:08:36 PM
There are a few oil filled motor caps of low capacity in there, but most of them are indeed higher value electrolytics. The short grey cylinders are 4700 uF 50 VDC and there are about 20 of them in there, and there are also several more power supply filter electrolytics buried under there, some multiple section filter caps, and even a couple of high-voltage caps in there. The white cylinders are just a few of the 400pF30kV doorknobs that I have lying about. (These can be seen in action on my "dirod" video and similar ones are used in my "bonetti" videos.)
I don't have a lot of mica caps, though, and I wish I did.
TK,
Always gotta' argue... ;D
PW
TK,
You could always gather up all the window glass from your house and a few rolls of foil... make some..
PW
TK,
When you're done testing the circuit, you can use it to do a little QRP at 150meters.
Wave your hands about for modulation.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 11:44:34 PM
TK,
You could always gather up all the window glass from your house and a few rolls of foil... make some..
PW
I actually did that for a big SGTC. I think I was frightened by a PopTronics cover when I was a child.... the blue glow leaking out around the edges....
But they are too leaky and the glass eventually breaks. The big white blocks in the first cap photo I put up are what I'm using now; they are Maxwell pulse caps of 0.3 uF at 20 kV, oil-filled paper and foil, extremely snappy.
Plastic paint pails full of water, with foil in the right places, make excellent Leyden jars.
Quote from: picowatt on April 29, 2012, 11:50:23 PM
TK,
When you're done testing the circuit, you can use it to do a little QRP at 150meters.
Wave your hands about for modulation.
PW
Talk o' aliens ?
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 11:50:46 PM
I actually did that for a big SGTC. I think I was frightened by a PopTronics cover when I was a child.... the blue glow leaking out around the edges....
But they are too leaky and the glass eventually breaks. The big white blocks in the first cap photo I put up are what I'm using now; they are Maxwell pulse caps of 0.3 uF at 20 kV, oil-filled paper and foil, extremely snappy.
Plastic paint pails full of water, with foil in the right places, make excellent Leyden jars.
TK,
I've actally shattered a stack. Bang!
Played around with Tesla's wine bottles as well.
PW
QuoteI am preparing a detailed transcript and report of every single video that TK has made. I will post that report with appropriate comments and with links to those videos - when I'm ready. THEN feel free to comment on my 'deflections and denials'.
Yeah...uh huh. And I've posted how many videos? And you are doing this while in mourning, moving your furniture, and performing your testing. Sure. And the result is going to be something like this:
(And on and on.... misquoting and misrepresenting, changing meanings and baldfaced lying about events and facts. And I have the original thread archived and it's even still available on this forum for comparison between what Ainslie "transcribes" and what is actually being said on that thread.)
So.... you can see how she "transcribes".
Here is the thread page containing the numbered posts that she has "transcribed" and summarized. We are sure to be treated to a similar set of "summaries" _relating to_ my videos.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1511/ (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1511/)
Please read the page, it's a hilarious blast from the past, especially when you compare it post by post to Ainslie's "summary" on her blog.
Personally, I think I'm a lot more handsome than Adolph Hitler... taller too.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 08:57:21 PM
YOU LIE AGAIN like a mangy dog.
LOL. I want to see that mangy dog that lies.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 08:57:21 PMI have NEVER said that a mosfet passes current through the gate by any means other than its capacitance. NO VIDEO THAT I HAVE EVER MADE shows this. If you think that there is one, LINK TO IT you idiot.
You most certainly did 'infer' and 'imply' this. In fact you even ARGUED this. Specifically. But I'll get there TK. In due course. I"ll certainly show you that video. In fact I'll reference them all. With an in depth analysis. LOL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 08:57:21 PMYOU ARE A LIAR and you are willfully ignorant. That's just one thing that is WRONG WITH YOU.
So you keep saying. Again and again. I think you depend on 'the real truth' being made simply by repetition of an 'unreal truth' - which may or may not mean anything at all. As a rule such statements are considered slanderous and are actionable. I'm not sure why you take such pride in what the most of us would consider criminal behaviour? Perhaps because you don't know what constitutes a professional conduct and what does not? Perhaps because you're proud of your lack of professionalism? Who knows why? But I am most certainly NOT lying and I most certainly am NOT willful - nor ignorant.
Rosie Pose
Rosie Pose
MOSFETs.... How do THEY work? Chapter 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfyY9QvRIL0
More impossible magic from TKLabs. A metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor is turned on by.... electric field effect, requiring essentially no current, just a little positive charge supplied by removing electrons.
Impossible magic... or sufficiently advanced technology?
Therefore aliens.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 10:14:38 PM
Orcad PSpice, v10.5. Thanks.
I just tried it again, but reduced the 60uF down to 10uf again, and the results are the same; +3.3W and -37.6W.
So it appears only a modest amount of filtering is required to show a significant change in the computed battery power.
Re. a wire not always being a wire? I can show you comments I made in this forum regarding the original COP>17 claim and the work I did on it back then (about 3 or 4 years) where I repeated the very same mantra. ;D
My dear Poynty Point,
There is only one test as to whether the COP>17 test actually IS COP>17 - and that's against the results of a comparative draw down test. I'm sure you'll agree. So. Whatever analysis has or is applied against such a test is largely irrelevant until the evidence of its performance can be gauged from that test. Therefore, before you entirely depend on your argument or anyone else's for that matter - I am in the happy position of being able to show you all that it most certainly DOES outperform a comparative drawn down. And that will be the first object of what will also be a very public demonstration.
In the same way - before you entirely depend on your simulation results - you'll need to explain how it is that the oscillation has a positive component when the battery is disconnected from the circuit. If you're arguing that the battery IS connected and IS responsible for that positive half of each of those waveforms in that oscillation - then you'll need to explain it both in relation to the available paths and in relation to the consequent waveform. Evidence in both is lacking.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
You lie and threaten and insult yet again, Ainslie. POST THE LINK to where I ever said that a mosfet gate passes current except through its capacitance. You cannot because there is not any such case. IN FACT... just a few pages back, before you started this current nonsense, I posted this:
Quote
The FG turns on the mosfets by applying a charge to the gate. There is very little current flow associated with this and when the gate is "full"of charge the mosfet simply stays on with no additional gate current except for tiny leakage. This has NOTHING to do with Faraday's Law of Induction, which says that a changing current induces a voltage in another conductor that is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field of the first current. All current flow that you will encounter does obey this law and the induced voltages around your circuit are what is making the feedback. This has nothing to do with steady-state DC currents, it only applies when the current and its magnetic field are changing. If a FG is making a pulse that is below 10 Hz into small inductances... it might as well be making DC pulses. And if it is making two-minute long pulses... then it IS making DC.
As usual, your citation of Faraday's Law or some other unspecified "Laws of Induction" betray your ignorance more than any erudition that may have soaked in through your thick skull over the years.
And you might even be able to get your advisors to explain the latest video to you so that you will understand how mosfets work.
AT NO TIME have I ever claimed, asserted, implied what you say. Post a link if you think I did. You cannot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:22:42 AM
MOSFETs.... How do THEY work? Chapter 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfyY9QvRIL0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfyY9QvRIL0)
More impossible magic from TKLabs. A metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor is turned on by.... electric field effect, requiring essentially no current, just a little positive charge supplied by removing electrons.
Impossible magic... or sufficiently advanced technology?
Therefore aliens.
Delighted to see that you're doing some homework. And thank you for endorsing my argument. The MOSFET only needs an applied voltage signal in order to provide a path for the the current from that source battery supply..
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:29:57 AM
You lie and threaten and insult yet again, Ainslie. POST THE LINK to where I ever said that a mosfet gate passes current except through its capacitance. You cannot because there is not any such case. IN FACT... just a few pages back, before you started this current nonsense, I posted this:
And you might even be able to get your advisors to explain the latest video to you so that you will understand how mosfets work.
AT NO TIME have I ever claimed, asserted, implied what you say. Post a link if you think I did. You cannot.
I will TK. Indeed I will post that link. In my own good time.
Rosie Pose
Quoten the same way - before you entirely depend on your simulation results - you'll need to explain how it is that the oscillation has a positive component when the battery is disconnected from the circuit. If you're arguing that the battery IS connected and IS responsible for that positive half of each of those waveforms in that oscillation - then you'll need to explain it both in relation to the available paths and in relation to the consequent waveform. Evidence in both is lacking.
Can somebody translate this word salad into English for me? The battery is NEVER disconnected from the circuit, in the first place, whether the mosfets are on or off. Look at the battery traces in the scope shots. Does it ever drop to zero? EVER? Of course not.
Go ahead, Rosemary. Unplug the battery from your circuit. I want to see the scope trace of the oscillations then.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 02:34:25 AM
I will TK. Indeed I will post that link. In my own good time.
Rosie Pose
When you find it. I laugh at you, wasting your time bent over a hot computer, looking at all my videos and forum posts so that you can distort, misinterpret, and lie about them.
You accuse and then can't back it up. I SHOW the truth of the things I say about YOU and your lies. Every thing I say has been backed up with external evidence, simple demonstrations, and references to YOUR OWN WORDs for a lot of it, like your FG current fiasco that you are now trying to squirm out of.
My dear TinselKoala
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:10:02 PM
YOU are the one bloviating and again making distortions, lies, and insults. YOU are the one trying with all your might to get this thread closed because your ego is threatened by what you are reading here.
The last thing on this earth that I want is that this thread is closed. Which is precisely why I leave the insults - the bloviating - the gibberish - to yourselves. I only defend my good name and my work. God forbid I transgress this - or I'll be banned for 'breach of forum guidelines'. For some reason you, picowatt, FTC and MileHigh are exempt from those guideline requirements. Our work is greatly advantaged by your combined contributions.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 02:31:46 AM
Delighted to see that you're doing some homework. And thank you for endorsing my argument. The MOSFET only needs an applied voltage signal in order to provide a path for the the current from that source battery supply..
Rosie Pose
Thank you for endorsing MY argument: you have been wrong and are still wrong about the FUNCTION GENERATOR AS A SOURCE OF CURRENT IN YOUR CIRCUIT.
TinselKoala
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:35:55 AM
Can somebody translate this word salad into English for me? The battery is NEVER disconnected from the circuit, in the first place, whether the mosfets are on or off. Look at the battery traces in the scope shots. Does it ever drop to zero? EVER? Of course not.
Go ahead, Rosemary. Unplug the battery from your circuit. I want to see the scope trace of the oscillations then.
I addressed this observation to Poynty Point. With good reason. I KNOW that you don't understand it. You're not there yet. I'm waiting for you to get there. As ever. And in answer to your question - NO. The battery does not ever drop to zero. Nor do we argue that it drops at all. What's new? You STILL do not understand our argument.
Rosie Posie
Two words. Dunning-Kruger.
I shake my head in bewilderment.
:-\
TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:40:30 AM
Thank you for endorsing MY argument: you have been wrong and are still wrong about the FUNCTION GENERATOR AS A SOURCE OF CURRENT IN YOUR CIRCUIT.
We are most certainly on the same side of this argument. I AGREE. ABSOLUTELY. The function generator is NOT a source of current flow in our circuit. WHY do you keep plugging this?
Rosie posing
I understand what "disconnected from the circuit" means. But you as usual define that differently don't you.
Let's see the oscillations with your battery disconnected from the circuit.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 02:43:40 AM
TK
We are most certainly on the same side of this argument. I AGREE. ABSOLUTELY. The function generator is NOT a source of current flow in our circuit. WHY do you keep plugging this?
Rosie posing
WHAAT?
THE FUNCTION GENERATOR IS most certainly A SOURCE OF CURRENT IN YOUR CIRCUIT.
WE DO NOT AGREE on this. What is the matter with you? Can you not read or understand simple sentences any more?
AND YET ANOTHER PAGE WASTED on Ainslie's idiocy, covering up yet another set of issues demonstrating her ignorance and mendacity. Thank you very much.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:38:34 AM
When you find it. I laugh at you, wasting your time bent over a hot computer, looking at all my videos and forum posts so that you can distort, misinterpret, and lie about them.
You accuse and then can't back it up. I SHOW the truth of the things I say about YOU and your lies. Every thing I say has been backed up with external evidence, simple demonstrations, and references to YOUR OWN WORDs for a lot of it, like your FG current fiasco that you are now trying to squirm out of.
I assure you TinselKoala - that I have NEVER DEVIATED from this statement that the function generator does not pass current to the circuit. You - on the contrary - both require and attempt to show that it does.
Rosie poser
And I have done so many times, and if you would only check you will find that yours does too.
What is the IsoTech GFG324? Where is there any information on this function generator?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:45:40 AM
WHAAT?
THE FUNCTION GENERATOR IS most certainly A SOURCE OF CURRENT IN YOUR CIRCUIT.
So you keep saying. The function generator is not the source of current in our circuit. It can only apply a voltage at the Gate of Q1 or Q2. That applied VOLTAGE enables the flow of current from the battery supply source. It applies a signal. It does not apply a flow of current. A current typically returns to its source. Or it cannot flow. The source of the function generator's current flow is from the plug. It goes back to the plug. The source of the circuit's current flow is from its battery supply source. It goes back to the battery supply source. The current from that supply source cannot REACH the function generator's probe - or its terminal. EVER. You are arguing that the current from the supply battery runs through the function generator probes to reach the source rail of the battery supply. I am saying that this is NOT the case. In fact, I'm saying that it's impossible. However, either you or right or I'm right. The evidence is in whether or not that waveform then resolves itself as a positive wave. Because, if the Gate of Q2 were able to pass current through the function generator probes - then the resulting voltage across the Current Sensing Resistor - would be REMAIN positive. Therefore the evident voltage across the CSR would be greater than zero and there would then be no oscillation. There is an oscillation. therefore the current flow from the battery supply source has not been enabled.
Again,
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:43:58 AM
I understand what "disconnected from the circuit" means. But you as usual define that differently don't you.
Let's see the oscillations with your battery disconnected from the circuit.
That's what you're seeing. Every time you see an oscillation. IF the batteries WERE connected then it would pass current through Q1. Then it would pass current through Q2. And so on. Depending on the applied signal at those gates. That means that either Q1 is on. Or Q2 is on. ALWAYS. Which would give you a continual positive voltage across your current viewing resistor with an occasional default to zero when the signal switches. There is NO continual positive voltage across the current viewing resistor. On the contrary.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 03:10:58 AM
So you keep saying. The function generator is not the source of current in our circuit. It can only apply a voltage at the Gate of Q1 or Q2. That applied VOLTAGE enables the flow of current from the battery supply source. It applies a signal. It does not apply a flow of current. A current typically returns to its source. Or it cannot flow. The source of the function generator's current flow is from the plug. It goes back to the plug. The source of the circuit's current flow is from its battery supply source. It goes back to the battery supply source. The current from that supply source cannot REACH the function generator's probe - or its terminal. EVER. You are arguing that the current from the supply battery runs through the function generator probes to reach the source rail of the battery supply. I am saying that this is NOT the case. In fact, I'm saying that it's impossible. However, either you or right or I'm right. The evidence is in whether or not that waveform then resolves itself as a positive wave. Because, if the Gate of Q2 were able to pass current through the function generator probes - then the resulting voltage across the Current Sensing Resistor - would be REMAIN positive. Therefore the evident voltage across the CSR would be greater than zero and there would then be no oscillation. There is an oscillation. therefore the current flow from the battery supply source has not been enabled.
Again,
Rosie Pose
These appear to be English words. But they make no sense as sentences.
Mile High has told you about terminology that you are continuing to abuse.
And nobody has said anything about "the gate of Q2 passing current through the function generator probe" except you in your misrepresentations.
"There is an oscillation. therefore the current flow from the battery supply source has not been enabled."
As has been explained to you many times, the oscillations ARE enabling current flow from the battery. You are ignoring the evidence that your own data provides, in addition to ignoring my data. You are not only willfully ignorant, you are pathologically neurotic as well. You have not corrected any of your egregious errors at all.
What is the IsoTech GFG 324 function generator? Where can I find out about this function generator on the internet?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:30:23 AM
These appear to be English words. But they make no sense as sentences.
Mile High has told you about terminology that you are continuing to abuse.
And nobody has said anything about "the gate of Q2 passing current through the function generator probe" except you in your misrepresentations.
"There is an oscillation. therefore the current flow from the battery supply source has not been enabled."
As has been explained to you many times, the oscillations ARE enabling current flow from the battery. You are ignoring the evidence that your own data provides, in addition to ignoring my data. You are not only willfully ignorant, you are pathologically neurotic as well. You have not corrected any of your egregious errors at all.
What is the IsoTech GFG 324 function generator? Where can I find out about this function generator on the internet?
You cannot have the argument both ways TK. If you are now saying that the current from the battery is enabled at Q2 during the OFF period of each switching cycle - then you'd most CERTAINLY get a positive discharge from the battery. Because the positive signal at the gates of those MOSFETS ENABLES the flow of current from the battery supply. In exactly the same way as the positive signal applied to the Gate of Q1 enables a flow of current from the battery supply. And insulting me does not strengthen your argument. It simply shows us that you cannot argue this point. Of course you can't. You don't even see the argument.
Sadly.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 03:28:50 AM
That's what you're seeing. Every time you see an oscillation. IF the batteries WERE connected then it would pass current through Q1. Then it would pass current through Q2. And so on. Depending on the applied signal at those gates. That means that either Q1 is on. Or Q2 is on. ALWAYS. Which would give you a continual positive voltage across your current viewing resistor with an occasional default to zero when the signal switches. There is NO continual positive voltage across the current viewing resistor. On the contrary.
Rosie Pose
You again have no idea what you are talking about. During the oscillations the battery is most certainly not disconnected from the circuit. IT IS POWERING THE OSCILLATIONS, you dimwit. Several people have told you that the mosfet(s) are operating in the linear region. You don't know what that means. Look it up.
When you use a POSITIVE going gate drive pulse, the oscillations are turned OFF by the FG's output and there is indeed POSITIVE DC CURRENT FLOW from solidly on mosfets as shown by your own scope shots. When there is only a negative gate drive the oscillations persist and the mosfets operate in the linear current flow region: the resistance from drain to source depends on the magnitude of the charge on the gate, which is modulated by the oscillations.
THE OSCILLATIONS ARE POWERED BY THE BATTERY AND THE BIAS SOURCE, whether it is a FG, a battery or the squirrels in your head.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 03:35:34 AM
You cannot have the argument both ways TK. If you are now saying that the current from the battery is enabled at Q2 during the OFF period of each switching cycle - then you'd most CERTAINLY get a positive discharge from the battery. Because the positive signal at the gates of those MOSFETS ENABLES the flow of current from the battery supply. In exactly the same way as the positive signal applied to the Gate of Q1 enables a flow of current from the battery supply. And insulting me does not strengthen your argument. It simply shows us that you cannot argue this point. Of course you can't. You don't even see the argument.
Sadly.
Rosie Pose
I am banging my head on the keyboard. CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?
When you supply a negative voltage to the source of Q2 you are THEREFORE and at the SAME TIME SUPPLYING A POSITIVE VOLTAGE TO ITS GATE.
Your use of "off portion of switching cycle" is meaningless. Your FG supplies a voltage that is positive or negative depending on its waveshape setting and the OFFSET. One polarity affects one mosfet, the other polarity affects the other mosfets, you think, but this is much too simple. If you provide a pulse that is from negative to zero to the source pin of your Q2 mosfets, the gate of those mosfets sees a POSITIVE voltage when the source is negative, whether it is from the oscillations or the FG+battery combo, with respect to the source pin, because that's how your circuit is wired. VOLTAGE IS RELATIVE to some reference. A Negative voltage on the source means a positive voltage on the gate. You are turning your Q2 mosfets partially on with the negative voltage to the source and this is what causes the oscillations, as Mile High (I think) described in detail, period by period, some time ago buried under all your crap.
What is the IsoTech GFG 324 function generator? Where can I find information about this on the internet?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:35:37 AM
You again have no idea what you are talking about. During the oscillations the battery is most certainly not disconnected from the circuit. IT IS POWERING THE OSCILLATIONS, you dimwit. Several people have told you that the mosfet(s) are operating in the linear region. You don't know what that means. Look it up.
You are repeating you argument. And your argument is wrong. IF the gate at Q1 has a positive signal - then the gate at Q2 is negative. If the gate at Q2 has a positive signal then the Gate at Q1 is negative. In a switched cycle either one or the other gate is continually biased to allow a flow of current from the battery supply. The battery cannot discharge a negative current flow. Therefore the current flow that the gates allow needs must be greater than zero. So. Again. If there is a positive signal - then there is a continual path for the discharge from the battery supply. That you are CLAIMING what SEVERAL people have told me - does NOT make it right. Because the fact remains. According to you ALL - there is a continual path available for the discharge of energy from that battery supply. Which means that the there would be NO interruptions from the battery supply. Which means that the voltage waveform across the current sensing resistor or the current 'viewing' resistor - as you put it - would remain greater than zero.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:35:37 AMWhen you use a POSITIVE going gate drive pulse, the oscillations are turned OFF by the FG's output and there is indeed POSITIVE DC CURRENT FLOW from solidly on mosfets as shown by your own scope shots.
Correct. I absolutely agree.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:35:37 AMWhen there is only a negative gate drive the oscillations persist and the mosfets operate in the linear current flow region: the resistance from drain to source depends on the magnitude of the charge on the gate, which is modulated by the oscillations.
I WOULD agree - except that according to you there is NEVER a continual negative voltage applied to those gates. Either the one is on or the other. That's according to your assessments.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:35:37 AMTHE OSCILLATIONS ARE POWERED BY THE BATTERY AND THE BIAS SOURCE, whether it is a FG, a battery or the squirrels in your head.
I realise that this is your argument. It's fallacious - in the same way as there are no squirrels in my head. I think the term is 'projection'.
Rosie Posie
QuoteAccording to you ALL - there is a continual path available for the discharge of energy from that battery supply. Which means that the there would be NO interruptions from the battery supply. Which means that the voltage waveform across the current sensing resistor or the current 'viewing' resistor - as you put it - would remain greater than zero.
No, Ainslie. That is NOT what we ALL are saying at all. We are saying that the oscillations are turning the mosfets partially on, at a high frequency and not totally on. Linear region, remember? Once again you are misinterpreting deliberately and distorting what we have been telling you so that you can lie about it in a post like that one.
QuoteI WOULD agree - except that according to you there is NEVER a continual negative voltage applied to those gates. Either the one is on or the other. That's according to your assessments.
Where did I ever say this? Once again you get a simple fact wrong and distort it on playback.
You fool, for the past WEEK at least we have been using a CONSTANT DC NEGATIVE VOLTAGE to the source of Q2 and the GATE of Q1, supplied in various ways, and always resulting in a current flow, NOT THROUGH THE GATE but through the drain-load-battery-source pathway that is in PARALLEL with the voltage applied to the gate of Q2. This negative voltage on the SOURCE of Q2 results in the GATE of Q2 seeing a CONSTANT POSITIVE BIAS that is added to by the oscillations which are most certainly POWERED BY THE MAIN BATTERIES.
What is the IsoTech GFG 324 function generator? Where can I find information about this on the internet?
So now you are claiming that the oscillations are not powered by the battery.
So... we have YET ANOTHER free energy machine that needs a battery to run, but isn't powered by it, but when the battery is removed entirely, or even replaced by a capacitor... the machine won't run at all, much less make free energy.
The secret of overunity and free energy isn't in some specific circuit or pulse motor... it is IN THE BATTERIES !! As long as you have some fully charged batteries, your Free Energy machine will run just fine !! And all the time we were thinking it's the circuit. It's the BATTERIES that make a free energy machine work, every time !!
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:45:30 AM
I am banging my head on the keyboard. CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?
I understand English very well. I write it very well. I am entirely and sufficiently competent in this regard. Are you?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:45:30 AMWhen you supply a negative voltage to the source of Q2 you are THEREFORE and at the SAME TIME SUPPLYING A POSITIVE VOLTAGE TO ITS GATE.
INDEED.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:45:30 AMYour use of "off portion of switching cycle" is meaningless.
It is the standard term applied to a switching cycle and is WIDELY USED in mainstream both by electrical technicians and by power engineers and by all electrical engineers. And its meaning NEVER varies.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:45:30 AMYour FG supplies a voltage that is positive or negative depending on its waveshape setting and the OFFSET.
Not actually. The offset determines the level of the zero reference. But otherwise I concur.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:45:30 AMOne polarity affects one mosfet, the other polarity affects the other mosfets, you think, but this is much too simple. If you provide a pulse that is from negative to zero to the source pin of your Q2 mosfets, the gate of those mosfets sees a POSITIVE voltage when the source is negative, whether it is from the oscillations or the FG+battery combo, with respect to the source pin, because that's how your circuit is wired.
LISTEN UP TK. We apply the probe of the function generator directly to the Gate of Q1. We apply its terminal to the Gate of Q2. And I challenge you to do this as well. Precisely to highlight our argument. I will run our demonstration of this and thereby prove what I am here stating. Therefore the applied negative or positive to the source rail is IMMATERIAL. Because then you will see that there is always an applied positive bias to afford a battery discharge during both periods of that switching cycle. The battery can take it's pick. Q1 or Q2. That would resolve in a continual discharge from the battery which would be a continual above ground voltage waveform.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:45:30 AMVOLTAGE IS RELATIVE to some reference. A Negative voltage on the source means a positive voltage on the gate.
That is your assumption. What we prove is that a negative at the Gate of Q1 would be a positive at the Gate of Q2. And correspondingly a positive at the Gate of Q2 would be a negative at the Gate of Q1.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 03:45:30 AMYou are turning your Q2 mosfets partially on with the negative voltage to the source and this is what causes the oscillations, as Mile High (I think) described in detail, period by period, some time ago buried under all your crap.
TK. I assure you BOTH - that there is no possibility of an oscillation if you have a continual path from either Q1 or Q2. It has NOTHING to do with whatever signal is at the source rail.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 04:14:10 AM
So now you are claiming that the oscillations are not powered by the battery.
So... we have YET ANOTHER free energy machine that needs a battery to run, but isn't powered by it, but when the battery is removed entirely, or even replaced by a capacitor... the machine won't run at all, much less make free energy.
The secret of overunity and free energy isn't in some specific circuit or pulse motor... it is IN THE BATTERIES !! As long as you have some fully charged batteries, your Free Energy machine will run just fine !! And all the time we were thinking it's the circuit. It's the BATTERIES that make a free energy machine work, every time !!
I have even referenced the PRECISE PARAGRAPH in our paper that refers to this. Indeed. The oscillation is NOT powered by the battery. It simply is advantaged by that available potential difference. That is what we're claiming. And proving. For the oscillation to occur there HAS TO BE A DISCONNECT FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY. Therefore the battery is NOT connected during the period when the positive signal is applied to Q2 - whether it be a signal from a function generator - or a 555 with it's own battery supply - or whether the 555 switch is operated by the circuit's battery supply. And we've tested all variations of that switch. But not to our circuit apparatus - YET.
Rosemary
added
QuoteLISTEN UP TK. We apply the probe of the function generator directly to the Gate of Q1. We apply its terminal to the Gate of Q2. And I challenge you to do this as well. Precisely to highlight our argument. I will run our demonstration of this and thereby prove what I am here stating. Therefore the applied negative or positive to the source rail is IMMATERIAL. Because then you will see that there is always an applied positive bias to afford a battery discharge during both periods of that switching cycle. The battery can take it's pick. Q1 or Q2. That would resolve in a continual discharge from the battery which would be a continual above ground voltage waveform.
LISTEN UP YOU. I ALWAYS USE THE SAME CIRCUIT HOOKUPS AS YOU except as specified, and WE ARE NOT USING THE FUNCTION GENERATOR ANY MORE. But when I do it is applied EXACTLY LIKE YOURS and your insinuations that it is not is ANOTHER LIE from you.
The rest of that paragraph is your usual word salad. Source rail? The battery can take its pick? (Without the non-English comma.) You are using the offset of your FG to provide a signal that is both positive and negative and you don't even realize it. The evidence for this is in your own scope shots in your papers.
Quote
TK said: VOLTAGE IS RELATIVE to some reference. A Negative voltage on the source means a positive voltage on the gate.
That is your assumption.
That is an absolute fact. And anyone can prove it empirically and electrical line maintenance techs prove it every day when they work on live high voltage wires.
QuoteWhat we prove is that a negative at the Gate of Q1 would be a positive at the Gate of Q2. And correspondingly a positive at the Gate of Q2 would be a negative at the Gate of Q1.
Then you are proving the obvious, because any child can see that your circuit, when fed by the FG, is wired that way. And I have never disputed that point. What you WON'T be proving is that your batteries don't discharge... because they do.
QuoteTK said: You are turning your Q2 mosfets partially on with the negative voltage to the source and this is what causes the oscillations, as Mile High (I think) described in detail, period by period, some time ago buried under all your crap.
TK. I assure you BOTH - that there is no possibility of an oscillation if you have a continual path from either Q1 or Q2. It has NOTHING to do with whatever signal is at the source rail.
You assure us "both"? There is only one of me.
The signal at the "source rail" determines whether and which mosfets turn on. And I have ALWAYS SAID and demonstrated many times that when one or more mosfets are solidly on, the oscillations stop. I have said MANY TIMES that the main function of the FG, other than providing BIAS CURRENT FLOW, is to turn the oscillations off by turning mosfets on.
Again, you lie by distorting my actual position and by missing the point altogether.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 04:21:00 AM
I have even referenced the PRECISE PARAGRAPH in our paper that refers to this. Indeed. The oscillation is NOT powered by the battery. It simply is advantaged by that available potential difference. That is what we're claiming. And proving. For the oscillation to occur there HAS TO BE A DISCONNECT FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY. Therefore the battery is NOT connected during the period when the positive signal is applied to Q2 - whether it be a signal from a function generator - or a 555 with it's own battery supply - or whether the 555 switch is operated by the circuit's battery supply. And we've tested all variations of that switch. But not to our circuit apparatus - YET.
Rosemary
added
Yes Rosemary we all know what your claim is. You are wrong, though, and this has already been demonstrated. Remember the capacitor?
And you are truly pathetic. There are MILLIONS of variations of 555 timer circuits and you have not tested them all. And furthermore... The MOSFETS ARE THE SWITCH. Your 555 or function generator is only the "finger on the switch".
And even furthermore... nobody is now interested in 555 timers or function generators. You will have to show your circuit running on DC negative bias signal using its own main battery, and show that it heats a load usefully and does not discharge its batteries. THE 555 or FG are IRRELEVANT and have been superseded. Get with it. You are hopelessly behind... because Tar Baby is READY NOW and can demonstrate EVERYTHING you actually have demonstrated.. NOW... and it can do it without using a function generator or an external bias supply.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2012, 09:45:19 PM
PW,
This is for you, as requested. ;)
Note; I did not add any inductance. It oscillates nicely with the filtering across all the batteries.
Also note that 3.3W x 4 = 13.2W, precisely the same value obtained by using the power probe on one battery and multiplying by 6x.
.99.
Why does the 3.3W need to be multiplied by 4? I understood the 6X with one battery, but I am a bit confused regarding the 4X above.
I am assuming you are doing (single Vbatt x 6) x (I)= PW and (all 6 Vbatt) x (I)= PW. Should they not be the same?
When you have a moment...
Thanks,
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 30, 2012, 08:47:36 AM
.99.
Why does the 3.3W need to be multiplied by 4? I understood the 6X with one battery, but I am a bit confused regarding the 4X above.
I am assuming you are doing (single Vbatt x 6) x (I)= PW and (all 6 Vbatt) x (I)= PW. Should they not be the same?
When you have a moment...
Thanks,
PW
These computations are in reference to the filtering across all 6 batteries. So the 6x factor was for probing the power in one battery and multiplying by 6 to get the total battery power.
The 3.3W battery power was computed by
AVG[V1-V2(t) x V4-V3(t)] (V1-V2 is VBAT and V4-V3 is VCSR), but this does not account for the 0.25 Ohm CSR value. Therefore if we multiply the 3.3W by 4x, it equals the actual battery power as determined by the power probes.
This demonstrates that in order to obtain the correct total battery power, we should be treating the CSR value as 0.25 Ohms, not 1 Ohm.
If you read my analysis, you would see it explained there.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 09:28:22 AM
These computations are in reference to the filtering across all 6 batteries. So the 6x factor was for probing the power in one battery and multiplying by 6 to get the total battery power.
The 3.3W battery power was computed by AVG[V1-V2(t) x V4-V3(t)] (V1-V2 is VBAT and V4-V3 is VCSR), but this does not account for the 0.25 Ohm CSR value. Therefore if we multiply the 3.3W by 4x, it equals the actual battery power as determined by the power probes.
This demonstrates that in order to obtain the correct total battery power, we should be treating the CSR value as 0.25 Ohms, not 1 Ohm.
If you read my analysis, you would see it explained there.
.99,
I thought you were using a current probe for "I". That was my confusion.
Thanks .99,
PW
MileHigh - I missed this post of yours.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 09:02:39 PM
PW, TK, myself, anyone on here is under no obligation to reveal his or her identity. I have already told you that I have read several postings by little kitchen table top experimenters making pulse motors that made it very clear that they were packing guns and would "fight to the death" if the "MIB" came after them.
I find this so amusing. The MIB indeed. I don't think anyone in their right mind would assume that any of you are MIB. All I'm claiming is that there's a mission to deny any evidence of OVER UNITY. And that mission does NOT rely on scientific argument.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 09:02:39 PMSo you stop your ridiculousness. The internet has from the beginning allowed people to protect their identity if they want to. If I want my identity to be revealed I can go on Facebook. I am not exposing myself to the small chance of being shot dead in the street by a FUCKING NUTCASE. Do you understand?
I'm not sure that any of us want to know your identity MileHigh. I certainly don't. I quite enjoy your posts - as a rule. Latterly they've become rather too transparently partial. But as a rule they're quite clever. And they usually have artistic merit. And I have no intention of exposing picowatt's identify. I've been cautioned against using their actual names. But it'll come out in the wash. That's for sure.
Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 09:02:39 PMLikewise, stop chasing after PW for teaching children to solder under supervised conditions. What you are doing is simply awful, it's disgusting. He is a good decent man and you are trying to imply he has done something unethical. It's SICK, and you are the one being unethical. I will complain to Stephan if you dare mention that again.
This is rich. MileHigh the excessively responsible poster who also strictly follows forum guidelines - is threatening to report me to Stefan? For what? For defending my corner? My character? My competence? And that defense is 'disgusting' as you put it? You - of all people? Trying to justify some elevated moral high ground? Good gracious MileHigh. I'm not sure that's an attitude that you can project in the face of your own slanderous accusations against me and your own general forum deportment. And you think it's perfectly in order for picowatt to infer and imply my lack of intellectual competence - to compare it to the competence of under sixes - and that he may do so without my 'defense' of those insinuations? I must just sit back and allow this 'opinion' to be suggested as a 'fact'? So yes. Feel free to complain to Stefan. Then I will remind him of your own slanderous comments and picowatt's. And then let any fair minded person tell me if I'm expected to say nothing in the face of that slander. If picowatt actually takes the trouble to teach under sixes the art of soldering - then I'll eat my hat. I NEVER implied that I believed him. I think it would stretch the credulity of the most utterly naive. But there you go. Clearly he's convinced you.
Regards,
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:07:48 PM
I see now that Ainslie is doing her usual thing: she's now claiming that she hasn't been claiming that the FG can't pass current, now that I have made it impossible for her to deny that it does and HER ADVISORS have told her what's what.
But all of us reading here know that she has in fact denied it most vehemently until just today.
NO TK. Not actually. Not EVER. You've rather relied on this 'spin' to advise the utterly uncritical PhiChaser - and possibly hoptoad - that I EVER claimed that a function generator does not pass current. But the 'real truth' is that I ONLY claimed that it never passed current through the gates of Q1 or even Q2. Nor does it. EVER. And that slew of 'examples' that you posted of my own work NOWHERE claims otherwise.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:07:48 PMAinlsie, you liar, I see you've been going back and editing to CHANGE THE MEANING of your old posts again, you liar.
It is certainly NOT me who is lying and IF and WHEN I edit a post I make AMPLE reference.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:07:48 PM
And there are still more that you haven't changed yet... but I have the entire thread archived and you can't edit that.
If there is any evidence anywhere at all that I claim that a function generator cannot pass current as you imply - then PROVE IT. A function generator DOES pass current. It does NOT pass current to our circuit. It applies a VOLTAGE. That is ALL that I've ever said. You either DELIBERATELY 'implied' otherwise or you rather recklessly 'assumed' otherwise. In either event - it was an inappropriate implication or an inappropriate assumption.
And the fact that it does not pass current to the circuit is something you have STILL not addressed. You have simply 'ASSUMED' that it does - based on what now appears to be MileHigh's explanation. I keep telling you. You'd do better to base your 'belief' on known physics. Right now you're assuming that current flow can defy our inductive laws. Not sure that's entirely correct.
Rosie Pose.
You have said many times that the FG does not pass current to your circuit, but in fact it does, I have proven it several times,
AND BECAUSE OF THIS WE ARE NO LONGER USING A FUNCTION GENERATOR.
AND YOU WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO NOT USE A FUNCTION GENERATOR OR A 555 TIMER.
So you had better get cracking.
ANY CHILD can tell you that the FG, or whatever bias source you use, is IN SERIES with the main battery, the load, the mosfets and the CVR.... IT IS IN SERIES. And the gate(s) are in parallel with this series arrangement of the bias source and the battery. TRACE OUT THE DIAGRAM as MH has asked you to do many times, and as I have done in a video. DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK for a change.
This means it "passes current" and it also means that its VOLTAGE is added to that of the main battery AS I HAVE INDEED AMPLY SHOWN. Once again you lie by implying that I have not shown this... but it is your own cognitive impairment that doesn't allow YOU to see what everybody else reading this thread sees very clearly.
What is the IsoTech GFG324 function generator? Where can I find information about this generator? How many times have I asked for this information... Miss Open Source? Your only recourse is to identify this FG to explain how it cannot do what every other FG in the world can do.
Is it a misprint, a typo, ANOTHER MISTAKE THAT YOU HAVE NOT CORRECTED? What is the make and model number of the FG that was used in the paper?
What is the IsoTech GFG324 function generator?
Can or does current pass to or from the function generator (FG) in the NERD circuit? Evidence from the simulation indicates that it does. See attached.
QuoteAnd the fact that it does not pass current to the circuit is something you have STILL not addressed. You have simply 'ASSUMED' that it does - based on what now appears to be MileHigh's explanation. I keep telling you. You'd do better to base your 'belief' on known physics. Right now you're assuming that current flow can defy our inductive laws. Not sure that's entirely correct.
Your statement is entirely a LIE, that's what it is.
I have addressed this issue MANY TIMES in these posts and in video demonstrations. EVERY OTHER POSTER on this thread, people who have far more demonstrated knowledge, skill and experience than you do.... they all agree.
I KEEP TELLING YOU that "known physics" exactly explains the functioning of your circuit in all respects INCLUDING that in a series arrangement of power supplies CURRENT WILL FLOW through them all.
"Inductive laws" have nothing to do with DC CURRENT FLOW. All "inductive laws" incorporate the TIME RATE OF CHANGE of current, magnetic field, voltage, etc. THEY DO NOT APPLY WITH DC CURRENTS which are supplied by your series arrangement of power sources. Your OSCILLATIONS are an inductive phenomenon but that has NOTHING TO DO with your garbled interpretation, and the oscillations are most certainly powered by the power sources of your circuit. The mosfet gate is partially charged during each single oscillation period and the drain-source channel partly opens and current flows. This is NOT an inductive phenomenon, it is a FIELD EFFECT. It has nothing to do with "inducing" currents anywhere. The oscillations are indeed "induced" by inductive interactions among the stray wiring and rat's nest layout... but the mosfets are switched by ELECTRIC FIELDS applied to their gates. The time rate of change of these fields are unimportant except as they affect the switching speed of the mosfet. It is electric charge MAGNITUDE that determines whether and how much a mosfet "switches" on. The magnitude of the electric charge on the gate varies during the oscillations but the degree of switching is a FIRST ORDER effect related only to the magnitude of the charge on the gate, NOT HOW FAST OR SLOW IT CHANGES, a second order relation. If the gate charge varies FAST ENOUGH (RF, by definition AC) then its capacitance CAN AND DOES pass substantial current to the drain-source main current pathway... and this too is NOT an inductive effect, but a capacitative one having to do with ELECTRIC FIELDS which you do not understand at all.
Therefore, again you LIE, by misrepresentation and claiming things that are not true, both regarding my position and the behaviour of your circuit.
NOW, Poser, show something besides a bunch of word salad..... DO YOUR TESTING, and demonstrate your claims.
Of course you will not do this... because you CANNOT.
What is the IsoTech GFG 324 function generator? Where can I find information about this FG?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 11:36:54 AM
Can or does current pass to or from the function generator (FG) in the NERD circuit? Evidence from the simulation indicates that it does. See attached.
Thanks for posting that. Evidence from the real hardware indicates that it does, as well, as I have shown.
But you know... simulations are only good if they SUPPORT Ainslie's points. If they refute them, they are obviously wrong. Current physics, you know. Ainslie is always right, and if you think Ainslie is wrong, you must be faking your sim or demos, because Ainslie is always right.
Do YOU know what a IsoTech GFG 324 is?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 11:46:04 AM
Do YOU know what a IsoTech GFG 324 is?
No I don't. I researched it long ago when I first saw the listed model number. I came up empty-handed in terms of any information on this model, nor could I find any reference to that model number at all. It does not appear to exist...at least not on the web.
Here is reference to that discussion back in January.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 11:50:32 AM
No I don't. I researched it long ago when I first saw the listed model number. I came up empty-handed in terms of any information on this model, nor could I find any reference to that model number at all. It does not appear to exist...at least not on the web.
Once again we agree-- our results are essentially identical. The IsoTech GFG 324 appears to exist only in Table 1 of "paper" 1, in Ainslie's mind, and nowhere else. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this point, because I want to see a schematic of this FG that she claims will not put current through a resistance in a closed circuit.
IsoTech appears to rebrand Instek equipment, though. The FG used in the demo seems to be one of the InsTek GFG 8215 series, low-cost (200 dollar price point) and perfectly ordinary in terms of offset and input impedance and ability to work in series with other power supplies.
http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8215A.html
So... is it possible that the "IsoTech GFG 324" is some kind of YET UNCORRECTED ERROR in Ainslie's draft sketches of her experimental report?
My guess is (and I posted this also back some time ago) was that Rosemary made an error, and mixed up the model numbers of the FG and the scope. The scope they used is a LeCroy 324 WaveJet.
So the GFG part may be correct.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 12:00:59 PM
Here is reference to that discussion back in January.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454)
That's a "discussion"? I remember it well. You posted a picture showing that you can even read enough of the model number in the video demo to see that it is an IsoTek GFG8216 FG. Yet Rosemary Ainslie replied with this:
QuoteBut we would then need to pretend that we were using an - Instek GFG-8216A. Our model is - in fact a IsoTech GFG 324.
And that was the end of her "refutation" of your posted photograph.
So, the mystery remains. Could Ainslie be WRONG about something? Could she have made ERRORS that stand uncorrected?
WHERE is there any reference anywhere in the world, other than in Ainslie's paper, to the IsoTech GFG 324? I need to see the schematic of the unit they actually used, so I can see why it can't supply current to the circuit when every other FG in the world could do so.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 12:06:54 PM
My guess is (and I posted this also back some time ago) was that Rosemary made an error, and mixed up the model numbers of the FG and the scope. The scope they used is a LeCroy 324 WaveJet.
So the GFG part may be correct.
Yes, I remember that part too. But she said,
QuoteBut we would then need to pretend that we were using an - Instek GFG-8216A. Our model is - in fact a IsoTech GFG 324.
Isn't this a denial of error and a proclamation that the GFG 324 designation is correct?
So, since Ainslie ALWAYS corrects errors and typos as soon as they are pointed out to her.... what gives? Either there IS such a FG as the IsoTech GFG324 and we are just too stupid to be able to find it on the internet (and she is too stubborn to post a link or a photograph or a manual reference or a store that carries them for sale).... OR..... somebody is lying AGAIN.
And if something so clear and easy to check as the model number of an instrument is... WRONG... in her "papers".... what does that say about the many uncheckable pieces of DATA that she has posted, like those scope shots that have incorrect captions?
Is Channel 1 really displaying an integral in this picture? How is that done, on the LeCroy that can only do one math trace, when the math trace is doing a straight multiplication? Is the caption in error? The NUMBERS in the scope's parameters box are a computed integral... but the trace shows no such thing, and an integral _value_ , not a trace, shown in this way is more garbage out from the Ainslie scoposcopy sandbox.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 10:16:51 AM
MileHigh - I missed this post of yours.I find this so amusing. The MIB indeed. I don't think anyone in their right mind would assume that any of you are MIB. All I'm claiming is that there's a mission to deny any evidence of OVER UNITY. And that mission does NOT rely on scientific argument.
I'm not sure that any of us want to know your identity MileHigh. I certainly don't. I quite enjoy your posts - as a rule. Latterly they've become rather too transparently partial. But as a rule they're quite clever. And they usually have artistic merit. And I have no intention of exposing picowatt's identify. I've been cautioned against using their actual names. But it'll come out in the wash. That's for sure.
This is rich. MileHigh the excessively responsible poster who also strictly follows forum guidelines - is threatening to report me to Stefan? For what? For defending my corner? My character? My competence? And that defense is 'disgusting' as you put it? You - of all people? Trying to justify some elevated moral high ground? Good gracious MileHigh. I'm not sure that's an attitude that you can project in the face of your own slanderous accusations against me and your own general forum deportment. And you think it's perfectly in order for picowatt to infer and imply my lack of intellectual competence - to compare it to the competence of under sixes - and that he may do so without my 'defense' of those insinuations? I must just sit back and allow this 'opinion' to be suggested as a 'fact'? So yes. Feel free to complain to Stefan. Then I will remind him of your own slanderous comments and picowatt's. And then let any fair minded person tell me if I'm expected to say nothing in the face of that slander. If picowatt actually takes the trouble to teach under sixes the art of soldering - then I'll eat my hat. I NEVER implied that I believed him. I think it would stretch the credulity of the most utterly naive. But there you go. Clearly he's convinced you.
Regards,
Rosie Pose
My Dear Rosemary,
As for stretching the "credulity of the most utterly naive", are you speaking of yourself?
Children between 3 and 6 years of age, are to me, at the most precious period of their life. They are like little sponges for knowledge, so bright eyed and innocent. They are in awe of the world around them and are always full of questions, trying to figure it all out.
Just as you will not accept how your circuit operates, you apparently cannot understand how children of that age group can possibly be taught to solder. Possibly at that age, you may not have been able to be taught how to do so, but all that I have had the very great pleasure with which to do so, had no problem at all. There was one minor burn, but two days later even she was back at it. How else can a child learn what "hot" is anyway?
The circuit was a simple two transistor siren circuit. I would premount the little speaker, the toggle switch, the pushbutton and 9V battery holder onto a 2" by 6" piece of perfboard. Back then we used flea clips for mounting parts. I would pre-install the fleaclips, crimp the components to the clips, and crimp and loop the backside busswire connections. Any one who has done perfboard work in this fashion fully understands the process. The transistors were TO39 packaged 2N2102 and 2N4036 which I always had plenty of, and the rest of the parts came from Radio Shack, which back then sold under the Archer brand (ring a bell to any old guys?).
All that would remain is to solder the top side parts to the flea clips, and then flip the board and solder the buss wire to the flea clip tails. At the kitchen table I would set up my TC202 Weller to the right and the perfboard was held on a PCB stand in the center. A spool of solder was to the left. I would have the kids, one at a time obviously, sit on my lap with our arms alongside each so if a burn event looked possible, I could snatch the iron.
Now, all the child has to do is remove the iron from stand with right hand, wipe the tip the on sponge, tin the tip with the solder held in left hand, touch the tip to a preselected joint, apply solder to the joint, return the iron to the holder and then sit back and admire their accomplishment with a big grin from them, and praise from me. There were maybe 50 connections or less in total to solder, and it took several days to finish the task for most, one joint at a time, several joints per session. Once completed, they could turn on the toggle switch and when they pressed the pushbutton, the siren would wail with an increasing pitch for the duration of the button press. Releasing the button would cause the pitch to decrease until the oscillator stopped. Very simple.
After I did this with one child, the neighbor kids were in envy and I asked if they wanted to give it a go, and they did. The small monetary cost and time spent, was, I felt, a worthy investment in sparking the imagination of a child at that age, and instilling the sense of accomplishment that they were so proud of. As much as they enjoyed their accomplishment, it was more a joy for me to see them running around the neighborhood annoying all with sirens. They, on their own, discovered they could touch various points on the board and modulate the siren and were simply amazed at the sounds they could make.
I would suggest anyone with a skill in any field, take the time to share it. I've seen 5 year olds help Daddys change oil, and operate a grease gun. And they, as well, are always grinning from ear to ear with their new found sense of accomplishment and smudges of grease on their face.
I honestly cannot grasp how you find it so unbelievable that a child can be taught to do the simple steps outlined above required to solder. Possibly it is more an assessment of your capabilities at that age. Possibly you had no one that bothered to take the time with you. I don't know, and personally, I don't care. It was one of the more enjoyable times in my life, and the "likes of you" cannot in any way diminish those memories.
So, move along, find some other gibberish wth which to fill this otherwise interesting thread. I have no further desire to engage with you at any level.
And if you are going to eat a hat, I prefer that you do so with a leather or possibly felt hat. Something very dry and chewy.
PW
Good for you, PW !!
What you describe is very similar to what happened to me. I was one of those little kids ! Well, I was a little bit older, I think, but the neighbor across the street did something very similar for the kids in our neighborhood. He was packaging and selling little electronic kits, among which was a crystal radio. He showed me a lot of stuff that I still remember today. Who could have thought that simply putting a loose loudspeaker (for my one-tube radio) into a box could improve the sound so much? My father especially was amazed.
Now... here's some info for Rosemary.
In all the scope shots that show POSITIVE gate drive pulses WITH oscillations on the more negative portion..... the FG is actually supplying a bipolar pulse with a substantial negative-going component in the "off" period. This causes the oscillations in the normal manner that we have been discussing here by supplying a negative bias to the Q2 sources.
And here's the clincher: You cannot do this with a simple 555 timer. You can make the positive pulses just fine... but you can't provide the negative offset required to make the oscillations during the "off" part of the 555's cycle. Not with a simple 555 timer. It will require more complex circuitry than that... essentially a function generator itself.
And.... you cannot even use a simple 555 timer to make the strictly NEGATIVE going bias unless it is powered by either an external power source that is floating OR.... through a charge pump inverter as I have shown... by the circuit's main batteries themselves.
Boo hoo hoo. Maybe that's why you haven't been able to show your circuit jumping through hoops using a simple 555 timer circuit.
:'(
But Tar Baby can, using a bit more complex circuit.
:-*
Of course this FG and 555 talk is all MOOT anyway, since the requirement is for straight DC negative gate drive using the main battery. Which I have of course also already demonstrated, making a negative power product and a decreasing net energy integral.
8)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 12:06:54 PM
My guess is (and I posted this also back some time ago) was that Rosemary made an error, and mixed up the model numbers of the FG and the scope. The scope they used is a LeCroy 324 WaveJet.
So the GFG part may be correct.
@All,
I just got off the phone with a LeCroy 'scope application engineer in New York. The offest numbers on the LeCroy are exactly as "most" of us thought they were. They merely indicate the vertical distance of a channel's zero reference line from the horizontal center of the graticule.
I stand by my assertions regarding Q1, and again, frankly, I don't really care about it anymore.
For those in doubt, it's just a fact, get over it.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2012, 02:00:56 PM
Good for you, PW !!
What you describe is very similar to what happened to me. I was one of those little kids ! Well, I was a little bit older, I think, but the neighbor across the street did something very similar for the kids in our neighborhood. He was packaging and selling little electronic kits, among which was a crystal radio. He showed me a lot of stuff that I still remember today. Who could have thought that simply putting a loose loudspeaker (for my one-tube radio) into a box could improve the sound so much? My father especially was amazed.
TK,
The guy that got me started had a hook for a hand from an industrial accident (the mechanics of his hook actually fascinated me). Showed me some circuit's on his bench, gave me about 150 back issues of Pop 'tronics and Pop Sci' and some parts to experiment with.
I believe everyone should try to maintain this tradition of "passing it along" as best they can.
PW
Well I see it was another "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" kind of day. Enough to make one want to take a vacation. Rosemary's "explanation" of the function generator current flow issue was classic Rosemary. Where is Joit when you need him?
To be a fly on the wall when she does her own dim light bulb test would be interesting. However, just like if a tree falls in the forest... Can a dim light bulb see a dim light bulb? Hmmmm ;D
Draw up a proper diagram of the current flow Rosemary and post it because your hopeless technical English skills are like a proverbial ball and chain.
Makes a grown man cry and a dead man sum up all of his voltage slices. Ouch!
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 11:36:54 AM
Can or does current pass to or from the function generator (FG) in the NERD circuit? Evidence from the simulation indicates that it does. See attached.
Poynt. I can't follow your argument. I understood that high frequencies increase impedance - NOT lower it. And why do you think that the oscillations 'stop' when you use the 50R as appropriate? And more to the point. We have a steady state DC applied for upwards of 2 minutes - during which the oscillation persists. Impedance is not a factor when there's a DC current applied.
Here's your schematic again.
Guys,
This will be my last post on this thread - until I finalise that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos. Any new ones - and I'll add them as required. I live in a safe neighbourhood. But 4 nights ago we had an armed intruder who was foiled by my big, beautiful and brave dog - Loki - who took the knife wound in his nose and through to the bone. Our security had been very skillfully deactivated. But my panic alarm still worked. I used this and he fled. If his motive was theft - then he ignored ready and easy access to some very real and tangible valuables. And thank God - Loki is now stitched and mending. Since then I've had to invest in some much needed and constant surveillance. I have NO doubt that TK et al will dismiss all this as a fabrication. If any of you care to check this then the incident carries full reference in the case files of our local police. Email me with your disclosed identities - and I'll give you that reference together with the report from the vet.
And the questions - there are many of them - are why it should be that I was singled out in a neighbourhood that is largely exempt from this kind of event? Perhaps it's the 'hatred' that is evident in TK's, MileHigh's - picowatt's - FTC's posts. I don't know. And nor do I 'fear for my life' because frankly - I have no fear of 'death'. It is still, for me a 'consummation devoutly to be wished'. And nor is this because I'm morbid or in any way suicidal. On the contrary. I enjoy my life - hugely - on many levels. But this event, even more than a mild heart attack that I suffered a year ago - reminds me of my vulnerability. While I have no fear of death - I would, nonetheless, be very sorry to find myself on the other side of this 'reality' as MileHigh would put it - without having completed those demonstrations. And this 'noise' as TK puts it - is getting me nowhere - fast.
Therefore I'll not be posting here again. Not until I've finished that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos - where I'll expose their utter absurdities. Which I will also post on his thread. Then I've been promised two very substantial forums where I'll post daily test results and the argument in support of our thesis. This is much needed. Because a full demonstration as we plan it - will constitute publication of the papers in support of that evidence. For this I'm happy to invest. But it requires the input of experts. Because as talented as the most of us are - we are none of us sufficiently so. That body of expertise stays in the 'readership' of these forums. And that's the level that we intend engaging.
Meanwhile - to all of you. Please bear in mind that TK has had to 'fabricate' his involvement at the level that he's engaged in. All that 'spite' - those 'insults' - that 'hatred' thing? It's excessive and entirely inappropriate. And the need to pretend all that is required. Else the amount of work that he puts into this would make no sense at all. And then you would be asking the very obvious question as to WHY? IF indeed we have nothing of interest - WHY would he waste all this time? And he's well aware of it. Therefore has he been required to promote his 'engagement' on this absurdly competitive - spiteful - malicious 'personal' level. That daily barrage of 'insults' is simply to promote this 'spin'. Because that's all it is. FTC is a different 'kettle of fish'. It is my opinion that he's excessively jealous of this our work and would prefer to have it promoted in his own name. And as for picowatt. The less said the better. That expose is also 'waiting in the wings.'
To Groundloop - I can now answer you - but will do it by email. You can publish that answer or not. And Poynty Point - I hope I'll be able to engage you fully in our 'forum discussions'. You're still 'over simplifying' in my 'humble opinion' - but we'll need expert advices to determine this.
And for the rest. Here's what we'll demonstrate. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll show our COP>17 circuit variant at HIGHER than COP>17 - and that we'll also determine this against battery draw downs. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll prove that our battery supply in the NERD circuit is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each duty cycle. And to the Joule Thief thread - guys, and girls, I am ABSOLUTELY satisfied that you've been exceeding unity from the get go. I hope, most sincerely, that you'll revisit those test results with more sophisticated measuring instruments. In fact that would apply to much more than just that joule thief technology. And quite apart from everything else we still have the very real satisfaction of looking forward to the progress of LENR technology. That's taken off with the energy of a forest fire. Which is wonderful.
The news is still all good.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited some spelling. And a quick word to picowatt - I AM NOT PARANOID. That attack was NOT a figment of my imagination. And if I was to believe your 'well wishes' then I would need to ignore your slander. And I have NOT threatened you with anything. On the contrary.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
Guys,
This will be my last post on this thread - until I finalise that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos. Any new ones - and I'll add them as required. I live in a safe neighbourhood. But 4 nights ago we had an armed intruder who was foiled by my big, beautiful and brave dog - Loki - who took the knife wound in his nose and through to the bone. Our security had been very skillfully deactivated. But my panic alarm still worked. I used this and he fled. If his motive was theft - then he ignored ready and easy access to some very real and tangible valuables. And thank God - Loki is now stitched and mending. Since then I've had to invest in some much needed and constant surveillance. I have NO doubt that TK et al will dismiss all this as a fabrication. If any of you care to check this then the incident carries full reference in the case files of our local police. Email me with your disclosed identities - and I'll give you that reference together with the report from the vet.
And the questions - there are many of them - are why it should be that I was singled out in a neighbourhood that is largely exempt from this kind of event? Perhaps it's the 'hatred' that is evident in TK's, MileHigh's - picowatt's - FTC's posts. I don't know. And nor do I 'fear for my life' because frankly - I have no fear of 'death'. It is still, for me a 'consummation devoutly to be wished'. And nor is this because I'm morbid or in any way suicidal. On the contrary. I enjoy my life - hugely - on many levels. But this event, even more than a mild heart attack that I suffered a year ago - reminds me of my vulnerability. While I have no fear of death - I would, nonetheless, be very sorry to find myself on the other side of this 'reality' as MileHigh would put it - without having completed those demonstrations. And this 'noise' as TK puts it - is getting me nowhere - fast.
Therefore I'll not be posting here again. Not until I've finished that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos - where I'll expose their utter absurdities. Which I will also post on his thread. Then I've been promised two very substantial forums where I'll post daily test results and the argument in support of our thesis. This is much needed. Because a full demonstration as we plan it - will constitute publication of the papers in support of that evidence. For this I'm happy to invest. But it requires the input of experts. Because as talented as the most of us are - we are none of us sufficiently so. That body of expertise stays in the 'readership' of these forums. And that's the level that we intend engaging.
Meanwhile - to all of you. Please bear in mind that TK has had to 'fabricate' his involvement at the level that he's engaged in. All that 'spite' - those 'insults' - that 'hatred' thing? It's excessive and entirely inappropriate. And the need to pretend all that is required. Else the amount of work that he puts into this would make no sense at all. And then you be asking the very obvious question as to WHY? IF indeed we have nothing of interest - WHY would he waste all this time? And he's well aware of it. Therefore has he been required to promote his 'engagement' on this absurdly competitive - spiteful - malicious 'personal' level. That daily barrage of 'insults' is simply to promote this 'spin'. Because that's all it is. FTC is a different 'kettle of fish'. It is my opinion that he's excessively jealous of this our work and would prefer to have it promoted in his own name. And as for picowatt. The less said the better. That expose is also 'waiting in the wings.'
To Groundloop - I can now answer you - but will do it by email. You can publish that answer or not. And Poynty Point - I hope I'll be able to engage you fully in our 'forum discussions'. You're still 'over simplifying' in my 'humble opinion' - but we'll need expert advises to determine this.
And for the rest. Here's what we'll demonstrate. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll show our COP>17 circuit variant at HIGHER than COP>17 - and that we'll also determine this against battery draw downs. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll prove that our battery supply in the NERD circuit is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each duty cycle. And to the Joule Thief thread - guys, and girls, I am ABSOLUTELY satisfied that you've been exceeding unity from the get go. I hope, most sincerely, that you'll revisit those test results with more sophisticated measuring instruments. In fact that would apply to much more than just that joule thief technology. And quite apart from everything else we still have the very real satisfaction of looking forward to the progress of LENR technology. That's taken off with the energy of a forest fire. Which is wonderful.
The news is still all good.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I read as far as your "hatred" remarks. Probably as far as I will read. I have no hatred in my heart towards anyone. Life is too short for such negative emotions when there is plenty of enjoyment to be had.
You threatened me, remember? I therefore choose to no longer engage with you in any more tortured arguments, be called a liar, or have my knowledge questioned. All I wanted to do was offer what knowledge I have to those that might find it useful and LEARN from others posting on this thread.
Do not direct your paranoia my way, I assure you, I would not waste my time on such negative Karma.
Good luck in whatever you do,
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
Guys,
This will be my last post on this thread - until I finalise that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos. Any new ones - and I'll add them as required. I live in a safe neighbourhood. But 4 nights ago we had an armed intruder who was foiled by my big, beautiful and brave dog - Loki - who took the knife wound in his nose and through to the bone. Our security had been very skillfully deactivated. But my panic alarm still worked. I used this and he fled. If his motive was theft - then he ignored ready and easy access to some very real and tangible valuables. And thank God - Loki is now stitched and mending. Since then I've had to invest in some much needed and constant surveillance. I have NO doubt that TK et al will dismiss all this as a fabrication. If any of you care to check this then the incident carries full reference in the case files of our local police. Email me with your disclosed identities - and I'll give you that reference together with the report from the vet.
And the questions - there are many of them - are why it should be that I was singled out in a neighbourhood that is largely exempt from this kind of event? Perhaps it's the 'hatred' that is evident in TK's, MileHigh's - picowatt's - FTC's posts. I don't know. And nor do I 'fear for my life' because frankly - I have no fear of 'death'. It is still, for me a 'consummation devoutly to be wished'. And nor is this because I'm morbid or in any way suicidal. On the contrary. I enjoy my life - hugely - on many levels. But this event, even more than a mild heart attack that I suffered a year ago - reminds me of my vulnerability. While I have no fear of death - I would, nonetheless, be very sorry to find myself on the other side of this 'reality' as MileHigh would put it - without having completed those demonstrations. And this 'noise' as TK puts it - is getting me nowhere - fast.
Therefore I'll not be posting here again. Not until I've finished that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos - where I'll expose their utter absurdities. Which I will also post on his thread. Then I've been promised two very substantial forums where I'll post daily test results and the argument in support of our thesis. This is much needed. Because a full demonstration as we plan it - will constitute publication of the papers in support of that evidence. For this I'm happy to invest. But it requires the input of experts. Because as talented as the most of us are - we are none of us sufficiently so. That body of expertise stays in the 'readership' of these forums. And that's the level that we intend engaging.
Meanwhile - to all of you. Please bear in mind that TK has had to 'fabricate' his involvement at the level that he's engaged in. All that 'spite' - those 'insults' - that 'hatred' thing? It's excessive and entirely inappropriate. And the need to pretend all that is required. Else the amount of work that he puts into this would make no sense at all. And then you be asking the very obvious question as to WHY? IF indeed we have nothing of interest - WHY would he waste all this time? And he's well aware of it. Therefore has he been required to promote his 'engagement' on this absurdly competitive - spiteful - malicious 'personal' level. That daily barrage of 'insults' is simply to promote this 'spin'. Because that's all it is. FTC is a different 'kettle of fish'. It is my opinion that he's excessively jealous of this our work and would prefer to have it promoted in his own name. And as for picowatt. The less said the better. That expose is also 'waiting in the wings.'
To Groundloop - I can now answer you - but will do it by email. You can publish that answer or not. And Poynty Point - I hope I'll be able to engage you fully in our 'forum discussions'. You're still 'over simplifying' in my 'humble opinion' - but we'll need expert advises to determine this.
And for the rest. Here's what we'll demonstrate. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll show our COP>17 circuit variant at HIGHER than COP>17 - and that we'll also determine this against battery draw downs. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll prove that our battery supply in the NERD circuit is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each duty cycle. And to the Joule Thief thread - guys, and girls, I am ABSOLUTELY satisfied that you've been exceeding unity from the get go. I hope, most sincerely, that you'll revisit those test results with more sophisticated measuring instruments. In fact that would apply to much more than just that joule thief technology. And quite apart from everything else we still have the very real satisfaction of looking forward to the progress of LENR technology. That's taken off with the energy of a forest fire. Which is wonderful.
The news is still all good.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
WOW .... thinking I heard it all ..... :o
What a dish of "CRAP" your trying to feed us this is right up there with your viruses in your APPLE computers years ago, something happens to your vicious wiener dog with a break in four days ago and you wait until today to type something about it .... YA RIGHT !! You really do think we are all that stupid ?? No one any where believes a thing you type with those old crooked fingers slamming on that computer key board of yours.
What "HATE" speech from me ?? I have only supplied questions that have never been answered by you Rosemary over and over again that's been posted by me, but than again I cant fix Rosemary your misrepresentations, stupidity, ignorance and lack of a good education.
As for myself being excessively jealous of what ?? There is nothing in entire the world you Rosemary could teach me or anything I would want to learn from you. To have anything related in any way to you Rosemary or your electronic device(s) experimental work promoted in my own name, I would rather be naked tared and feathered then drug behind a Yugo from west coast to east coast of the United States than to face the outright damning humility of anything so stupid as all your fraudulent device claims.
You Rosemary need professional medical help from a expert that can only be found somewhere other than in South Africa, a expert that's not some kind of cave dwelling Witch Doctor. ???
:P
Rosemary:
You are confusing frustration with hatred. There is no tangible sense of progress with you. Clearly you are also deluded about many things, too many to mention.
I think that it's fair to state that the majority of the contributors to this thread are 100% confident that when you do your battery testing with either circuit you will get confirmation that both circuits are under unity. Notwithstanding your claim that you have already "proved" that the "COP 17" circuit works. We are not "after you," we are just looking for the real truth. Just like the real truth is that Joule Thieves are under unity.
So whether you like it or not, or are aware of it or not, you have become a "spectacle."
Assuming the caliber of the data that you present will be comparable to previous presentations, you can expect that it will be scrutinized and lots of errors will be discovered.
If you do ridiculous things out of blind ignorance like having current flowing straight through the function generator in your test setup then they will be pointed out and discussed. That's what these forums are for.
I really hope that you do the testing properly but given your knowledge and skill set and the caliber of people that you have worked with before I am not confident that will happen.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
Guys,
This will be my last post on this thread - until I finalise that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos. Any new ones - and I'll add them as required. I live in a safe neighbourhood. But 4 nights ago we had an armed intruder who was foiled by my big, beautiful and brave dog - Loki - who took the knife wound in his nose and through to the bone. Our security had been very skillfully deactivated. But my panic alarm still worked. I used this and he fled. If his motive was theft - then he ignored ready and easy access to some very real and tangible valuables. And thank God - Loki is now stitched and mending. Since then I've had to invest in some much needed and constant surveillance. I have NO doubt that TK et al will dismiss all this as a fabrication. If any of you care to check this then the incident carries full reference in the case files of our local police. Email me with your disclosed identities - and I'll give you that reference together with the report from the vet.
And the questions - there are many of them - are why it should be that I was singled out in a neighbourhood that is largely exempt from this kind of event? Perhaps it's the 'hatred' that is evident in TK's, MileHigh's - picowatt's - FTC's posts. I don't know. And nor do I 'fear for my life' because frankly - I have no fear of 'death'. It is still, for me a 'consummation devoutly to be wished'. And nor is this because I'm morbid or in any way suicidal. On the contrary. I enjoy my life - hugely - on many levels. But this event, even more than a mild heart attack that I suffered a year ago - reminds me of my vulnerability. While I have no fear of death - I would, nonetheless, be very sorry to find myself on the other side of this 'reality' as MileHigh would put it - without having completed those demonstrations. And this 'noise' as TK puts it - is getting me nowhere - fast.
Therefore I'll not be posting here again. Not until I've finished that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos - where I'll expose their utter absurdities. Which I will also post on his thread. Then I've been promised two very substantial forums where I'll post daily test results and the argument in support of our thesis. This is much needed. Because a full demonstration as we plan it - will constitute publication of the papers in support of that evidence. For this I'm happy to invest. But it requires the input of experts. Because as talented as the most of us are - we are none of us sufficiently so. That body of expertise stays in the 'readership' of these forums. And that's the level that we intend engaging.
Meanwhile - to all of you. Please bear in mind that TK has had to 'fabricate' his involvement at the level that he's engaged in. All that 'spite' - those 'insults' - that 'hatred' thing? It's excessive and entirely inappropriate. And the need to pretend all that is required. Else the amount of work that he puts into this would make no sense at all. And then you would be asking the very obvious question as to WHY? IF indeed we have nothing of interest - WHY would he waste all this time? And he's well aware of it. Therefore has he been required to promote his 'engagement' on this absurdly competitive - spiteful - malicious 'personal' level. That daily barrage of 'insults' is simply to promote this 'spin'. Because that's all it is. FTC is a different 'kettle of fish'. It is my opinion that he's excessively jealous of this our work and would prefer to have it promoted in his own name. And as for picowatt. The less said the better. That expose is also 'waiting in the wings.'
To Groundloop - I can now answer you - but will do it by email. You can publish that answer or not. And Poynty Point - I hope I'll be able to engage you fully in our 'forum discussions'. You're still 'over simplifying' in my 'humble opinion' - but we'll need expert advices to determine this.
And for the rest. Here's what we'll demonstrate. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll show our COP>17 circuit variant at HIGHER than COP>17 - and that we'll also determine this against battery draw downs. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we'll prove that our battery supply in the NERD circuit is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each duty cycle. And to the Joule Thief thread - guys, and girls, I am ABSOLUTELY satisfied that you've been exceeding unity from the get go. I hope, most sincerely, that you'll revisit those test results with more sophisticated measuring instruments. In fact that would apply to much more than just that joule thief technology. And quite apart from everything else we still have the very real satisfaction of looking forward to the progress of LENR technology. That's taken off with the energy of a forest fire. Which is wonderful.
The news is still all good.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited some spelling. And a quick word to picowatt - I AM NOT PARANOID. That attack was NOT a figment of my imagination. And if I was to believe your 'well wishes' then I would need to ignore your slander. And I have NOT threatened you with anything. On the contrary.
Regretfuly, I read some more of your "post". Even in this post, you continue to make threats towards me.
Such class, such professionalism, and oh so scientific...
And indeed you are paranoid, if your delusions are directed my way. I do not hate you or wish you ill, but I do not appreciate anyone who threatens me and calls me a liar. Your threats cross a line. We are through.
And as for slander, there has to be a falsehood. Nothing I said was false. You slander yourself. Take my posts and your posts to a EE prof, or a first year EE, and see what is false.
And indeed, when have I ever threatened you?
Good day
She's never going to do any tests that have the potential for falsifying her conjectures. She's had YEARS to do real tests and she's had plenty of advice on how to do them. All this current talk about PROVING her claims is just that: talk. What we will see, if we see anything at all, will be more bogus "demonstrations" like the video she uploaded, then repudiated and lied about.
It would take a matter of a couple of days to run the Ainslie circuit in high-heat, positive gate drive mode with oscillations, long on time pulses heating a load to 190 degrees C as in the video, then performing a simple dim bulb test. Yet she talks about "proving" all this other stuff that's unrelated to the simple definitive test that she PROMISED STEFAN SHE WOULD PERFORM.
There will be no cooperation, no real testing and nothing new from Ainslie. Does anybody really expect her to change her behaviour suddenly, after all these years? I certainly don't.
And still she lies about me. She ALMOST comes to the point of accusing me and PW and MH and the other non-sycophants here of engineering her break-in... she wants to, you can tell from her words, but even SHE knows that would just be too outrageous. Yet still she blames us for it, and accuses me of "fabrication" of something.Yet... all my videos contain demos that anyone can do for themselves if they have a function generator, a scope, and a few mosfets and LEDs. Nothing is "fabricated" in my work. But there is definitely fabrication in Ainslie's bloviating accusations and claims of overunity and "tests" that will be performed.
I've explained several times why I'm doing this. It's because Ainslie cannot restrain herself from lying and insulting and distorting and misrepresenting and willfully ignoring evidence, and she refuses to correct her many egregious errors, and she misleads the innocent newbies with her lies and distortions. She pretends to "science" but gives science a bad name by misrepresenting what the scientific method is. She herself is woefully uneducated, a high school dropout, yet she denigrates the education and experience of others while at the same time refusing to learn even the simplest terms relating to her subject.
All of this and more is demonstrated over and over in the various threads and forums she's posted in. Ainslie targeted me personally, has made physical threats, has annoyed people with her attempts to discern my identity, and no doubt would seek to harm me if she could. She's compared me to Hitler, Savonarola, and Satan himself, and she's called me a criminal sociopath. All because I require her to tell the simple truth and to respect her betters. Yes, Ainslie, we do know better than you. She constantly denigrates and insults others and lies about what those others say; she even argues with the people themselves telling them that they are wrong about what they said, even when the proof that she's wrong is presented in black and white.
Two words: Dunning-Kruger.
And.... the IsoTech GFG 324, Rosemary.
Error, mistake, mendacity.... what is it? If it's a typo, then you are lying now, because you haven't corrected it and in fact you maintain its correctness.... but you cannot point to any reference anywhere outside your own mind for a IsoTech GFG 324 function generator. This is important because it shows how little regard you have, Ainslie, for correct facts and "open source" cooperation.
The issue of the function generator itself is not important... what is important is that you presented incorrect information and you cannot support the information you presented with even so much as a link to a store which carries the IsoTech GFG324 for sale.
And yet Ainslie has claimed that she corrects her errors.... when there are many of her errors still standing uncorrected and unretracted. In fact I can't think of a single error that she HAS corrected. Not even this one.
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
Really? Maybe you should read the WIKI entry again Rosemary, with a dictionary by your side. You will find that the WIKI entry does NOT in fact support your absurd claim that 1 watt = 1 Joule and one Joule = one Watt per second, and that the terms are interchangeable.
We are supposed to be discussing power measurements... with someone who confounds basic units of power and energy, who doesn't understand the difference between a RATE and a QUANTITY, and who can't even grasp basic algebraic relationships.. and not only that, she REFUSES to learn the correct formulations and mathematic manipulations.
Now we are told that she won't be posting any more until she has a bunch more insulting and misrepresenting "transcriptions" of my videos to post. Well, bring it on, Ainslie, make a fool of yourself even more than you have already... .the videos are up for all to see, and then everyone can take the Ains-lies and compare them for themselves with the actual videos.
But of course, just like the last time she said she wasn't going to post.... she will.
In case anyone is still interested....
Let me review.
I have made a Tar Baby. This Tar Baby uses the schematic that Ainslie apparently has said is the correct one, out of five or six different versions that still have not been corrected or the incorrect ones retracted.
This Tar Baby uses the same component values to within component tolerances. (Power resistors for example usually have a 10 percent tolerance in values.) Tar Baby uses the same mosfet type, the IRFPG50, but can also use others. Tar Baby can run, and has BEEN SHOWN TO RUN using either a FG, a 555 timer, a charge pump inverter, a DC battery or a regulated power supply for bias, making oscillations and negative mean power AND a negatively- accumulating (that is, DECREASING) energy integral while heating a load.... stronger evidence than Ainslie has shown for her negative power computation. This negative mean power has been obtained on BOTH an analog oscilloscope and a fancy DSO. The negative mean power can be produced on demand instantly, by taking Tar Baby out of the bag, hooking it up and turning it on. No sensitive tuning is necessary.
I've shown all these things that the NERD team has only claimed, never shown. Especially, I am the only one who has shown the unit oscillating and making negative mean power WITHOUT any external bias source, using only the main batteries and the charge pump inverter based on a 555 configured as an oscillator, to make a DC voltage that is more negative than the most negative pole of the running battery.
Today, Tar Baby and the Tek DSO demonstrated the dependence of the negative mean power calculations on the ripple of the battery voltage trace as seen in the system where lead inductance is a great factor. When the ripple is smoothed out by filtering and decoupling capacitors, the mean negative power goes away and the true, positive power can be read. The battery voltage does not actually fluctuate to the degree that the battery TRACE fluctuates, and filtering demonstrates this. Of course the special pleading will begin: the presence of the capacitors prevents the oscillations from affecting the battery ! Of course they do, even I can see this simple fact.
I made some still photos and a casual video demonstrating all this... but so what. Those that have the ability to understand it know already what the message is, and those who need to see and understand the message and the data... cannot and will not, because of willfull ignorance and overweening arrogance. Two words: Dunning-Kruger.
This is why only a battery draw-down test will really confront the main claim that the batteries don't discharge. A simple draw down test using the existing Ainslie apparatus and the still fully-charged batteries. A simple test, using positive long gate pulses, a 72 volt battery pack, and heating a load to high heat as in the demo video. Why is this simple test so hard for her to do? Answer: because she knows it will fail. A truly confident -- and capable -- claimant would long ago have settled the matter by proving me wrong in the simplest and most unequivocal manner imaginable: by passing the Dim Bulb Test.
(That Tek screen is hard to photograph. The dark red letters and numbers especially don't like to show up, particularly in the video. )
TK,
I was begining to get a bit worried that you may have been having car isues again.
So, it seems that your empiracal data is in agreement with .99's analysis. Excellent work, both of you.
PW
@PW: Car is fixed, finally. I am now worried that the engine isn't getting hot enough !! My temp gauge goes from a low mark at 100, a middle mark at 180, and redline at 260, with the first red mark at 240. Before, I'd see "normal" cruise at just below the first red mark and if I pushed it to 70 it would get to the redline and the check engine light would come on and if I didn't slow way down it would start venting to the overflow and boiling. Now with the cleaned-out radiator and the wetting agent (11 dollars a bottle, used half a bottle)... now, I ran all the way to Austin, right at 95 miles, at 70 mph the whole way and it didn't even get to the 180 mark... less than half way up the gauge ! And that's with AC on full blast fulltime. It feels like a new 22-year old car. At last... I can get there without being totally exhausted and sweaty. And it's a lot more comfortable for Maggie, I'm sure. (She always comes with me.)
I just did the most casual Tar Baby testing imaginable. I didn't feel very motivated, sorry. I just took the Tar Baby out of the box and hooked it up and turned it on. I hadn't even tested it with the cap banks first, nor did I do any tracing or circuit probing other than just using the normal probe points at the board, and common references all at the negative power lead to the board, except that the CVR reference is right up at the body of the resistor usually. And I wanted to make sure that it would work using only the charge pump inverter and the lowest main battery of the stack for the bias supply along with the filter caps, so that's all I tried.
And it does. Not as stably as with an external supply but that is probably also a matter of suitable filtering of the inverter's input power, but still solidly negative average mean power with the caps disconnected, and solid positive with them connected.
I used 10 of the 1 uF blue RIFA ones, 10 of the 10nF silver rolls, and ten of the 100 nF BaTO monolithics all in parallel. So I guess that's closer to 11 uF than to 10. Within tolerances. ;)
I got more stable math with AC coupling of the CVR signal, but for the video and the still shots I used DC coupling. I tried to narrow the trace width by using the scope's HF filtering, but...... interestingly...... when I used BWL at 20mHz for the CVR and Batt traces.... the mean power product stayed positive.
I didn't even bother to set up an integral but I did have the scope compute the areas of the math trace lobes, and they too reflect the negative power reading, even more solidly than the raw mean does. This is sort of equivalent to an integration. If the Areas of the positive and negative parts of the Math trace total to a Negative number, this will obviously result in a decreasing energy integral, just as before.
I'm not CLAIMING overunity performance, I'm only MEASURING it. ;)
But.... since we know about scope artefacts and measurement pitfalls and so forth.... I don't suspect zipons as the cause of the measurement because there are MANY more likely and possible explanations, and like a good little scientist I try to DISPROVE my hypotheses as hard as I can. When I fail to disprove one, no matter how hard I try... then perhaps, provisionally, until more information comes along.... I am justified in believing that hypothesis to be correct. But if experimental evidence comes along that does NOT support that hypothesis.... then it's lather rinse repeat again until an even more robust and TESTABLE hypothesis can be formed.
An example of this is my early belief that probe skew might have been responsible for the errors. When I was looking at Steorn's eOrbo, I found that this was the likely cause of their overunity measurements, because I was able to duplicate their measurements, using expensive differential voltage probes and non-contact current probes (three thousand dollars for the LeCroy current probe, for example) NOT deskewed... and when the probes were properly deskewed the OU measurement went away. However in the Ainslie case, lower frequencies, less spiky signals, and the use of all the same, passive compensated voltage probes meant that probe skew wasn't supported by the experimental data... and so had to be dropped as a working hypothesis. No problem, scientists make "mistakes" by looking at "wrong" hypotheses all the time; that's what real scientific experimentation is about. Making mistakes, identifying them, correcting them, revising hypotheses, discarding theories completely if they do not fit the experimental facts.
Some scientists I know have been working for the past 5 YEARS on an experimental project that involves an extremely sensitive vacuum Cavendish balance. This instrument, designed and built totally in-house, is so sensitive that simply parking a truck in the parking lot of the building causes the beam to swing over from the gravitational attraction of the truck to the test masses. It is maintained at a vacuum of 10e-7 Torr. A data run takes a week, because the natural oscillation frequency is about 4 hours and a reasonable number of swings -- 20 or 30 or so --are needed for the Fourier analysis that results in data from the instrument. The instrument is so sensitive that large areas of the parking lot near the building are cordoned off and even the cleaning staff isn't allowed in the room where the experiment is set up.
And.... it turns out that the hypothesis the experiment was designed to test is not supported by the data. In other words, it is in error, or the data is wrong, or the analysis is wrong, or any number of other "mistakes" have been made.... but what does seem definite is that the data as obtained don't support the hypothesis under test and therefore call the entire overarching theoretical framework of the research into question. A team of six researchers and technicians has been working on this particular experiment for over 5 years, theory and hardware. And it's a "mistake", and this is how real science progresses: by falsifying theories.
I'll post a video of last night's Play Date in a few minutes.
Hmmm.... eight views even before I post a link. I hope the MiBs are finding this all entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBjcOzm7pFE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBjcOzm7pFE)
I apologise for not doing all the testing and fiddling around that was suggested. I'm losing my enthusiasm for this project, because, just as the person pointed out in the Dunning-Kruger clip.... everything we are doing is falling on deliberately deafened ears. Nevertheless, and in spite of my flagging interest and the attacks on me that are sure to come from YKW, I will lug the thing around with me several more times to go play with little Tex (Tar Baby's playmate).
Just as before, when I replicated the COP>17 claims -- the actual measurements and data -- and showed that the batteries didn't charge up and the heat to the load was less than with the same DC power.... she will claim that I ... along with everybody else.... "failed" somehow and instead of doing a solid demonstration or experiment to refute our "failures" she simply bloviates, goes to a new forum, and claims that ALL of the people she once worked WITH are now incompetent thieves and liars.
(ETA: The COP>17 circuit was more interesting than this one, because you could actually DO something with it. It made a fair PWM motor controller, for example, and you actually could siphon off charge and use it to charge a capacitor to much higher voltages than the battery could supply, and you could charge an _external_ battery either with destructive HV pulsecharging to "fluff" it to apparent high charge levels, or even properly with filtered current pulses at more reasonable voltages using caps and diodes. But of course this charging power came from the main batteries, so couldn't be used to charge themselves other than to convert some real charge to "fluffy charge" with substantial energy losses and potential (pun intended) battery damage. This circuit here is useless except pedagogically.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 01:28:56 AM
the Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT replication. Got that? This gives me considerable freedom to experiment, as well as the liberty to apply for the various prizes she has applied for, should I be able to demonstrate battery charging and overunity performance in the Tar Baby device, which is NOT an Ainslie replication.
TK,
I watched the video. Too bad the CSR trace was so glitchy. It looks like a bad probe or probe contact as none of the other traces reflected the glitch.
Any other ideas as to the reason?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 01, 2012, 12:59:38 PM
TK,
I watched the video. Too bad the CSR trace was so glitchy. It looks like a bad probe or probe contact as none of the other traces reflected the glitch.
Any other ideas as to the reason?
PW
Possibly. I've noticed that the thing is more unstable when running on the charge pump inverter. Maybe it needs more filtering. Or you could be right, loose probes. These probes get abused a lot.
Come to think of it... everything gets abused a lot.
Well, you know... TarBaby either IS, or is NOT a "replication" of Ainslie's NERD device.
If it IS NOT, then I've gotten the same indications of overunity performance that she has claimed with the same justification for it, using what is arguably a different circuit and different stimulation. And I'm ready to demonstrate this anywhere anytime right now. Therefore... Tar Baby qualifies as much or more than the Ainslie device, which is not ready for testing.
If it IS a "replication" of Ainslie's NERD device.... well, that's even better...or perhaps even worse.... because...sadly... using what is arguably the SAME circuit and the same stimulation as Ainslie's, Tar Baby's batteries DO discharge, and therefore it is predicted that Ainslie's will too... which is why she will continue to avoid testing them properly.
Ironic, isn't it? The only way for Ainslie to "debunk the debunker" is to SHOW A DIM BULB TEST or other definitive test where her running batteries show no discharge after a substantial time heating a load. That is the ONLY WAY that my results, along with those of .99 and the others who have worked without credit on this, can be falsified by Ainslie.
Otherwise.... well, Do The Math (tm RA).
Ainslie claims that the battery is "entirely disconnected from the circuit" during the "off" times of her duty cycle when she believes that there is no current flowing and the circuit is oscillating.
Yet.... the mosfets manifestly get warm in this mode of operation, even though she's denied it. If hers don't get warm ................. why are they on massive heatsinks ??? And if they do get warm, what is warming them up ???
Oh.... that's right ............. there are other explanations to be considered, aren't there. Perhaps the zipons are doing it, and it's cold heat, and the heatsinks are there to keep the mosfets from freezing--- they suck heat from the environment.
I can even think of another reason that is even more likely than zipons.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 01, 2012, 03:22:33 PM
If it IS a "replication" of Ainslie's NERD device....
it is not. got that? you said precisely that. i just quoted you... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 01, 2012, 03:47:05 PM
it is not. got that? you said precisely that. i just quoted you... ::)
Of course it isn't, troll. It doesn't have white pegboard or a dozen clipleads. In your warped mind that makes it not a replication, and my statement proves it to you.
Of course.... after I move the circuit to a piece of white pegboard...er... I mean, after I have some good heat profile data, then maybe I'll change my mind and start claiming that it IS a replication. Right now... my only claim is what it has been all along: Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in all significant respects, when tested side-by-side by the same methods and analysed in the same way. And I am ready NOW to prove it by sending TB off to anyone Stefan designates, just as soon as I see that Ainslie has done the same. So get back under your bridge, troll, unless you have something constructive to contribute.
TK:
I think that you have done a great job and you have done enough. There really isn't much more to say. I have seen a fair number of nonsensical circuits on the forums and this is just another one.
Nothing will stop Rosemary from her quest. She has never even been able to admit that during her months and months of testing with the NERD team, that apparently nobody even realized that the function generator itself was in the main current loop. It can get so ridiculous sometimes.
So we are in "Bring it on Rosie" mode. Whoopie!
MileHigh
This is just too, too hilarious.
Remember when Ains-lie was denying so vehemently that she was "doozydont" on YouTube and denied that she uploaded that demo video, over and over?
Take a look at this, from the comments on "mosfets how do they work" which I just a few minutes ago made public (you needed the specific link to see it before).
;D Note how even in these comments, she STILL gets the basic info in the video wrong, in addition to more of the same non-understanding of her own circuit's behaviour.
And of course comments are always enabled for my videos. She LIES YET AGAIN about that. But... from this point forward, comments from "doozydont" are no longer allowed.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg317526/#msg317526
QuoteNot only free legal advice but you solicit it with all the finesse of a 5 year old. I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT OUR CLAIMS. OUR CLAIM IS ONLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMS IN OUR PAPERS. ALL OTHER WORK IS MERELY RELATED TO THAT CLAIM WHICH IS IN THAT PAPER. No amount of repeated allegation will change this until you manage to PROVE that I made that video publicly accessible. When you've PROVED this - then LET ME KNOW.
Well..... the video was posted and made publicly accessible by doozydont. Rosemary now is commenting on my videos as doozydont.
DO THE MATH.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 01, 2012, 09:19:09 PM
This is just too, too hilarious.
Remember when Ains-lie was denying so vehemently that she was "doozydont" on YouTube and denied that she uploaded that demo video, over and over?
Take a look at this, from the comments on "mosfets how do they work" which I just a few minutes ago made public (you needed the specific link to see it before).
;D Note how even in these comments, she STILL gets the basic info in the video wrong, in addition to more of the same non-understanding of her own circuit's behaviour.
WHERE HAVE I EVER DENIED THIS?
QuoteNot only free legal advice but you solicit it with all the finesse of a 5 year old. I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT OUR CLAIMS. OUR CLAIM IS ONLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMS IN OUR PAPERS. ALL OTHER WORK IS MERELY RELATED TO THAT CLAIM WHICH IS IN THAT PAPER. No amount of repeated allegation will change this until you manage to PROVE that I made that video publicly accessible. When you've PROVED this - then LET ME KNOW.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg317526/#msg317526 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg317526/#msg317526)
and further in that thread.
QuoteWhich is also why he relies on that video. I must admit that I thought it was taken off the write up in Sterling Allen's blog. It seems, in fact, that they've rifled it from my own photobucket. No surprises. They've forced themselves in there many times in the past. But just as a reminder.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg317551/#msg317551
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2012, 09:21:45 PM
WHERE HAVE I EVER DENIED THIS?
This is too funny !!
Whats wrong "Dooziedont" or Rosemary Ann Ainslie .... you can't go back and edit out your comments at YouTube can you now .... LOL !!
The NERD RATS abandoned the magical vessel months ago and just like a good captain Dooziedont you go down with the ship all alone again !! ::)
:P
I think that from now on, the Dunning-Kruger effect should be known as the "Rosemary Ainslie Effect"... since it is real, and that other "effect" of hers isn't.
In fact, I think I'll write to Dunning and Kruger and let them know about this textbook example of their effect.
All this time..... and we were supposed to be using this diagram, since it's the only one that seems to have come from Ainslie herself.
Preserved here for posterity:
My dear TinselKoala
Your spin is unending and abysmal. I freely and openly acknowledged that you took that video off my own youtube. I freely and openly acknowledged that I was not aware that it was ON my own youtube. Why did you not post THAT reference? Because that was my own reference when I challenged you to deny this. And my admission - of necessity was only SUBSEQUENT to my earlier statement where I accused you of 'rifling' my photobucket. Such a glaring omission. I have never subsequently removed that video link of the demonstration. And this out of respect to our readers that they can, at least, find the appropriate reference when and IF they read your appalling posts. Else they won't understand your multiple - excessive - references. I am, nonetheless, well able to remove that video link should I choose to. And self-evidently I've chosen NOT to. And that it's there at all, is because I have often relied on my colleagues to work on my computer through Team Viewer. This upload was an unfortunate consequence of a misunderstanding. But I'll live with it - gladly. I am that old now that I realise that even errors are required to advance certain insights. And IF this video needed airing - and IF there's a Devine purpose behind our lives - then I suspect that it's served its purpose to show us all how utterly small are your objections and how entirely you need to advance all your 'SPIN'. Spin has never constituted a scientific argument - any more than inference, implication or 'belief'. Your emphases are always a salutary reminder.
I'll deal with that specific video in my next post to you. It's a perfect example of your reliance on all that SPIN rather than on science.
Rosie Pose
added 'to you' because it is not my next post.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 01, 2012, 10:29:50 PM
This is too funny !!
Whats wrong "Dooziedont" or Rosemary Ann Ainslie .... you can't go back and edit out your comments at YouTube can you now .... LOL !!The NERD RATS abandoned the magical vessel months ago and just like a good captain Dooziedont you go down with the ship all alone again
As to this post. It is always a good thing to laugh. Appropriate or otherwise. So I'm delighted to see that you're amused. I am well able to delete my comments on TK's youtube. I was rather hoping that I could confine my input there - exclusively. That way I would not have needed to do those analyses of those absurd exercises here on this thread. It seems that I am not allowed. 'Access denied'. Which I can understand. Apparently our little TinselKoala is not so much a man as a mouse. Else he'd be able to confront those challenges without the orchestrated assistance of you, picowatt and MileHigh. Courage is NOT his thing. He needs to work in 'packs'. As is needed when one's reliance is - as is HIS - on poor science - advanced for the purpose of propaganda or 'spin'. Since I am NOT advancing propaganda - I have no such reliance.
Regarding this comment..
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 30, 2012, 10:25:00 PM
What "HATE" speech from me ?? I have only supplied questions that have never been answered by you Rosemary over and over again that's been posted by me, but than again I cant fix Rosemary your misrepresentations, stupidity, ignorance and lack of a good education.
If you still need to know 'what "HATE" speech - as you put it then another sample of it is right here. You CANNOT post without its evidence - apparently.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 30, 2012, 10:25:00 PMWhat a dish of "CRAP" your trying to feed us this is right up there with your viruses in your APPLE computers years ago, something happens to your vicious wiener dog with a break in four days ago and you wait until today to type something about it .... YA RIGHT !! You really do think we are all that stupid ?? No one any where believes a thing you type with those old crooked fingers slamming on that computer key board of yours.
Unless, of course, those rather less than charming observations of yours are meant to be something in the nature of 'adoration'? Or even 'impartialiaty'? I'm entirely satisfied that everyone reading anything at all that you ever write or reference - will know better than to think that you're capable of an intelligent, objective and balanced post. Sadly.
continued/...
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 30, 2012, 10:25:00 PMAs for myself being excessively jealous of what ?? There is nothing in entire the world you Rosemary could teach me or anything I would want to learn from you.
I most certainly 'taught you' - over extended hours and extended days. I taught you how to elicit that waveform on your replication apparatus. After first teaching you how to put that apparatus together. And I ably assisted you in finding the required machinery to measure it. You remember that FTC? That replication that you subsequently DENY is a replication?
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 30, 2012, 10:25:00 PMTo have anything related in any way to you Rosemary or your electronic device(s) experimental work promoted in my own name, I would rather be naked tared and feathered then drug behind a Yugo from west coast to east coast of the United States than to face the outright damning humility of anything so stupid as all your fraudulent device claims.
Well. This is somewhat BELIED by the very real evidence of this link where you claim to have REPLICATED our COP>17 test...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)
Which means that you really need to withdraw that paper where your name is most ASSUREDLY linked to my own - and my own being FIRST AUTHOR. Or else, as you recommend - start stripping - get yourself 'tarred and feathered' and then allow yourself to be dragged behind a Yugo from west coast to east cost of the United States. Because you most certainly ARE facing the 'damning humility' of being INTIMATELY associated with what you 'aver' is our and by association YOUR 'fraudulent device claim'.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on April 30, 2012, 10:25:00 PMYou Rosemary need professional medical help from a expert that can only be found somewhere other than in South Africa, a expert that's not some kind of cave dwelling Witch Doctor. ???
So you keep saying. I think the 'reality disconnect' is only actually and most clearly evidential in your own rather imbalanced psyche.
Rosie Pose
Now. A quick reference to this number.
Quote from: picowatt on April 30, 2012, 11:23:13 PM
Regretfuly, I read some more of your "post". Even in this post, you continue to make threats towards me.
Such class, such professionalism, and oh so scientific...
And indeed you are paranoid, if your delusions are directed my way. I do not hate you or wish you ill, but I do not appreciate anyone who threatens me and calls me a liar. Your threats cross a line. We are through.
And as for slander, there has to be a falsehood. Nothing I said was false. You slander yourself. Take my posts and your posts to a EE prof, or a first year EE, and see what is false.
And indeed, when have I ever threatened you?
Good day
If slander is proof of 'good will' then - INDEED - I am deluded. And - as you say - slander needs to be proved 'false'. I prove your contentions 'false' on multiple grounds. In the first instance I am well able to work a solder iron. I soldered the clips to our battery leads in our circuit apparatus. And I am well able to 'read, write and do arithmetic' as I am intellectually competent. Intellectual competence is defined as an 'adult' competence related to precisely those skills. Your average 6 year old and 'under' is NOT - BY DEFINITION - intellectually competent. He is not even accountable for his actions. He is not an adult.
I do not call you a liar. You have branded yourself as a liar when you claim that any six year old has intellectual competence and when you compound this with the statement that they are able to use a solder iron. Never. Not under any circumstances can they or should they be encouraged to work a solder iron. Unless they are WHOLLY ASSISTED and entirely removed from the potential risk contact with the hot solder. Which means that they cannot be taught to an adult level of competency - where one is expected to perform this unassisted. And terms of your subsequent explanation - they cannot do this with an adult competency. Else they'd be soldering UNASSISTED. By your own admission - THEY NEEDED HELP. And it is a rare under six who is able to read, write and do arithmetic to an adult level of competence. I merely advised you that I was incapable of believing those 'aspersions' related to an under sixes' competence. And nor can I. I am NOT sufficiently DELUDED.
Your intention was to imply that I cannot solder and that I do not have an intellectual competence. THAT is easily proven false. Therefore have you slandered my good name. If your opinion mattered - I'd call you to account. In due course you WILL be called to account. But not for something as essentially petty as your poor efforts at slander. And this is NOT a THREAT. It is a promise.
Rosie Pose.
Added
AND INDEED YOU HAVE THREATENED ME. I have a long memory. And I know exactly who you are.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
Perhaps it's the 'hatred' that is evident in TK's, MileHigh's - picowatt's - FTC's posts.
FTC is a different 'kettle of fish'. It is my opinion that he's excessively jealous of this our work and would prefer to have it promoted in his own name.
I still see more misrepresentations of my answer to your quote dooziedont ..... err Rosemary .... LOL !!!
What HATRED ?? Where ?? What Posting ?? What e-mail ??
What jealousy ?? Where ?? Of what ?? What promotions of mine are you spewing venom about ?? Where ?? What Posting ?? What e-mail ??
As for the rest of your posted CRAP your trying to feed everyone, your out of your mind and if you helped me in any way shape or form and you have no proof you did because there is none. Where are the postings or e-mails of you guiding my hands to what ?? You had no proof of anything you did for your claim of a COP>17 without any scope shots, data dumps, photographs or even a damn device to show anyone Rosemary or Dooziedont !!! Just your collection of presented facts on any single test is the worse representation of of data for proof of a claim anyone has seen especially for submission to a journal or magazine for peer review and possible publication .... I'd spit in your face for that insult if you were in front of me, all one has to do is look at one of my tests for a example of "HOW ITS DONE" https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=6b7817c40bb20460&resid=6B7817C40BB20460!144&parid=6B7817C40BB20460!120&authkey=!AHln8XUBQ2XZVNY (Test #18 ZIP file 8.5 MB) or look at the collection of data "ALL IN ONE PLACE" not all cherry picked like you have to suit your your stupid THESIS.
As for any document like the http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems this unfortunately has a set of real people and experimentalist attached to it .... R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch .... and a majority of those authors have requested this document to stay and it will until there isn't a internet to display it.
So ... wait for your replacement parts to show up for your COP>INFINITY device that you threw away to destroy the evidence like the COP>17 device of yours you did and go do your little testing somewhere, maybe you can figure out how to read the testing equipment correctly.
I also don't debate fantasies, illusions or misrepresentations which you Rosemary or Dooziedont only have, I'll stick to my verifiable facts if you don't mind because I do.
Now ... stay on topic here if you possibly can this is a "Tar Baby" device thread which I know is impossible for you but try, all this BS of yours is annoying and Stefan did require you to do "ALL NEW" testing so whats your problem now ?? ???
:P
Yesterday, Ainslie lied,
QuoteThis will be my last post on this thread - until I finalise that 'dissertation' related to TK's videos.
and I predicted that she would not keep her word.
And I was right.
She's back with STILL MORE LIES, dripping with vitriol, now claiming again that she didn't post the demo video. How many times now has she flipped on that issue?
Ainslie, your threats, veiled and not so veiled, and your continual chain of lies are recorded and you can't get rid of them, no matter how much editing and backtracking you do. The threads are ARCHIVED and you can't change those records. Your idiocy is on record, your failure to cooperate is on record, and your incompetency is on record. But most especially, the lies that you put in each and every post you make are still on record. And you cannot delete or alter the inane comments you made on my videos.
Even in the last few posts...... "WHERE DID I EVER DENY THIS" claiming that you DIDN'T deny being doozydont and posting the video....... and the evidence is presented where you DID deny it over and over .... and then you DENY IT yet again by claiming someone else had access to your computer (an excuse that I came up with and predicted you would use, remember?). You contradict yourself within a single page. You are truly pathetic, and I am beginning to be less amused by you and starting to feel genuinely sorry for you. More sorry for the people who have to deal with you personally.... but I do pity you, Ainslie. You have no concept of reality.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 01, 2012, 09:21:45 PM
WHERE HAVE I EVER DENIED THIS?
How about in the NEXT SET OF POSTS YOU MAKE? You lying fool, there are posts from you going back to the days immediately after YOU posted that demo video where you link to it and brag about it announcing it to all and sundry. And now you get all tangled up in your lies.
Ainslie says now:
QuoteYour spin is unending and abysmal. I freely and openly acknowledged that you took that video off my own youtube. I freely and openly acknowledged that I was not aware that it was ON my own youtube. Why did you not post THAT reference?
Because it was a LIE, Ainslie. YOU posted that video and even bragged about it in your blog and on this forum shortly after YOU posted it PUBLICLY. To say that I "took that video" is another lie, because YOU POSTED IT a year ago, and I wasn't even aware of it until January.
QuoteBecause that was my own reference when I challenged you to deny this. And my admission - of necessity was only SUBSEQUENT to my earlier statement where I accused you of 'rifling' my photobucket.
Getting all tangled up there, aren't you? The whole accusation of someone rifling your photobucket was another blatant example of your paranoia and incompetence with computers. And the only reason--- of necessity-- that you finally had to admit that was wrong was when YOU WERE REMINDED THAT THE VIDEO IS POSTED ON YOUTUBE ALONG WITH THE DATE AND THE USER WHO POSTED IT.
QuoteSuch a glaring omission. I have never subsequently removed that video link of the demonstration. And this out of respect to our readers that they can, at least, find the appropriate reference when and IF they read your appalling posts.
No.... you haven't used that doozydont account because you lost the password and have only just now found it. YT ALSO RECORDS when the last time the username was used.... and you haven't used it for over a year... and now suddenly you log on. YOU LOST YOUR PASSWORD and have just now recovered it. You would take that video down if you could get away with it... but it would look really bad if you did it now. Go ahead, though... I've got a copy and will immediately repost it.
QuoteElse they won't understand your multiple - excessive - references. I am, nonetheless, well able to remove that video link should I choose to. And self-evidently I've chosen NOT to. And that it's there at all, is because I have often relied on my colleagues to work on my computer through Team Viewer. This upload was an unfortunate consequence of a misunderstanding.
Liar. You did it yourself, you wrote the description: it is in your own inimitable style and everyone knows this, and YOU CROWED ABOUT THE VIDEO right after you uploaded it, like a baby proud of her tight little defecation. And all this is recorded, even on your own blog. Of course when you remember that password you'll probably edit those comments out too, but they are recorded elsewhere in places you cannot touch.
QuoteBut I'll live with it - gladly. I am that old now that I realise that even errors are required to advance certain insights. And IF this video needed airing - and IF there's a Devine purpose behind our lives - then I suspect that it's served its purpose to show us all how utterly small are your objections and how entirely you need to advance all your 'SPIN'. Spin has never constituted a scientific argument - any more than inference, implication or 'belief'. Your emphases are always a salutary reminder.
I'll deal with that specific video in my next post to you. It's a perfect example of your reliance on all that SPIN rather than on science.
How about dealing with the issues of YOUR TESTING?
How about telling us just what the IsoTech GFG324 is and where you got one?
How about correcting some of your incredibly stupid errors and mistakes? No...you are too busy combing though my videos, complaining about the lighting and totally missing the point.
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
Got that, Bubba? Units of power and energy will be defined as Ainslie wants, not how physics uses them, and the issue of the units of power and energy have absolutely nothing to do with .... measuring the power and energy of an Ains-lie.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2012, 03:36:59 AM
Now. A quick reference to this number.
If slander is proof of 'good will' then - INDEED - I am deluded. And - as you say - slander needs to be proved 'false'. I prove your contentions 'false' on multiple grounds. In the first instance I am well able to work a solder iron. I soldered the clips to our battery leads in our circuit apparatus. And I am well able to 'read, write and do arithmetic' as I am intellectually competent. Intellectual competence is defined as an 'adult' competence related to precisely those skills. Your average 6 year old and 'under' is NOT - BY DEFINITION - intellectually competent. He is not even accountable for his actions. He is not an adult.
I do not call you a liar. You have branded yourself as a liar when you claim that any six year old has intellectual competence and when you compound this with the statement that they are able to use a solder iron. Never. Not under any circumstances can they or should they be encouraged to work a solder iron. Unless they are WHOLLY ASSISTED and entirely removed from the potential risk contact with the hot solder. Which means that they cannot be taught to an adult level of competency - where one is expected to perform this unassisted. And terms of your subsequent explanation - they cannot do this with an adult competency. Else they'd be soldering UNASSISTED. By your own admission - THEY NEEDED HELP. And it is a rare under six who is able to read, write and do arithmetic to an adult level of competence. I merely advised you that I was incapable of believing those 'aspersions' related to an under sixes' competence. And nor can I. I am NOT sufficiently DELUDED.
Your intention was to imply that I cannot solder and that I do not have an intellectual competence. THAT is easily proven false. Therefore have you slandered my good name. If your opinion mattered - I'd call you to account. In due course you WILL be called to account. But not for something as essentially petty as your poor efforts at slander. And this is NOT a THREAT. It is a promise.
Rosie Pose.
Added
AND INDEED YOU HAVE THREATENED ME. I have a long memory. And I know exactly who you are.
My Dear Rosemary,
1. I never said you couldn't solder
2. I never used, stated, or referred to "intellectual competence"
3. I never said you could not read, write, or do arithmetic.
I would advise you, however, to quit misquoting peolpe and/or putting your words in their mouths, as it may cause one to question your ability to read.
I have never threatened you. Possibly you do have a long memory, but if you think I have ever threatened you, your memory is not at all accurate. Therefore, if you think I have or would bother to threaten you, it demonstrates paranoia. I was particularly referring to your inference that a break in at your location was somehow related to "hatred" from posters and during that inference I was mentioned. Just as you are wrong on many accounts related to technical matters, you are as well wrong regarding your personal assessment of me. But even in this post of yours, you again threaten me. Nice...
And those kids did become proficient at soldering, that was but their first learning experience I described, as you said they could not be taught. In the end they did very well by themselves, but always supervised. I think you should eat a hat just as you said you would.
You seem to be a person who loves to "dish it out" using your written "death by a thousand cuts" digs and jabs, but humorlous and unable to "take any" at all. That is merely an opnion based on observation.
Do you care to talk about anything technical? Now that the issue with how to read the LeCroy screen captures is fully resolved as being just as I attempted to make you understand, in your first paper, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3 when the 'scope capture indicates it should be?
As you said you always admit when you are a wrong, this is an excellent opportunity for you to do so.
PW
Ainslie said,
QuoteAnd I am well able to 'read, write and do arithmetic' as I am intellectually competent.
But Ainslie also said,
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Yes, please... do the math. This is evidence that she cannot do arithmetic. For example.... what is 82 + 20? Is it 104 as asserted? And that is only the simplest of at least three major errors in that "computation".
And Ainslie also said,
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
And checking the various WIKI pages on the topic.... it turns out that 1 Watt is NOT 1 Joule, and 1 Joule is NOT one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is clearly explained in WIKI.
This is evidence that she cannot read.
Evidence that she cannot write coherent English sentences most of the time is all over these threads.
And finally... the evidence of her intellectual competency is sorely lacking, and what of it there is is profoundly negative.
She does however excel at the veiled insult and the implied threat and the mendacious distraction and the concealment of fact and the beggaring of truth. And I can also provide many examples in evidence of each, in her own words, from these threads.
Ainslie lied,
QuoteNot only free legal advice but you solicit it with all the finesse of a 5 year old. I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT OUR CLAIMS. OUR CLAIM IS ONLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMS IN OUR PAPERS. ALL OTHER WORK IS MERELY RELATED TO THAT CLAIM WHICH IS IN THAT PAPER. No amount of repeated allegation will change this until you manage to PROVE that I made that video publicly accessible. When you've PROVED this - then LET ME KNOW.
So I'm letting her know that I've managed -- somehow -- to PROVE that she made that video publicly accessible.
Let's say that I have two oscilloscopes. One -- call it Leroy -- is "earthed" through the line cord and the other one -- Call it Ronnie -- has had its line cord "earth ground" pin cut off. Or perhaps Ronnie uses a wall-wart and the instrument's supply is indeed not "earthed" or even connected to the line neutral wire because of the wall-wart.
Now Leroy has all his probe "grounds" or reference leads all connected together inside the instrument, right? All those BNC shields are connected to the chassis which in turn is connected to the line cord earth ground pin.
Right?
But Ronnie, which also has all his probe references connected internally as is normal.... his chassis isn't grounded back to the earth through the line cord. This would appear to afford certain advantages, like immunity from some kinds of groundloops.
Now let's let Leroy and Ronnie play with a DUT. Hmmm..... what's the best way to use these scopes to their full advantage....
I know... let's hook them up in strict parallel, all.... ALL.... the probe ground references hooked to the _same point._
Therefore.... it matters not one whit that Ronnie is specially "isolated" from the line cord ground... because we have just hooked it up to that ground, through Leroy.
:-[
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html)
Um....er..... ah..... no.
A 12 volt battery of 60 amp-hours capacity has 60 amphours x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute == 216000 amp-seconds capacity, and at 12 volts that is 12 x 216000 == 2592000 Watt-seconds or JOULES of energy. Six of them will therefore have 15,552,000 JOULES of energy. Or if you like you can add the batteries together to make one 72 volt battery at 60 amp hours capacity. The result is the same.
If your system ran 54 hours dissipating 10 Watts as it appears you claim, that is 54 hours x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute == 194400 seconds, and ten Watts over that time period yields 1,944,000 Watt-seconds or JOULES of energy.
15,552,000 Joules/ 1,944,000 Joules == exactly 8.
This means that, contrary to your bogus claim, your 54 hours of runtime not only did NOT use more energy than your batteries contain, in fact.... YOUR BATTERIES COULD LIKELY DO 8 SUCH RUNS---over 400 hours--- before dropping below 12 volts each in a no-load voltage test.
You can't just multiply numbers together willy nilly..... "60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts" ... whaat? Let's see if we can figure out where that number came from. 60 x 60 x 60 x 6 is indeed 1296000... but it isn't watts. Or even JOULES. Don't we care about the 12 volts at all? The 1296000 figure is the amp-seconds capacity of the 6 batteries. To get to Watt-seconds or JOULES you need to put the voltage in, Rosemary. If you would write out the UNITS instead of just the numbers you wouldn't make these errors, and if you finally would get it through your head that Joules and Watts are no more interchangeable than Miles and Miles Per Hour...... you would be a lot better off.
60 amp hours x 60 minutes PER hour = 3600 amp minutes. 3600 amp minutes x 60 seconds PER minute = 216000 amp seconds. 216000 amp seconds x 6 batteries (counts are "unitless") == 1 296 000 AMP SECONDS. 1296000 amp seconds x 12 VOLTS == 15552000 WATT SECONDS.... aka JOULES of energy. If you put the units in and treat them just like numbers you will see that they cancel algebraically and work out properly all the way to the end result in JOULES.
But we know you didn't take algebra in school so it's really no wonder you don't grasp this.
You are right about one thing though... this IS getting a bit boring.
QuoteI lost my password - YET AGAIN - and have only JUST managed to get back in here. What an ordeal. I really need to get this password thing standardised.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/106-onwards-and-upwards.html
Evidence of competence... YET AGAIN ?
QuoteI must admit to feeling a bit disheartened at the moment. I can't get my circuit to take any energy at all from the battery and I do not have the skills to do the required trouble shooting. Hopefully this will be fixed later on today.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/103-just-sharing-bleak-morning-mood.html
Evidence of blown mosfets, perhaps? YET AGAIN ? And you don't have the skills to change a mosfet, check your clipleads, make sure your instruments are even turned on? That I do believe.
picowatt
This statement of yours is somewhat contradicted by the fact. Here's the statement...
Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 09:11:21 AM1. I never said you couldn't solder
And here's where you actually DID imply my lack of soldering competence...
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMI believe, regarding the horizontal measurement, that you stated even an 8 year old could understand it. I have indeed taught 8 year olds how to use a 'scope. I have taught pre-schooler's how to solder. All of them were more receptive to learning than you.
All of which, in any event, is utter nonsense. I doubt you've ever taught anyone at all on an official level. For that you'd need to be credentialed. You're not.
Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 09:11:21 AM2. I never used, stated, or referred to "intellectual competence"
What then is this inference?...
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AM
Of course their parents knew. They did very well sitting on my lap...THEY had a functional intelligence.
The inference is CLEAR. My own functional intelligence is LESS THAN A SIX YEAR OLD'S.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AM3. I never said you could not read, write, or do arithmetic.
I KNOW this. What you stated is that those children you apparently 'trained' - DID have a 'functional intelligence'. Which by definition means that they had an adult competence at 'reading, writing and arithmetic'. By INFERENCE - therefore - I DO NOT. Remember? 'THEY had a functional intelligence'? Your statement? Quoted above? And if it is THEY that have that functional intelligence then you are implying that I DON'T. And you think this is exempt from SLANDER?
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMI would advise you, however, to quit misquoting peolpe and/or putting your words in their mouths, as it may cause one to question your ability to read.
The evidence is there. I have NOT misquoted you. I have an adequate 'reading competence'.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMIn the end they did very well by themselves, but always supervised. I think you should eat a hat just as you said you would.
NO danger of that ever being needed.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMYou seem to be a person who loves to "dish it out" using your written "death by a thousand cuts" digs and jabs, but humorlous and unable to "take any" at all. That is merely an opnion based on observation.
I am not at all sure what any of this means. Perhaps a 'rewrite'? If you're that petty? Then at least one could make head or tail of your sense - if there is any.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMDo you care to talk about anything technical? Now that the issue with how to read the LeCroy screen captures is fully resolved as being just as I attempted to make you understand, in your first paper, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3 when the 'scope capture indicates it should be?
Let's first deal with some pertinent issues. What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMAs you said you always admit when you are a wrong, this is an excellent opportunity for you to do so.
I am not wrong. Unfortunately. You, on the other hand are PROFOUNDLY wrong. On many many levels but including those technical levels.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMI have never threatened you. Possibly you do have a long memory, but if you think I have ever threatened you, your memory is not at all accurate. Therefore, if you think I have or would bother to threaten you, it demonstrates paranoia.
And now you're compounding the felony of slander to include allegations of 'lunacy'.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMI was particularly referring to your inference that a break in at your location was somehow related to "hatred" from posters and during that inference I was mentioned.
I am the subject of a hate blog orchestrated by Mookie - who has an IP address that links directly to senior management at ESKOM. ESKOM are our local utility suppliers. They are also bulldozing contracts for an expansion to their nuclear power stations. These contracts will cost our country trillions of rands. It will impoverish our country for generations to come. And I am vociferous in my objections to this. Especially in the light of cold fusion technology. MOOKIE runs the 'hate blog'. You all subscribe. That and the context of this thread is continual proof of that 'HATE'. Your posts are continual proof of 'spin'. Since that intruder DID NOT TAKE ANYTHING - while we had many valuables within easy reach - including antique silver and other tangibles - then one questions the PURPOSE of that break in. In as much as he was 'ARMED' and 'DANGEROUS' then it was a personal attack. Why? And who was he? So. IF I then draw conclusions related to that hateful incident and to the the apparent lack of personal popularity with those subscribers on that hate blog - orchestrated by MOOKIE - then I think I have good reason. And it most certainly makes me wonder why it is that those such as you are SO anxious to promote the 'spin' of my stupidity and lack of training. And why it is that you WILL not do a fair and reasonable analysis of those papers.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMJust as you are wrong on many accounts related to technical matters.
I am NOT wrong on technical matters. You, TK, Poynty Point and MileHigh are wrong on technical matters. Many of them. And I have yet to get the opportunity to argue them. You haven't even GOT there. Only Poynty has acknowledged where they're pointing.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMyou are as well wrong regarding your personal assessment of me. But even in this post of yours, you again threaten me. Nice...
I am NOT wrong. And I DO NOT THREATEN YOU. And INDEED you have threatened me personally and our work specifically. And the hell of being adult is that one becomes personally accountable. Unless - of course - like TK - you had managed to keep your address hidden. All I need to do picowatt is run our COP>17 test - and run a series of tests to refute sundry arguments that you've included in this thread and OTHERS. Then TRUST ME - you will be called to account on many levels - INCLUDING those actions that you threatened to take and those actions that you actually DID take. FTC cannot harm our work. He hasn't got the know how. And his spite is so excessive it mitigates against his credibility. TK also has more bark than bite. More ego than good judgement. And he actually does a really good job of advertising our work. But YOU? You did indeed do damage. That time is ripening when there will be substantial proof of EXACTLY the role you played. It is the inevitable cost of adulthood that one actually is ALWAYS acountable.
Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMAnd those kids did become proficient at soldering, that was but their first learning experience I described, as you said they could not be taught.
Which I'm sure is true. But they would have had to be in their early to mid teens before they were allowed to be let loose. A child is not expected to have the manual dexterity required to manipulate a solder iron. It's an ABSURD proposal.
Rosie Pose
My Dear Rosemary,
Just can't admit you're wrong, can you?
As to the rest, a quote comes to mind, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
And please do show me a quote where I in any way threatened you.
As to a threat to your "work", if you are referring to the truth regarding the technical nature of its operation and the data provided, sometimes the truth does indeed hurt, so to speak.
Good Day
picowatt
If you think I protest too much now - then you're in for a treat.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2012, 11:59:30 AM
picowatt
If you think I protest too much now - then you're in for a treat.
Rosie Pose
And yet another threat.
(Modified from the interrogative.)
Added,
And please do quote where I said you could not solder, so far you have been unable to do so.
Take the time to actually read...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 12:07:45 AM
All this time..... and we were supposed to be using this diagram, since it's the only one that seems to have come from Ainslie herself.
Preserved here for posterity:
Guys, regarding TK's videos and my promised 'dissertation'. I spent the most of the day on this - and then got utterly dejected. The fact is that my arguments will be ignored - TK will continue with his spin and it will all become tediously repetitive and infinitely circular. My comfort is that there are those posters on this an other threads who are FINALLY getting to ask the right questions. I know this because two of them have been in touch with me. I'm literally wasting my time and breath with TK - picowatt - MileHigh and FTC - as he signs himself.
I would urgently caution all of you. The most of TK's videos are pure spin and barely scientific. Even when he tries to prove a point he doesn't. He rather confirms our own evidence. Especially with regard to that final Tek run he managed. He certainly endorses our argument there. But nota bene - he also went to some lengths to leave out the evidence related to heat measurements and comparative battery performance. He cannot simply and ever give the full picture. Always and only can he 'suggest' and 'infer' and 'imply'. And then his malice is underscored by that heavy handed effort at sarcasm. Moderation of judgement is NOT his strong point. But I grant you the amusement value of them all. Especially that repetitive apology for bad lighting. If 'brevity is the soul of wit' then repetition is its 'lifeblood'. And if clear schematics are a requirement for any demonstration - then that 'rats nest' of wires belies any pretense at clarity. And that MOSFET number that he did - under the preposterous title of CHAPTER 2 - lol - that's got to go down in history as the most presumptuous 'title' that anyone has ever managed. It's hilarious. I'm looking forward to a Chapter 3 and upwards.
Anyway. I think I've said my say. There is not a one of them who is giving you the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it. It's all spin. And it's getting progressively more heavy handed - and thereby less effectual. I am doing myself considerably more harm in posting here than if I was to withdraw. It's like a 'drug'. I see yet another example of that 'spin' and I'm compelled to challenge it. I think I need to rely on you readers here to filter out the truth for yourselves and let this well alone. I'll try again to ignore these posts. And I did not post that slew of comments on his videos. And nor will I. It does me no good and doubt it will do TK any harm. Just more 'fuel to the fire'. So. What's the point? Better I spend my time more constructively. At least our Easter and public holidays are mostly over. And from next week most people will be back at work and I'll be able to move on preparing for those demos.
Needless to say - our LeCroy is STILL not back from the calibration labs. But I believe I'll be able to take possession of it tomorrow. And I'm now armed with two cameras one of which is a HD number. And I also have two tripods. You need to invest in a tripod TK. Especially as your compulsion to video everything is so evidently 'over whelming'. It would greatly assist your argument. But it would also give you no excuse for all that required poor focus.
This schematic - which TK kindly 'preserved for posterity' - I'm posting it again. Please do reference this specifically as those legs are 'joined'. You'll see the absurdity of TK's and picowatt's proposal that current is flowing from the battery supply source through the function generator terminal and probe - to the the source via the gate at Q2. It's an adventurous argument. But UTTERLY impossible. The Gate voltage can only enable or not - the battery supply source current flow from the drain leg to the source leg. The voltage at the gate is only and ever an applied voltage signal. And it is never 'half on half off' as is implied in that Chapter 2 number. That's not possible.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2012, 01:03:25 PM
Guys, regarding TK's videos and my promised 'dissertation'. I spent the most of the day on this - and then got utterly dejected. The fact is that my arguments will be ignored - TK will continue with his spin and it will all become tediously repetitive and infinitely circular. My comfort is that there are those posters on this an other threads who are FINALLY getting to ask the right questions. I know this because two of them have been in touch with me. I'm literally wasting my time and breath with TK - picowatt - MileHigh and FTC - as he signs himself.
I would urgently caution all of you. The most of TK's videos are pure spin and barely scientific. Even when he tries to prove a point he doesn't. He rather confirms our own evidence. Especially with regard to that final Tek run he managed. He certainly endorses our argument there. But nota bene - he also went to some lengths to leave out the evidence related to heat measurements and comparative battery performance. He cannot simply and ever give the full picture. Always and only can he 'suggest' and 'infer' and 'imply'. And then his malice is underscored by that heavy handed effort at sarcasm. Moderation of judgement is NOT his strong point. But I grant you the amusement value of them all. Especially that repetitive apology for bad lighting. If 'brevity is the soul of wit' then repetition is its 'lifeblood'. And if clear schematics are a requirement for any demonstration - then that 'rats nest' of wires belies any pretense at clarity. And that MOSFET number that he did - under the preposterous title of CHAPTER 2 - lol - that's got to go down in history as the most presumptuous 'title' that anyone has ever managed. It's hilarious. I'm looking forward to a Chapter 3 and upwards.
Anyway. I think I've said my say. There is not a one of them who is giving you the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it. It's all spin. And it's getting progressively more heavy handed - and thereby less effectual. I am doing myself considerably more harm in posting here than if I was to withdraw. It's like a 'drug'. I see yet another example of that 'spin' and I'm compelled to challenge it. I think I need to rely on you readers here to filter out the truth for yourselves and let this well alone. I'll try again to ignore these posts. And I did not post that slew of comments on his videos. And nor will I. It does me no good and doubt it will do TK any harm. Just more 'fuel to the fire'. So. What's the point? Better I spend my time more constructively. At least our Easter and public holidays are mostly over. And from next week most people will be back at work and I'll be able to move on preparing for those demos.
Needless to say - our LeCroy is STILL not back from the calibration labs. But I believe I'll be able to take possession of it tomorrow. And I'm now armed with two cameras one of which is a HD number. And I also have two tripods. You need to invest in a tripod TK. Especially as your compulsion to video everything is so evidently 'over whelming'. It would greatly assist your argument. But it would also give you no excuse for all that required poor focus.
This schematic - which TK kindly 'preserved for posterity' - I'm posting it again. Please do reference this specifically as those legs are 'joined'. You'll see the absurdity of TK's and picowatt's proposal that current is flowing from the battery supply source through the function generator terminal and probe - to the the source via the gate at Q2. It's an adventurous argument. But UTTERLY impossible. The Gate voltage can only enable or not - the battery supply source current flow from the drain leg to the source leg. The voltage at the gate is only and ever an applied voltage signal. And it is never 'half on half off' as is implied in that Chapter 2 number. That's not possible.
Regards,
Rosemary
My Dear Rosemary,
I stared at this "drawing" for some time last night before I went to bed after TK posted it. Honestly, it makes no sense whatsoever. Nowhere in your schematic is the source of a MOSFET tied directly to its gate. You are apparently as well indicating that the gate of Q1 is grounded, is ths actually in reference to Q2, because this is the only device with a gate held near ground via connection to the CSR.
As for your statement that a MOSFET cannot be "half on half off", if you mean that a MOSFET cannot be biased partially on (i.e., it must be either fully on or fully off), that statement is totally absurd. The ability of a MOSFET to be biased partially on is easily proved, well understood, and utilized everyday. I cannot fathom how anyone could make such a statement.
I am through, much better things to do.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 01:19:22 PM
My Dear Rosemary,
I stared at this "drawing" for some time last night before I went to bed after TK posted it. Honestly, it makes no sense whatsoever. Nowhere in your schematic is the source of a MOSFET tied directly to its gate. You are apparently as well indicating that the gate of Q1 is grounded, is ths actually in reference to Q2, because this is the only device with a gate held near ground via connection to the CSR.
As for your statement that a MOSFET cannot be "half on half off", if you mean that a MOSFET cannot be biased partially on (i.e., it must be either fully on or fully off), that statement is totally absurd. The ability of a MOSFET to be biased partially on is easily proved, well understood, and utilized everyday. I cannot fathom how anyone could make such a statement.
I am through, much better things to do.
PW
And my dear picowatt - I correspondingly assure YOU that the schematic above is PRECISELY the way those MOSFETs are connected. And it most CERTAINLY is illustrated in our schematic. Just take another long hard look. Delighted to see that you've not actually even realised this. Because then I can, at least, not accuse you of 'malice of forethought'. I realise too that it entirely obviates your argument. Which is no doubt why you're anxious - yet again - to ignore my input and 'move on'. God knows to where? It's only going to be irrelevant to our circuit apparatus. But there you go. It has never been a requirement of yours to apply an appropriate argument.
And IF any single MOSFET can be both 'on and off' then it is operating in a condition that is NOT applicable to our own uses of this. You will notice that there is a remarkably robust current flow that is enabled though to the source and evident on our current sensing resistors. And if you are still trying to argue that this is coming from the function generator - then you are quite simply WRONG and you would need first to prove that this is NOT how our MOSFETS are connected. They MOST ASSUREDLY ARE.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 01:28:56 AM
the Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT replication. Got that? This gives me considerable freedom to experiment, as well as the liberty to apply for the various prizes she has applied for, should I be able to demonstrate battery charging and overunity performance in the Tar Baby device, which is NOT an Ainslie replication.
@ Rosemary:
I am STILL waiting for your NEW MATH...
Where is the new math?
Where is the new math?
Where is the new math?
Where is the new math?
Where is the new math?
Or the Dim Bulb Test? ???
Where is that 555 timer test? ???
(TK has told you why your circuit won't work with a 555 timer Rosemary. Did you understand his explanation? ???)
???
Now I'm also waiting for the 'Proof of Threats' copy/paste post...
How are you gonna 'cherry pick' something that doesn't exist? ???
Waiting, waiting, waiting again...
These people don't hate you Rosemary, they are just tired of trying to help you when all you do is deny deny deny. It is just hard for me (any of us) to understand how you can't just ACCEPT THE FACTS!!! Your COP>17 was because of IMPROPER TESTING METHODS and BAD MATH. ACCEPT IT!
Learn from TK, quit with the endless denials!! Your 'paper' hasn't proven ANYTHING!!!
PW actually described how he helped kids learn how to solder and you treat that like it's a bad thing?!? That GIVES him credentials in my book, regardless of his posts (which BTW show an understanding of electronics FAR superior to yours).
TK has done more work to educate people on how your circuit (or a similar circuit if you want to be specific) works than you have ever done and will ever do! Don't you get it>?! He spent HIS TIME trying to understand something because YOU DIDN'T understand it yourself. He has made HOURS of videos about your 'negative current' (or whatever you're calling it these days) and done viable research. How dare you critique his 'work' when you haven't done ANY.>>>WHERE ARE YOUR VIDEOS ROSEMARY? ???
(And please don't post your scope shots, they are a MESS. Those aren't traces, those are HASH.)
I just had a novel idea: YOU should try building a TK Tar Baby and see if you get different results! Never know, you might learn something! ;D
Or you could find more irrelevant things to focus on instead of YOUR LACK OF NEW MATH!! Just lay off the paranoia pills for a while, too much stress is not good for you.
Still waiting,
PC
Post after post of the same nonsense, to try to cover up the real issues:
Ainslie lied about posting the video and about her YT "doozydont" alias. See image below and the following quote:
QuoteNot only free legal advice but you solicit it with all the finesse of a 5 year old. I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT OUR CLAIMS. OUR CLAIM IS ONLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMS IN OUR PAPERS. ALL OTHER WORK IS MERELY RELATED TO THAT CLAIM WHICH IS IN THAT PAPER. No amount of repeated allegation will change this until you manage to PROVE that I made that video publicly accessible. When you've PROVED this - then LET ME KNOW.
Ainslie cannot do simple power and energy calculations.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html
Do The Math..... (tm RA).
Anslie cannot even draw a coherent schematic diagram. See image below.
But she ALWAYS corrects her errors and posts retractions of the claims base on them, doesn't she?
And she has two tripods and an HD video camera !! Therefore TK is an alien.
QuoteLet's first deal with some pertinent issues. What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
How would you design a test of this hypothesis? Suppose you DIDN'T know, just for a moment, or suppose you had to prove the claim to a skeptic with a million dollars in a suitcase just waiting to give it to you if you prove it.
What kind of test would you do, to show that there isn't, or is, current flowing through the FG?
Would you place a shunt in the positive "probe" lead and then look at the voltage across this shunt? And if it remained at zero, what would you conclude? And if it DID NOT remain at zero... what would you conclude?
Is there some other test you could think of, like using a non-contact current probe at the FG hookup?
Or is it so impossible, that you don't even need to test the idea... sort of like the clerics that wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter and the "ears" of Saturn?
What test would convince ME that you are right... what test would convince YOU that you are wrong?
I personally would gladly accept the test that I suggest: use a scope channel to look at a shunt (current viewing resistor) in series with the FG output, at either end, black clip or red clip. Black would be better since that way you can still use the common ground.
If it shows no current while your device is operating... then I'll happily acknowledge my error. If it DOES show current while your device is operating.... what will you do?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2012, 01:32:18 PM
And IF any single MOSFET can be both 'on and off' then it is operating in a condition that is NOT applicable to our own uses of this.
With this one statement you prove you have no idea how your circuit operates when the FG output is negative. Nor will you ever understand how and why it oscillates, nor will TK's viideos demonstrating bias current be of any meaning to you whatsoever.
It is sad really, there was so much that could have been learned.
A saying comes to mind, in paraphrase, "A person who believes they know it all, will not attempt to learn anything".
PW
How about this for an easy test:
Show the circuit oscillating using the FG set to make a negative, long DC pulse, or just continuous DC. Adjust the offset and FG output for best negative mean power oscillations. Then simply uplug the FG's negative (black) output lead from the NERD circuit board. This eliminates any return path from the FG's "probe" to its "negative".
Right? If the circuit continues to oscillate, based on the FG being hooked up only by the red tip lead and not at all by the other lead, that would prove Rosemary right, wouldn't it? And it would prove TK, picowatt, ftc, .99, Stefan, and all the others who believe otherwise to be wrong.
Right?
Especially if both the Grounded LeCroy and the Ungrounded Tektronix (or is it the other way around? I don't recall) both continue to agree like they do in the demo video.
Right?
Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 04:08:43 PM
With this one statement you prove you have no idea how your circuit operates when the FG output is negative. Nor will you ever understand how and why it oscillates, nor will TK's viideos demonstrating bias current be of any meaning to you whatsoever.
It is sad really, there was so much that could have been learned.
A saying comes to mind, in paraphrase, "A person who believes they know it all, will not attempt to learn anything".
PW
Maybe this will help.
Although.... psychological research into cognition has shown that as many as 20 to 30 percent of people cannot seem to interpret graphical displays of data. It isn't education or experience or culture, either... apparently it is an innate difference in brain wiring that determines whether the mind can visualise the relationships shown in a graph. Same thing with 3-d orientation in space and map-reading... it turns out that many people just can't do it.
Rosemary.... when people are talking about mosfets operating in the linear transfer region, or when they are claiming that a mosfet can be partially on... they are referring to the data displayed in this graph. The source-to-drain CURRENT passing through the mosfet depends on the VOLTAGE at the gate, and there is a range of voltages at which the mosfet is "both on and off".. that is, it is PARTIALLY conducting and cannot yet be considered "ON" but neither can it be considered "off". The oscillations on the gates in your circuit definitely are of sufficient amplitude to PARTIALLY and very quickly turn the associated mosfets partly on. As soon as they do turn on the amplitude drops and they turn more partly off again, lather rinse repeat. This is the basic principle of an amplifier with gain. If the mosfet was just a switch with only two states ON and OFF you could never use it as an amplifier... and there are a lot of high-quality audio systems with mosfet amplifier stages in them out there.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 05:23:17 PM
How about this for an easy test:
Show the circuit oscillating using the FG set to make a negative, long DC pulse, or just continuous DC. Adjust the offset and FG output for best negative mean power oscillations. Then simply uplug the FG's negative (black) output lead from the NERD circuit board. This eliminates any return path from the FG's "probe" to its "negative".
Right? If the circuit continues to oscillate, based on the FG being hooked up only by the red tip lead and not at all by the other lead, that would prove Rosemary right, wouldn't it? And it would prove TK, picowatt, ftc, .99, Stefan, and all the others who believe otherwise to be wrong.
Right?
Especially if both the Grounded LeCroy and the Ungrounded Tektronix (or is it the other way around? I don't recall) both continue to agree like they do in the demo video.
Right?
TK,
This "disconnect the FG black lead" thing will only work if the FG chassis is isolated from (not touching or connected to) another piece of test equipment and that the AC ground is as well isolated.
Don't you think this may be asking/expecting a bit much from some?
PW
What the?
QuoteThis schematic - which TK kindly 'preserved for posterity' - I'm posting it again. Please do reference this specifically as those legs are 'joined'. You'll see the absurdity of TK's and picowatt's proposal that current is flowing from the battery supply source through the function generator terminal and probe - to the the source via the gate at Q2. It's an adventurous argument. But UTTERLY impossible. The Gate voltage can only enable or not - the battery supply source current flow from the drain leg to the source leg. The voltage at the gate is only and ever an applied voltage signal. And it is never 'half on half off' as is implied in that Chapter 2 number. That's not possible.
The only people that state that current flows through the gate of a MOSFET is you Rosemary.
Like usual your technical prose is a confusing mess. We all need to run for the hills! Guppy attack! lol
What you need to do Rosemary is show us a diagram of how the current flows because your prose does not smell like roses to our noses. Don't you supposes?
MileHigh
Hi Rosemary,
I think it is better to make some new experiment, than to rant here all the time.
Just do the experiments and prove TK wrong if you can do this with your setup...
And show it in videos as he is showing it.
I got again some complains of some users that you only rant here and don´t do the required
experiments.
Regards, Stefan
Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 05:40:26 PM
TK,
This "disconnect the FG black lead" thing will only work if the FG chassis is isolated (not touching or connected to) another piece of test equipment and that the AC ground is as well isolated.
Don't you think this may be asking/expecting a bit much from some?
PW
;)
It's one possible explanation for her supreme confidence that she can demonstrate that no current flows from the "probe" to the "source" or however she puts it... meaning between the FG's output terminals. How could it, she might reason, if the black lead is simply unplugged?
She has made much of the fact that one of the scopes is not grounded back through the AC line cord, and yet it "confirms" or rather "agrees with" the other scope........ when all the probe grounds from both scopes are hooked up to the same point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbHo3CCJtaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epxktl9PoF4
:o
QuoteI should add this. I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology. They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance. They are WELL PAID. And they are VERY EFFECTIVE. The also have liberal access to laboratories. And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there. I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name. They are DANGEROUS. And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses. I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case. We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense. The man's a genius. And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/12/216-background-resulting-in-that-prior.html
More Ains-lies.
I am not paid a cent for this work and Ainslie knows it. Nobody gives me batteries, grants me workspace and student assistants, or loans me equipment for months at a time. Nobody even helps me make my videos. I get valuable advice and constructive criticism from the posters on this forum and that is all the assistance I get.
Psychology is indeed a science; more correctly, several distinct sciences are bundled under the generic appellation "psychology". Many psychologists know a lot more about research methods, experimental design, and statistical analyses than many physicists do. And when we begin to discuss formal models of cognitive processes like visual pattern recognition.... we are up against a hard science, indeed, involving lots of multidisciplinary knowledge.
Does it appear to anyone that I have "liberal access to laboratories"? I have occasional access to some test equipment and I have to make a 200 mile round trip for it to happen. Very liberal indeed... it costs me about 30 dollars in gasoline alone to make the drive.
Mylow... yes, it was Mylow, and I inserted no wires that were not there. Mylow admitted in a comment on my YT expose that I had found him out and guessed the method and that comment is probably still there today. The other analysts on this forum saw the fishing line in the videos Mylow published and at about the same time I "replicated" his performance using the same "wires" Mylow did. The insinuation of Ainslie that I "inserted a wire that simply was not there" is a lie.
Note the veiled threat again, the accusation that "we" are DANGEROUS, and the pathetic outcry denying paranoia.
Rossi a genius? I am the Pope.
Guys, the trick is to check if TK or any of them post my quotes over with a date reference. If they don't it's because they're quoting me out of context and they need to. That's the only way TK manages to keep up his spin.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 03:54:29 PM
Post after post of the same nonsense, to try to cover up the real issues:
And with reference to this diagram...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 03:54:29 PM
Anslie cannot even draw a coherent schematic diagram. See image below.
That's probably on the money. I can ONLY manage simple schematics - at best. But that 'schematic' as he refers to it - is NOT a schematic. It's 'taking liberties with conventional schematics' - as written. I'll take the trouble to post this again. It's important that you get your head around this. I'll also highlight it when I get to my moderated thread - in about 2 weeks from now. NOTA BENE. The source leg of Q2 is not connected to the circuit's source rail (negative battery terminal as Poynty puts it). This can be readily shown. And I'll do so. Just bear this in mind and note this in the context of picowatt's denial of this fact. I shall enjoy showing him that he is, again, 'erroring'.
This point is HIGHLY significant. For reasons which I'll explain. In due course.
Regards,
Rosemary
Sorry I missed this...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 03:54:29 PM
And she has two tripods and an HD video camera !! Therefore TK is an alien.
Just ignore it. It's spin. I most CERTAINLY have two cameras one of which is HD. Very proud of my latest acquisition. And I'll be glad to photograph it in due course. But it will only be appropriate in my own thread. Which makes TK what?
Hey TK:
The second clip was pretty cool with the grounding example. As PW stated, it's an art to manage your grounds.
I have a wish list item for an analog scope were both channels are completely isolated and powered by separate isolation transformers so you can put your probes anywhere. I suppose that complicates matters when you need to drive the analog deflection amplifiers and you need some kind of voltage reference to between the channels and the amplifier to do that. Perhaps an optical link between your isolated scope channels and your deflection amplifiers? lol An analog scope with a hidden optical-digital data pathway that is so high in bandwidth that it looks exactly like an analog scope.
Anyway, I want to focus on the first clip. You showed how the 10.3-ohm resistor has roughly 170 mA of DC current going through it with a relatively low AC waveform superimposed on top of it. That AC waveform was quite similar to he waveform observed across the CVR. And you showed how the multimeter was in agreement showing about 170 mA of DC current flowing through the circuit. This is quite conclusive proof that current is flowing right through the function generator, and it backs up what you demonstrated in your second clip.
I am assuming that your "negative terminal" of the "function generator equivalent" circuit is connected before the CVR. i.e.; You have built the "corrected" circuit where the CVR shows all of the current passing though the circuit.
What I am trying to understand is this: The waveform across the 10.3-ohm resistor shows that the current though the "function generator equivalent" and the source pins of the Q2 array are mostly DC with a smaller AC component. However, when you look at the 0.2 ohm CVR, you see what appears to be nearly all AC. Aren't the 10.3-ohm resistor and the CVR in the same loop? Is it possible that it's related to the Q2 array gates and the assumption that there is AC power coupled through the gate capacitance? Note that the presumed Q2 array AC power via the gate capacitance will tend to flow through the CVR more than the 10.3-ohm resistor because the CVR is a much lower impedance path than the 10.3-ohm resistor.
Perhaps I am missing something or can you explain it?
Thanks,
MileHigh
And guys another quick point on this post of TK's...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 04:06:26 PM
How would you design a test of this hypothesis? Suppose you DIDN'T know, just for a moment, or suppose you had to prove the claim to a skeptic with a million dollars in a suitcase just waiting to give it to you if you prove it.
What kind of test would you do, to show that there isn't, or is, current flowing through the FG?
Just bear in mind that I KNOW that current is flowing through the function generator. How else could it apply a voltage at the MOSFET gate leg? Therefore any tests to disprove this would be spurious - and redundant to our argument. Which makes the balance of his post somewhat absurd.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 04:06:26 PMWould you place a shunt in the positive "probe" lead and then look at the voltage across this shunt? And if it remained at zero, what would you conclude? And if it DID NOT remain at zero... what would you conclude? Is there some other test you could think of, like using a non-contact current probe at the FG hookup? Or is it so impossible, that you don't even need to test the idea... sort of like the clerics that wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter and the "ears" of Saturn? What test would convince ME that you are right... what test would convince YOU that you are wrong? I personally would gladly accept the test that I suggest: use a scope channel to look at a shunt (current viewing resistor) in series with the FG output, at either end, black clip or red clip. Black would be better since that way you can still use the common ground. If it shows no current while your device is operating... then I'll happily acknowledge my error. If it DOES show current while your device is operating.... what will you do?
Which is precisely how he 'misdirects' you all.
Regards again
Rosemary
Rosemary:
QuoteThat's probably on the money. I can ONLY manage simple schematics - at best. But that 'schematic' as he refers to it - is NOT a schematic. It's 'taking liberties with conventional schematics' - as written. I'll take the trouble to post this again. It's important that you get your head around this. I'll also highlight it when I get to my moderated thread - in about 2 weeks from now. NOTA BENE. The source leg of Q2 is not connected to the circuit's source rail (negative battery terminal as Poynty puts it). This can be readily shown. And I'll do so. Just bear this in mind and note this in the context of picowatt's denial of this fact. I shall enjoy showing him that he is, again, 'erroring'.
Just draw up a conventional schematic. There is absolutely no such thing as "taking liberties" with a schematic diagram.
What's your problem? Are you too lazy to draw up a schematic? Can't you just modify or mark up one of the existing schematics to get your point across?
At the same time, can you show us EXACTLY how the current is supposed to flow by indicating that on a schematic? Your verbal description will simply not cut it, ever. One more time, what's your problem with doing this? Are you too lazy to do it?
Think about this: You have been "doing battle" here for a few months, and yet you can't take one hour of your time to make schematic drawings to back up your points? A picture is worth a thousand words and when your words are sliced and diced into a salad it makes comprehending you that much more difficult.
And please, for the love of God, STOP calling a battery negative terminal the "source rail." You are the only person in the world that says that. Get with the program and start using the proper terminology.
MileHigh
And guys,
Again. Where I reference a training in psychology - NOTA BENE
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2012, 11:00:40 PM
Psychology is indeed a science; more correctly, several distinct sciences are bundled under the generic appellation "psychology". Many psychologists know a lot more about research methods, experimental design, and statistical analyses than many physicists do. And when we begin to discuss formal models of cognitive processes like visual pattern recognition.... we are up against a hard science, indeed, involving lots of multidisciplinary knowledge.
Note the use of the word 'WE'.
I rest my case.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on May 02, 2012, 11:12:58 PM
Hey TK:
The second clip was pretty cool with the grounding example. As PW stated, it's an art to manage your grounds.
I have a wish list item for an analog scope were both channels are completely isolated and powered by separate isolation transformers so you can put your probes anywhere. I suppose that complicates matters when you need to drive the analog deflection amplifiers and you need some kind of voltage reference to between the channels and the amplifier to do that. Perhaps an optical link between your isolated scpe channels and your deflection amplifiers? lol An analog scope with a hidden optical-digital data pathway that is so high in bandwidth that it looks exactly like an analog scope.
Anyway, I want to focus on the first clip. You showed how the 10.3-ohm resistor has roughly 170 mA of DC current going through it with a relatively low AC waveform superimposed on top of it. That AC waveform was quite similar to he waveform observed across the CVR. And you showed how the multimeter was in agreement showing about 170 mA of DC current flowing through the circuit. This is quite conclusive proof that current is flowing right through the function generator, and it backs up what you demonstrated in your second clip.
I am assuming that your "negative terminal" of the "function generator equivalent" circuit is connected before the CVR. i.e.; You have build the "corrected" circuit where the CVR shows all of the current passing though the circuit.
What I am trying to understand is this: The waveform across the 10.3-ohm resistor shows that the current though the "function generator equivalent" and the source pins of the Q2 array are mostly DC with a smaller AC component. However, when you look at the 0.2 ohm CVR, you see what appears to be nearly all AC. Aren't the 10.3-ohm resistor and the CVR in the same loop? Is it possible that it's related to the Q2 array gates and the assumption that there is AC power coupled through the gate capacitance? Note that the Q2 array AC power will tend to flow through the CVR because it is a much lower impedance path than the 10.3-ohm resistor.
Perhaps I am missing something or you can explain it?
Thanks,
MileHigh
MH,
When the bias source (FG, etc) applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2:
With regard to DC, all DC (bias) current flows through the source of Q2, the FG (or equivalent bias source) and the CSR (if the bias source is connected to the CSR instaed of battery ground). The low value of the CSR will only drop 50mV or less depending on the DC bias current and the CSR value, so this amount of DC offset at the CSR may be difficult to see at the typical scope settings. If the oscillation were squelched and/or the scope DC gain increased, the DC bias current would be more apparent at the CSR.
For AC, take the FIG 1 schematic of the first paper and draw in four capacitors. One cap from drain to gate and one cap from gate to source on both Q1 and Q2. For the Q2 array, the value of the drain to gate capacitor is 1000pF. The gate to source capacitor is 11,200pF. For Q1 the values would be 250pF and 2800pF (all values approximate).
It will now be apparent that the bias source (and 10R3 or FG's 50R) in the source leg of Q2 is heavily bypassed for AC at the freq of osc via the MOSFET intrinsic capacitances, Coss and Ciss. Most of the AC current will therefore bypass the bias source and flow through the MOSFET capacitances to the CSR.
I hope I understood your question, let me know if this helps.
PW
Hello Stefan,
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 02, 2012, 06:27:16 PM
Hi Rosemary,
I think it is better to make some new experiment, than to rant here all the time.
Just do the experiments and prove TK wrong if you can do this with your setup...
And show it in videos as he is showing it.
I got again some complains of some users that you only rant here and don´t do the required
experiments.
Regards, Stefan
Your point is taken. I'll try and confine my comments to direct denials when I see 'spin'. Otherwise I'll stay out of it. Actually I hope, eventually, to get enough strength of purpose to stop commenting at all on this thread at all.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
QuoteJust bear in mind that I KNOW that current is flowing through the function generator. How else could it apply a voltage at the MOSFET gate leg?
First of all, you make a statement that kind of suggests that current is flowing through a MOSFET gate, yet again. Will you ever learn? I somehow doubt that you are discussing the charging of the gate capacitance here.
More importantly, you are contradicting yourself. You also contradicted yourself about posting your demo video clip from last year. It makes people reading you wonder if you are becoming mentally imbalanced. My advice to you after your dim bulb test fails is to walk away and simply forget this whole project of yours.
MileHigh
Yes, MH, she's contradicting herself yet again, in the most blatant and transparent way. How many times has she denied that the FG can pass current? How can she not realize that the current to charge the GATE is not even measureable by her instruments it's so small? I showed a mosfet gate turning fully on by the charge in my fingertips. Not dealing with Yet Another example of her bogus math, her confounding of energy and power terms, and her lie about "not posting the video" when it's linked from her own blog-- it's the same diversionary tactic she always uses when a real issue comes up. Insult, lie, threaten, bloviate, anything at all but deal with the issues recently raised:
IsoTech GFG324 function generator.
Current through the FG or 555 or other bias supply.
Posting of the video and lying about it.
YET ANOTHER calculation that is grossly in error and a claim made based on that error... not corrected or retracted or even MENTIONED by her.
The "diagram" by which she expected PW to understand her meaning... and then he gets berated when he can't make out the gobbledegook and idiosyncratic handwriting, not designed to communicate anything but the writer's egotism.
Sorry, I thought I was being clear about the schematic I am using. I use the same schematic, except for the substitution of a 555, a battery, an external power supply, or the charge pump inverter as "drop-in" substitutes for the FG, as Ainslie claims to have used for the experiments described in the papers. Which one? I use the one with the Q2 mosfets on the left, and the "direct connection" where the FG "negative" is on the transistor side of the CVR. As below.
Now... why aren't the common mosfet drains monitored in Ainslie's work? Here's why: it is because she still doesn't grasp that, with high-side switching, the DRAIN of the mosfet is HIGH... that is, at battery voltage... when the mosfet is OFF, and when the mosfet turns ON the drain voltage goes LOW, nearly to the negative rail or just above zero volts. Take a look at this blog post of hers, and note that she is confused and amazed by the drain voltage going to nearly zero when the mosfets turn on.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html)
ETA: I guess by now I should do a Revision E, since I am now using that tiny, much lower inductance, 0.2 ohm CVR instead of the ridiculous power resistors. If it gets hot when using a positive drive to actually turn a mosfet on fully, then I'll make a higher-power stack of them. But they cost 1.50 each at the surplus house... 3x the cost of an ordinary cement power resistor.
Oh well.
By the way, I've done some testing with the IRF830a mosfets today, and it looks to me like they will make the same negative mean power if the battery isn't de-rippled by caps. The CVR oscillations have the same basic shape and distribution wrt the zero reference and the battery ripple looks just the same, but the frequency is about twice that seen with the PG50s.
I've also run today with the 555 timer making NEGATIVE pulses, powered by the charge pump inverter which in turn is powered by the lowest of the main batteries, no external bias source used.
So.. I've made purely positive gate drive pulses using the plain 555 circuit I've posted before, but without oscillations, just mosfet on fully. (This happens because there is no "negative offset" possible with just a simple 555 hookup. A negative voltage on Q2 sources is required for the oscillations to occur and the positive 555 can't provide it.)
I've used a straight 9v battery through a pot/resistor combo to make the _negative_ bias drive for the low heat oscillation mode.
I've done the same with an external regulated supply.
I've also done the same just using the charge pump inverter to act as a negative bias source, and this can be powered either by 12 volts from the regulated power supply or the main battery.
And I've used the 555 timer, run from the inverter, to make the negative-going pulsed bias supply.
All these methods work, some with more distortion than others. With just the charge inverter running from an external supply and no 555 pulser, the oscillations become almost perfectly sinusoidal. Running the 555 "upside down" using the inverter from the main battery and making pulsations as well as oscillations, the waveshapes are quite distorted but still distinct and at the correct frequency. I think with appropriate filtering the system could work equally well using any of the bias sources I've tried.
TK,
I read the blog link.
Based on that read, I think part of RA's misunderstanding is that she believes the gate of Q2 is being switched by the FG. The gate of Q2 will always be very close to ground. It is at whatever voltage the non-battery end of the CSR is at. I think, from her drawing in that blog link, that she believes the FG is making the Q2 gate positive when the FG output is negative. Her reference to current flow or switching regarding Q2's gate further supports this.
I do not think she realizes an FG has a bipolar power supply that allows its output to swing either positive or negative with respect to its signal ground, which will always remain at the potential to which it is attached. When the FG output is positive, it charges the Q1 gate and turns Q1 on. But when ithe FG output is negative, the Q2 gate continues to remain very close to ground and its source is brought negative by the FG, which biases Q2 on and current flows thru Q2 and the FG to the CSR. I believe she thinks the FG is switching the Q2 gate when the FG is negative and this is clearly not so.
Possiibly, if someone redrew a drawing like the first one GL posted with two batteries in series representing the FG bipolar supply with the centertap of the batteries connected to the CSR and a SPDT switch to select the polarity supplied via a 50R to the Q2 source and Q1 gate, it might help her understand.
Might...
PW
Hi all,
Here are some nifty animations of a n-Channel Enhancement MOSFET ... some may find these useful or educational.
http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/mmg/teaching/linearcircuits/mosfet.html ( N-channel enhancement MOSFET ( adjustable ))
http://matec.org/animations/matec/M001FL02.swf ( This is an animation of a n-Channel Enhancement MOSFET Characteristic Curves. )
http://wps.pearsoned.com/wps/media/objects/11427/11702033/Biasing%20of%20D%20Mosfet.swf ( Biasing of E-MOSFET (enhanced type))
Fuzzy
:)
@PW: Yes, that is part of the problem.... her reaction to the video I made of the FG simply lighting the LEDs alternately was that I somehow had faked it or was employing "misdirection" of some kind. She can't seem to believe that the FG is a bipolar power supply, even though she's using it as one in her circuit.
But, from long experience with Ainslie ... I think there is another big conceptual error revealed in that post. You see that she is talking about putting a probe on the drains, in her garbled manner.
QuoteThe oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain. Which is standard convention. Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls. And it SERIOUSLY falls. It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5. Given a 6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts. At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage. And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative.
So she's applying a signal to Q1 gate (and Q2 sources) that is negative... which means the signal at Q2 gates is positive and switching those mosfets on... making the voltage at the common drain pins fall. And she's describing the anti-phase relationship between the voltage on the mosfet _drains_ and some other signal from the circuit.
So she is seeing the normal drop in indicated voltage at the drain of a mosfet doing high-side switching when the transistor is turned ON. She has been confused about this many times in the past; in fact it is at the heart of the earlier COP>17 claimed circuit. Recall the duty cycle issue with the earlier COP>17 claim? Her timer produced a signal that caused the DRAIN ... which she sometimes thinks is equivalent to monitoring the load... to be HIGH... at battery voltage.... for 3.7 percent of the time. So she thought she was making the LOAD be ON and carrying current 3.7 percent of the time. Which of course is exactly backwards.
This is the reason why I did the several demonstrations where I stress that when the DRAIN of the mosfet is LOW-- at or near the zero voltage level just as she describes in the blog-- the mosfet is ON, conducting, and this is absolutely normal and exactly what is expected, and when the Drain voltage is HIGH-- at battery voltage, the mosfet is OFF and not conducting and so the load is not carrying any current. She can't seem to wrap her mind around this concept.
She sees the drain pin oscillating and thinks that when the voltage indicates low during the oscillations that the battery has discharged its entire capacity or more in a "fraction of a moment", not realizing that the drop in voltage at the drain pin only means that the mosfet is on or partially so and nothing more.
I think this is why the common drains is never shown in her scopeshots except for that one time in the video. She doesn't understand what it is showing so she leaves it out and strenuously avoids discussion of it. Remember me commenting on the "Green Trace" and her denials that it was the drains... but her never saying what she believed it was. In spite of the narration and the circuit diagram and the actual viewing of the scene she still denied that that trace on the TEk screen was the common drains, yet never has said what she believes it to be.
@fuzzy: Those are neat ! thanks for posting them. I doubt if the relevance to the present issues will be understood _or believed_ by she-who-knows-all-already, though.
A paranoid personality is always going to suspect that her "enemies" are going to great lengths to try to trick her and fool her into believing something that she "knows" isn't so. But she "knows" so much more than they do and feels entirely justified in her own eyes. Constantly feeling under attack, the paranoid person will "circle her wagons" and strike out at anyone and anything that happens by so long as it seems to threaten her heavily-defended world view. Contrary information will always be seen as a fabrication, a lie, an attempt to subvert her position that she knows is correct without room for doubt. Anyone who brings her contrary information is the enemy and will be attacked, and any chain of reasoning based on something that contradicts anything she "knows" is simply ignored. Her enemies conspire against her behind the scenes, they are organized and have agendas to prevent the great work that she is involved in, not only her own work but anything that even resembles it. There is a vast shadowy conspiracy working against her and people like her, who have the key for salvation of the human race.
You can see this thought pattern in her postings, over and over again. It is a "textbook" example of what CLINICAL psychologists call the Paranoid Personality Disorder. It moves from being a "style" to a "disorder" when it interferes with normal functioning and causes problems that extend out from the individual to affect the group ... as in the present case.
Ainslie always corrects her errors, she claims. Yet I cannot find anywhere where she has corrected the errors in the following statement:
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html)
Is there anything about this statement and claim of hers that is in error? Anything at all that calls the conclusion into question?
"So. Do the Math." (tm Rosemary Ainslie.)
In her "papers" she mentions the use of the IsoTech GFG324 function generator. Yet the function generator shown in the video is some other model. Is the "GFG324" part an error? If so... why hasn't it been corrected? If not.... I would really like to get hold of information about this FG because the claims made for it seem critical to investigating the Ainslie claims themselves, since she claims it will do things -- or rather not do them -- differently from other common FGs. So information about the ACTUAL FG used in the "papers" is necessary. Is there an error here..... or not?
Ainslie claims always to correct her errors. Yet I find MANY errors in what she's said, posted, and put into her papers. And I can't find a single place where she corrects any of these errors. She has not even corrected the stupid assertion she made about my "lack" of color coding of wiring... when my wires are indeed all colorcoded in a consistent manner.... and hers are ALL BLACK.
Nor has she ever corrected this howling conceptual error:
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
Out of context? What possible context can be imagined that would make that statement correct? And anyone can see perfectly well that it's not a typo or transposition... since she CALCULATES that way, over and over, and bases her overunity claim on the conclusions from those bogus calculations.
So. Do the math (tm RA.)
Ainslie acknowledges that Current Must Flow from the function generator in order to switch a mosfet gate and turn the transistor's main current path ON. But how much DC current does this take?
How much current from the Function Generator does it take to charge up the gate of an IRFPG50 and turn its drain-to-source pathway fully ON? If I had a perfect current meter and I put it in the gate circuit, what would it show if there were no other connections to that part of the circuit, as I apply a voltage there to switch the mosfet on?
What is the magnitude of the current (let's assume +6 volts , gate-to-source, applied at the gate of the single IRFPG50 mosfet) required to turn it on? Does this current persist once the mosfet is turned on?
I'm talking about an arrangement like shown in the sketch below. The meter in the gate leg is a "perfect" current meter, the mosfet is an IRFPG50, the battery is 4 D-cells in series, the switch is a manual pushbutton and the bulb is a flashlight bulb. And the black lines are wires.
Two simple questions:
1. When I close the manual switch, how much current flows to the gate through the perfect ammeter to turn the mosfet on?
2. Once the mosfet is ON and the light bulb is glowing brightly, does the GATE CURRENT continue flowing through the perfect ammeter?
I've attached the mosfet data sheet for the convenience of anyone who wishes to answer this little quiz. Open notes allowed as always, but please show your workings.
I am no electronics engineer but I was under the impression that a field effect transistor needs only voltage to trigger the main. Usually the gate has an rc network attached to make sure the fet doesn't miss fire. The signal generator needs to supply enough current to overcome the rc network filtering and satisfy the gate capacitance.
TK,
From my read, RA is discussing the oscillation seen on the battery trace. She is trying to arrive at an explanation for how the oscillation Vpp can far exceed or be less than the battery voltage (i.e., oscillate above and below Vbatt).
Apparently that was written without any belief in battery lead inductance and the high impedance it presents to the osc at the frequency of osc.
She discusses the many many amps that must sink/source from the battery if the battery trace indication is correct, and though apparently aware .99's assertions regarding lead inductance, ignores them for one reason or another.
I could be wrong as it is difficult to read due to its use of "less than technical" language.
PW
Quote from: sparks on May 03, 2012, 10:19:56 AM
I am no electronics engineer but I was under the impression that a field effect transistor needs only voltage to trigger the main. Usually the gate has an rc network attached to make sure the fet doesn't miss fire. The signal generator needs to supply enough current to overcome the rc network filtering and satisfy the gate capacitance.
Sparks,
You are correct for the most part.
All FET gates act as capacitors, and once charged, only a very small gate leakage current is drawn from the gate. So, as the FET is turnng on, i.e., as its gate capacitance is being charged, current is drawn as required to charge the gate capacitance. Once charged, very little current (typically picoamps/nanoamps) is required to keep the FET gate charged.
For high speed switching operations with power FET's, which have a fairly large gate capacitance, charging and discharging the gate capacitance rapidly can require very large currents. Typically a driver IC is used to drive the gate which has a buffer stage capable of supplying the large currents needed to rapidly charge/discharge the gate capacitance for high speed turn on/turn off.
Small signal FET's have a much lower gate capacitance and require much less current to charge their gates, but even here, the gate capacitance can not be ignored, particularly in high frequency amplifier circuits.
It can be easiy demonstrated that it is possible to charge the gate of a FET and then disconnect the gate and the device will remain on as the gate capacitance slowly discharges.
Typically the gate capacitance is specified on data sheets as "input capacitance" and abbreviated as "Ciss" (input Capacitance with drain shorted to source). Ciss is therefore considered to be the sum of Cgs (gate to source capacitance) and Cgd (gate to drain capacitance), with Cgs typically the larger of the two.
PW
Yes, all of that is right.
(Except that I still believe that she is discussing the Drain signal not what she calls the "batt" signal, in that blog post.)
However I am trying to illustrate a solid point, and that is that the DC current to turn on the gate of the mosfet is tiny and is NOT the current that we are measuring from the bias source in the Tar Baby or by extension in the NERD device.
All of this is in conjunction with trying to get her to understand that the FG or other bias source DOES act in series with the main battery, and the gate connections are in "parallel" to the source-drain path, and that the DC current involving the gate is a minuscule portion, probably not even measurable at the current instrument settings.
I showed in my video how just touching the gate pin even through a 1megohm resistor can turn the transistor on, and also I demonstrated how the transistor stays on even when the gate pin is totally disconnected from anything, and that the gate charge must be "sourced" away for the mosfet to turn off. All of this means that the DC current to the gate is small and once the gate is full this current ceases to flow, and these are the points that Ainslie needs to understand in order to realize that the DC current in the bias is NOT flowing through the gate at all but is in series with the main battery and is flowing through the drain-source path and the load.
Certainly the gate-source and gate-drain capacitances will also pass the AC current that is sitting on top of the larger DC component of the negative bias being sent to the Q1 sources (and positive to their gates.) I'm talking about strictly the DC case here, for pedagogical purposes, even though I know it's hopeless.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 03, 2012, 12:18:48 PM
Yes, all of that is right.
(Except that I still believe that she is discussing the Drain signal not what she calls the "batt" signal, in that blog post.)
However I am trying to illustrate a solid point, and that is that the DC current to turn on the gate of the mosfet is tiny and is NOT the current that we are measuring from the bias source in the Tar Baby or by extension in the NERD device.
All of this is in conjunction with trying to get her to understand that the FG or other bias source DOES act in series with the main battery, and the gate connections are in "parallel" to the source-drain path, and that the DC current involving the gate is a minuscule portion, probably not even measurable at the current instrument settings.
I showed in my video how just touching the gate pin even through a 1megohm resistor can turn the transistor on, and also I demonstrated how the transistor stays on even when the gate pin is totally disconnected from anything, and that the gate charge must be "sourced" away for the mosfet to turn off. All of this means that the DC current to the gate is small and once the gate is full this current ceases to flow, and these are the points that Ainslie needs to understand in order to realize that the DC current in the bias is NOT flowing through the gate at all but is in series with the main battery and is flowing through the drain-source path and the load.
Certainly the gate-source and gate-drain capacitances will also pass the AC current that is sitting on top of the larger DC component of the negative bias being sent to the Q1 sources (and positive to their gates.) I'm talking about strictly the DC case here, for pedagogical purposes, even though I know it's hopeless.
TK,
I would have drawn the switch as a center off SPDT switch with the "throws" connected to batt+ and batt-. The pole would then go to a normally centered ammeter and from the ammeter to the gate.
This way both turn on and turn off meter "bump" and the disconnected gate gate scenario can be demonstrated.
Difficult to discuss without a "spoiler" alert!
But I do know what you are trying to prove...
PW
QuoteHi Rosemary,
I think it is better to make some new experiment, than to rant here all the time.
Just do the experiments and prove TK wrong if you can do this with your setup...
And show it in videos as he is showing it.
I got again some complains of some users that you only rant here and don´t do the required
experiments.
Regards, Stefan
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 02, 2012, 11:41:52 PM
Hello Stefan,Your point is taken. I'll try and confine my comments to direct denials when I see 'spin'. Otherwise I'll stay out of it. Actually I hope, eventually, to get enough strength of purpose to stop commenting at all on this thread at all.
Regards,
Rosemary
You probably think that got you off the hook, don't you. But you still have these errors to account for, since you always correct your errors.
This instrument listed in your "paper":
IsoTech GFG324.... what is it? Error... or not? If not, where is there any information about this FG on the internet? If error... you have not corrected it. Here is your chance.
This statement:
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/600/
Right? Or wrong? Perhaps you should read the WIKI again.
This calculation and conclusion based on it:
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html
Right? Or wrong? Do the Math? Perhaps you should... CHECK YOUR WORK when you get an answer that seems unusual, rather than assuming automatically that it "proves" your "thesis". You certainly have "overstated this". And note well: the errors in the item above contribute to your errors in this item.
This is the calibre of output from Ainslie. Again and again she has illustrated that she does not grasp fundamental concepts of power and energy, that she makes conceptual and calculation errors again and again, and refuses to correct her mistakes or retract the conclusions based on them. It seems impossible for her to make a single statement without making some kind of error, personal insult, veiled threat, or paranoid fantasy-borne accusation.
Quote from: picowatt on May 03, 2012, 12:25:20 PM
TK,
I would have drawn the switch as a center off SPDT switch with the "throws" connected to batt+ and batt-. The pole would then go to a normally centered ammeter and from the ammeter to the gate.
This way both turn on and turn off meter "bump" and the disconnected gate gate scenario can be demonstrated.
Difficult to discuss without a "spoiler" alert!
But I do know what you are trying to prove...
PW
Yes, that would be a good illustration. More complicated than just the present situation though. (Darn that Ben Franklin anyhow. It's hard enough to explain this stuff without having to think about how a negative voltage supplying electrons "sources away" the positive charge that keeps the mosfet gate ON...... :-\ )
You know, I don't have a single center-zero ammeter in the house, I don't think.
The closest I can come is the Fluke 83 DMM in relative mode, it will display a center-zero bargraph. But its sample rate is too slow probably. Maybe I can figure out a way to show the tiny surges and their directions effectively on the RM503.
I intend to re-do the "mosfets how do they work chapter 2" video and I'll try to incorporate your suggestion. I sort of did it that way the first time through but not quite elegantly enough.
Any word on that slow boat? It must be coming from a lot further away than China. Alpha Ophiuchi 8, maybe?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 30, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
To Groundloop - I can now answer you - but will do it by email. You can publish that answer or not.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
As for the email or pm, I have not received anything from you yet, regarding the type of circuit oscillation?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 03, 2012, 09:34:19 PM
Rosemary,
As for the email or pm, I have not received anything from you yet, regarding the type of circuit oscillation?
GL.
Hello Groundloop
I KNOW I had your email address - but can't find it. Email me and I'll reply.
Sorry about that
Rosie
Guys - just to alert you to 'spin'.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 03, 2012, 12:45:08 AMYes, MH, she's contradicting herself yet again, in the most blatant and transparent way. How many times has she denied that the FG can pass current? How can she not realize that the current to charge the GATE is not even measureable by her instruments it's so small?
Not actually. Not even close. In fact. ON THE CONTRARY. LOL. In fact this DIAMETRICALLY opposes the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it. I believe it is actually TK, MileHigh and Picowatt who RELY on the argument that there is this rather HEFTY oscillation resulting from the flow of current from the function generator onto the circuit apparatus. All of which is then SEEN by the current VIEWING resistor (CVR) - with its sight enabled by a pair of dark glasses. 8) This statement of TK's is SO WRONG as to be rather amusing. I on the contrary claim that there's NO current flow from the function generator ONTO THE CIRCUIT. Golly. It's CRAZY wrong. I trust that you're aware of this. I certainly hope so. But. As mentioned. It's that preposterous - it's actually funny.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And as for this number...
Quote from: picowatt on May 03, 2012, 01:31:46 AM
TK,
I read the blog link.
Based on that read, I think part of RA's misunderstanding is that she believes the gate of Q2 is being switched by the FG. The gate of Q2 will always be very close to ground. It is at whatever voltage the non-battery end of the CSR is at. I think, from her drawing in that blog link, that she believes the FG is making the Q2 gate positive when the FG output is negative. Her reference to current flow or switching regarding Q2's gate further supports this.
I do not think she realizes an FG has a bipolar power supply that allows its output to swing either positive or negative with respect to its signal ground, which will always remain at the potential to which it is attached. When the FG output is positive, it charges the Q1 gate and turns Q1 on. But when ithe FG output is negative, the Q2 gate continues to remain very close to ground and its source is brought negative by the FG, which biases Q2 on and current flows thru Q2 and the FG to the CSR. I believe she thinks the FG is switching the Q2 gate when the FG is negative and this is clearly not so.
Possiibly, if someone redrew a drawing like the first one GL posted with two batteries in series representing the FG bipolar supply with the centertap of the batteries connected to the CSR and a SPDT switch to select the polarity supplied via a 50R to the Q2 source and Q1 gate, it might help her understand.
Might...
PW
LOL It seems picowatt has still not mastered that copy paste number. And yet he's trying to teach us anything at all about a MOSFET. What he needs to show us is how an applied positive voltage at the GATE of Q2 can then conduct upwards of 4 amps of negative current flow generated from capacitance across the MOSFET > through the function generator probe and its terminal > back to the Source Rail of the battery supply > and then inject this upwards of 4 amps of NEGATIVE current flow > across the current sensing resistors > move this through upwards of 26 volts from a battery supply source > and then through the load > back to the DRAIN of Q2 while it remains - unarguably and unequivocally BELOW that zero crossing line. And he argues that all is to be expected? IF that energy is from capacitance at the MOSFET - then that's an ENORMOUS amount of capacitance. Somehow able to generate in the order of 4 amps x 26 volts and UPWARDS. Which capacitance - ATYPICALLY - and contrary to ALL standard prediction - is then also ABLE TO DISSIPATE HEAT AT THE LOAD. Clearly it's a load of nonsense. Which makes the balance of his statements - ? Whatever.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 03, 2012, 11:43:23 PM
Guys - just to alert you to 'spin'.Not actually. Not even close. In fact. ON THE CONTRARY. LOL. In fact this DIAMETRICALLY opposes the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it. I believe it is actually TK, MileHigh and Picowatt who RELY on the argument that there is this rather HEFTY oscillation resulting from the flow of current from the function generator onto the circuit apparatus. All of which is then SEEN by the current VIEWING resistor (CVR) - with its sight enabled by a pair of dark glasses. 8) This statement of TK's is SO WRONG as to be rather amusing. I on the contrary claim that there's NO current flow from the function generator ONTO THE CIRCUIT. Golly. It's CRAZY wrong. I trust that you're aware of this. I certainly hope so. But. As mentioned. It's that preposterous - it's actually funny.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I assume this to mean that you now understand and agree with Groundloop's first drawing wherein the FG is depicted as a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor.
Understanding how, when the FG output is negative, Q2 is biased "on" into a linear region of operation and that the DC bias current consequently flows thru Rload, Q2, the FG, and the CSR, is the first step toward understanding the how and why of the oscillaton.
Golly, progress, good for you!
PW
So guys. There you have it. Another slew of pure 'spin' based on anything BUT the 'real truth'. It's laughable - but nonetheless seems to be enough to dupe some of you. I am NOT an expert at anything at all. Nor is my math dependable. Nor am I always perfectly articulate - albeit that I do my best. But these representations of my work - what I think - what I 'believe' are UTTERLY ERRONEOUS. Please be advised. We're dealing here with a group of vigilantes - led by TK and his very appropriately termed TAR BABY and its historical associations. Which all is intended to cast absolute doubt on our test results based on the misinterpretation of our work. And bear in mind. There's a mission here executed with all the zeal of any vigilantes - anywhere. And way beyond acceptable.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And as for THIS
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 12:32:06 AM
Rosemary,
I assume this to mean that you now understand and agree with Groundloop's first drawing wherein the FG is depicted as a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor.
Understanding how, when the FG output is negative, Q2 is biased "on" into a linear region of operation and that the DC bias current consequently flows thru Rload, Q2, the FG, and the CSR, is the first step toward understanding the how and why of the oscillaton.
Golly, progress, good for you!
PW
Spare us all your continuing inanities. Or answer those questions.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 12:33:29 AM
Another slew of pure 'spin' based on anything BUT the 'real truth'. It's laughable - but nonetheless seems to be enough to dupe some of you. I am NOT an expert at anything at all. Nor is my math dependable.
You can't claim to know next to nothing and also claim to know the truth.
delete
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 12:17:42 AM
And as for this number...LOL It seems picowatt has still not mastered that copy paste number. And yet he's trying to teach us anything at all about a MOSFET. What he needs to show us is how an applied positive voltage at the GATE of Q2 can then conduct upwards of 4 amps of negative current flow generated from capacitance across the MOSFET > through the function generator probe and its terminal > back to the Source Rail of the battery supply > and then inject this upwards of 4 amps of NEGATIVE current flow > across the current sensing resistors > move this through upwards of 26 volts from a battery supply source > and then through the load > back to the DRAIN of Q2 while it remains - unarguably and unequivocally BELOW that zero crossing line. And he argues that all is to be expected? IF that energy is from capacitance at the MOSFET - then that's an ENORMOUS amount of capacitance. Somehow able to generate in the order of 4 amps x 26 volts and UPWARDS. Which capacitance - ATYPICALLY - and contrary to ALL standard prediction - is then also ABLE TO DISSIPATE HEAT AT THE LOAD. Clearly it's a load on nonsense. Which makes the balance of his statements - ? Whatever.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
There is no applied voltage at the gate of Q2 from the FG. Again, more of your your words put into the mouths of others.
The gate of Q2 is always at or very near ground potential. If the CSR were temporarily replaced by a wire, then the gate of Q2 would ALWAYS be EXACTLY at ground potential, which is the negative terminal of the battery. When the FG output is negative, the FG makes the voltage at the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to ground to which the Q2 gate is connected. Pulling the source of Q2 negative with respect to its gate turns on Q2.
Look at your own schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR. The FG can do nothing to change that, the gate of Q2 will always be at or very near to ground potential (the voltage indicated at the CSR). Ignoring the small voltages seen across the CSR, the gate can, for discussion of DC conditions, be considered as tied to ground. It is the source leg of Q2 that sees the FG output voltage, not the Q2 gate. Q2 is turned on by having a negative voltage applied to its source by the FG. The voltage at the gate is effectively unchanged.
From your written statements and drawings I personally do not believe you comprehend this. You apparently seem to think that the FG is somehow changing the voltage at the gate. It is not. The gate of Q2 is ALWAYS at the voltage of the non-battery end of the CSR.
As to the rest, and more of your "death by a thousand cuts" insults, digs and jabs...
Golly, if you could comprehend the DC conditions of your circuit, maybe you could understand how all that AC current flows.
Believe what you want, but you further erode your credibility with each of your posts,
PW
Thank you for stating that so clearly, PW.
I hope that my earlier comment about the gate of Q2 therefore being _relatively_ positive wrt the negative voltage applied to the source is also clear in this context.
It's easy to see this when the floating external battery supply is used: the positive of that battery goes to the gates of Q2 -- which is always indeed at circuit ground -- and the negative goes to the sources. But because of the way the circuit is wired, this external battery (or substitute like FG or 555 timer) is in series with the main battery whenever and to whatever extent the Q2 mosfets are conducting.
However, as usual, Ainslie confounds several distinct cases here. Recall that we are talking about the DC case when the FG or the external supply is _strictly_ negative at the Q2 sources. But in the Ainslie experiments she is sometimes using a FG set to produce a pulse _and also_ she is offsetting that pulse with the offset control. This means that sometimes she is actually giving her circuit a bipolar pulse with the FG even when she doesn't realize it or see it in the _gate trace_ of the scopeshots (it shows in the current trace of course.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 01:32:54 AM
Thank you for stating that so clearly, PW.
I hope that my earlier comment about the gate of Q2 therefore being _relatively_ positive wrt the negative voltage applied to the source is also clear in this context.
It's easy to see this when the floating external battery supply is used: the positive of that battery goes to the gates of Q2 -- which is always indeed at circuit ground -- and the negative goes to the sources. But because of the way the circuit is wired, this external battery (or substitute like FG or 555 timer) is in series with the main battery whenever and to whatever extent the Q2 mosfets are conducting.
However, as usual, Ainslie confounds several distinct cases here. Recall that we are talking about the DC case when the FG or the external supply is _strictly_ negative at the Q2 sources. But in the Ainslie experiments she is sometimes using a FG set to produce a pulse _and also_ she is offsetting that pulse with the offset control. This means that sometimes she is actually giving her circuit a bipolar pulse with the FG even when she doesn't realize it or see it in the _gate trace_ of the scopeshots (it shows in the current trace of course.)
TK,
It is clear that there is a a lot that is not "realized".
Some people need to know more just to know what they don't know.
Is the Cav still running well?
PW
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 02, 2012, 06:27:16 PM
Hi Rosemary,
I think it is better to make some new experiment, than to rant here all the time.
Just do the experiments and prove TK wrong if you can do this with your setup...
And show it in videos as he is showing it.
I got again some complains of some users that you only rant here and don´t do the required
experiments.
Regards, Stefan
The owner of this web forum tells Ainslie:
Just do the experiments and prove TK wrong if you can do this with your setup....
And show it in videos as he is showing it.
But Rosemary completely ignores this and continues with her personal attacks, veiled threats and self-contradictions, while continuing to refuse to address or correct the three latest major errors that I have been asking her about. And she gives no evidence or support for the things she claims.
Guys with regard to this...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 01:38:12 AM
The owner of this web forum tells Ainslie:
Just do the experiments and prove TK wrong if you can do this with your setup....
And show it in videos as he is showing it.
But Rosemary completely ignores this and continues with her personal attacks, veiled threats and self-contradictions, while continuing to refuse to address or correct the three latest major errors that I have been asking her about. And she gives no evidence or support for the things she claims.
TK, Picowatt, MileHigh, FTC are CONSTANTLY referring to ME. With every reference they entitle me to defend whatever is erroneous in that reference. Else I would have no voice which is what TK is hoping to manage. And we all know why.
Kindest as ever
Rosemary
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:37:43 AM
TK,
It is clear that there is a a lot that is not "realized".
Some people need to know more just to know what they don't know.
Is the Cav still running well?
PW
Heh... well said, and that certainly applies to me as well; I've certainly learned a lot over the past couple of months that I didn't know I didn't know. Or maybe I'd forgot that I didn't know, or didn't know I'd forgot. Or something.
And probably didn't really need to know, or remember, either, but there it is.
Yes, the car is still running fine, scary cool, when I can afford to put gas in it. I didn't make the intended trip today though; maybe tomorrow. I want to get some solid mean power results using IRF830as and I'm too lazy to do it manually again.
Voltages are relative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIjC7DjoVe8
Quote from: happyfunball on May 04, 2012, 01:07:02 AM
You can't claim to know next to nothing and also claim to know the truth.
I claim NOTHING related to the NERD circuit. We have presented two papers that need expert evaluation and those papers only POINT AT QUESTIONS. We are asking those questions. And there is no mere mortal who will EVER know the truth in any absolute sense.
Regards
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 01:42:55 AM
Guys with regard to this...TK, Picowatt, MileHigh, FTC are CONSTANTLY referring to ME. With every reference they entitle me to defend whatever is erroneous in that reference. Else I would have no voice which is what TK is hoping to manage. And we all know why.
Kindest as ever
Rosemary
And with post 10 since Harti's request, Rosemary reminds us that she is the self-appointed "spin" doctor.
You do not "defend", quite the contrary actually.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 01:47:01 AM
I claim NOTHING related to the NERD circuit. We have presented two papers that need expert evaluation and those papers only POINT AT QUESTIONS. We are asking those questions. And there is no mere mortal who will EVER know the truth in any absolute sense.
Regards
Rosie Pose
Better let them know in advance that they are not to "review" those papers or look at the 'scope shots. I wouldn't want them to upset you.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 01:42:55 AM
Guys with regard to this...TK, Picowatt, MileHigh, FTC are CONSTANTLY referring to ME. With every reference they entitle me to defend whatever is erroneous in that reference. Else I would have no voice which is what TK is hoping to manage. And we all know why.
Kindest as ever
Rosemary
Most of the references to you, Ainslie, are to your lies, contradictions, and outright ERRORS like the three which you lately are dodging and refusing to correct. What I am hoping to manage is to show the world just how ridiculous you actually are, and you are helping in that, immensely. And the reason WHY.... is because you have no respect for your betters and you are an uneducated, functionally illiterate in electronics, outrageous liar.
What is the IsoTech GFG324?
What is the correct calculation and conclusion in the quote I've referenced several times from your blog?
What is the correct relationship between the Watt and the Joule?
CORRECT YOUR ERRORS as you claim you "always do".
And take Stefan's advice and do some experiments proving my demonstrations to be wrong and not applicable to your kludge of a circuit. If you wind up getting banned or blocked or get THIS thread closed too, it will be your own fault for not following his recommendations and continuing on with your bloviating behaviors.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 01:46:33 AM
Heh... well said, and that certainly applies to me as well; I've certainly learned a lot over the past couple of months that I didn't know I didn't know. Or maybe I'd forgot that I didn't know, or didn't know I'd forgot. Or something.
And probably didn't really need to know, or remember, either, but there it is.
Yes, the car is still running fine, scary cool, when I can afford to put gas in it. I didn't make the intended trip today though; maybe tomorrow. I want to get some solid mean power results using IRF830as and I'm too lazy to do it manually again.
Voltages are relative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIjC7DjoVe8
TK,
I've watched those guys doing work on HT lines close to here. Not for me!
You do have a t'stat in the Cav don't you?
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 01:47:01 AM
I claim NOTHING related to the NERD circuit. We have presented two papers that need expert evaluation and those papers only POINT AT QUESTIONS. We are asking those questions. And there is no mere mortal who will EVER know the truth in any absolute sense.
Regards
Rosie Pose
It's nice to see that you've changed your mind and withdrawn your claims related to the NERD circuit.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:58:17 AM
TK,
I've watched those guys doing work on HT lines close to here. Not for me!
You do hae a t'stat in the Cav don't you?
PW
Of course, and it's only about six months old, I changed it last summer when trying to fix the overheating problem then. It's doing its thing, opening when it should, and the gauge temp sender and fan thermo switch are both on the block itself not the radiator. When it gets cold outside and the heater doesn't work... then I'll change back to 50-50 glycol without the wetting agent and stuff some cardboard over half the radiator....
;)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 01:47:01 AM
I claim NOTHING related to the NERD circuit. We have presented two papers that need expert evaluation and those papers only POINT AT QUESTIONS. We are asking those questions. And there is no mere mortal who will EVER know the truth in any absolute sense.
Regards
Rosie Pose
So you present papers on something which you know nothing about? Wild.
If you know nothing about it, why would you have any objection to the actual testing going on here, or call it 'spin?' Nonsensical to say the least.
You just have to laugh. We've gone from the claim of COP > INFINITY all the way down to "I claim NOTHING".
By my calculations that is an infinite reduction in the magnitude of the overunity claim originally made by this claimant.
So... what is the big deal? If Ainslie no longer is claiming anything but a few measurements that anyone can reproduce with a handful of mosfets and an oscilloscope.... and is no longer claiming the various prizes..... where's the beef? Let her go away and hide under a rock, then.
And with regard to this post.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AM
There is no applied voltage at the gate of Q2 from the FG. Again, more of your your words put into the mouths of others.
I have stated this PUBLICLY - right here on this forum. WE PUT THE PROBE OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR DIRECTLY ON THE GATE OF Q1. WE PUT THE TERMINAL OF THAT PROBE DIRECTLY ON THE GATE AT Q2. When the probe voltage applies a positive voltage at Q1 then the voltage at Q2 is in anti polarity. There most CERTAINLY is an applied voltage at the gate of Q2. And Q1. ALWAYS. They're in anti phase or anti polarity.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMThe gate of Q2 is always at or very near ground potential.
It is NOT.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMIf the CSR were temporarily replaced by a wire, then the gate of Q2 would ALWAYS be EXACTLY at ground potential, which is the negative terminal of the battery.
Not sure what you mean to achieve by taking out the CSR. It makes no difference either way. Q1 voltage is precisely in anti phase to Q2 polarity whichever way the function generator has applied that voltage.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMWhen the FG output is negative, the FG makes the voltage at the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to ground to which the Q2 gate is connected.
This is IMPOSSIBLE. We apply that terminal directly to the Gate at Q2. If the Gate at Q1 is negative - then correspondingly the Gate at Q2 is positive.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMPulling the source of Q2 negative with respect to its gate turns on Q2.
Q2 is turned on by the positive signal applied DIRECTLY to that gate. The Q2 source leg is NOT negative during this phase of the switching cycle. It is POSITIVE. Besides which, Q2's source leg is NOWHERE connected to the negative rail of the battery supply source. (And MileHigh - IF you don't like that term - you'll need to live with it. It's entirely acceptable terminology.) Effectively it FLOATS. One would hope that you'd be dealing with the actual circuit and not some idea that you may have of its configuration.
continued/...
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMLook at your own schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR. The FG can do nothing to change that, the gate of Q2 will always be at or very near to ground potential (the voltage indicated at the CSR).
No. Not at all. Again. Q2 source and gate are both positive and the source leg of Q2 floats. It is specifically NOT connected ANYWHERE AT ALL to the source rail of the battery supply or to its negative rail as Poynty prefers to term it. The voltage indicated at the current sensing resistor (CSR) is not the cause but the effect of the current flowing through the MOSFET. That it's on the negative terminal of the battery does not mean that it is thereby and correspondingly NEGATIVE. The CSR is indicating the voltage that is applied and the polarity of that voltage - which is a reasonable gauge of the current flowing through it. And that's ALL that it indicates.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMThat CSR Ignoring the small voltages seen across the CSR, the gate can, for discussion of DC conditions, be considered as tied to ground.
We could just as easily put the CSR directly on the positive rail of the battery and we shall DO SO in our tests to show you this. It makes not one iota of difference. The CSR is NOT tied to ground. It simply and adequately indicates - as mentioned the polarity and level of voltage in order for us to determine the rate and direction of current flow.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMIt is the source leg of Q2 that sees the FG output voltage, not the Q2 gate. Q2 is turned on by having a negative voltage applied to its source by the FG. The voltage at the gate is effectively unchanged.
This is easily disproved - as mentioned. And I assure you I will vary the circuit through just one test - to prove that the CSR can be at either the positive or negative terminals of that battery and it will make not 1 smallest of the smallest of an iota of difference. Added to which I'll prove to you that the source leg of Q2 is FLOATING.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMFrom your written statements and drawings I personally do not believe you comprehend this.
And I'm equally satisfied that you have still not registered that the source of Q2 is floating. When you do see this you'll see that your argument is void.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMYou apparently seem to think that the FG is somehow changing the voltage at the gate. It is not. The gate of Q2 is ALWAYS at the voltage of the non-battery end of the CSR.
We can disprove this - in its entirety. When the probe and its terminal are applied directly to the gates of Q1 and Q2 and the CSR is applied directly to the positive terminal of the battery - then - NOTWITHSTANDING we get an IDENTICAL oscillation - in size, shape, frequency and duration. And again. The source leg of Q2 is specifically and most assuredly entirely disconnected from the battery supply source rail.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMAs to the rest, and more of your "death by a thousand cuts" insults, digs and jabs...
No digs and jabs. It is my competence that you are putting to question at a level that is insulting. And this destruction is in EVERY SINGLE post on this thread. Why is that necessary? Unless there is some overriding need to IMPLY my utter incompetence. It is both insulting and slanderous.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMGolly, if you could comprehend the DC conditions of your circuit, maybe you could understand how all that AC current flows.
Not even you can explain what is going on in that circuit. Which is precisely why it needs to be put to the desk of experts. You have yet to acknowledge that the source leg of Q2 is NOT connected to that battery supply negative.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:11:00 AMBelieve what you want, but you further erode your credibility with each of your posts
So you keep saying. In which case why are you and TK so anxious to get me banned or blocked from commenting. I would have thought that this would play in very nicely with your mission. Isn't that what you're hoping that everyone will believe? That I know not whereof I speak? And that you want me positioned that I cannot defend this slander?
Rosemary
Quote from: happyfunball on May 04, 2012, 02:24:28 AM
So you present papers on something which you know nothing about? Wild.
If you know nothing about it, why would you have any objection to the actual testing going on here, or call it 'spin?' Nonsensical to say the least.
Who says I object to any testing ever. My objection is to inappropriate tests as they're claimed to apply to our technology. And it is PERFECTLY acceptable to address anomalies in papers. Why would you think otherwise?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 03:15:26 AM
Who says I object to any testing ever. My objection is to inappropriate tests as they're claimed to apply to our technology. And it is PERFECTLY acceptable to address anomalies in papers. Why would you think otherwise?
Rosie Pose
What technology? You claim to know nothing about it. How do you know it's technology?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 02:37:54 AM
You just have to laugh. We've gone from the claim of COP > INFINITY all the way down to "I claim NOTHING".
By my calculations that is an infinite reduction in the magnitude of the overunity claim originally made by this claimant.
So... what is the big deal? If Ainslie no longer is claiming anything but a few measurements that anyone can reproduce with a handful of mosfets and an oscilloscope.... and is no longer claiming the various prizes..... where's the beef? Let her go away and hide under a rock, then.
What we can prove, unequivocally - is that there's MEASURED evidence of a COP INFINITY. How this relates to the fact is still to be determined. It is either a measurements error - in which case standard measurement protocols need revision. Or it's a reflection of an exceptional efficiency in the transfer of energy - that has yet to be demonstrated. If the measurement of INFINITE COP warrants a prize then we can prove it. If it needs to be demonstrated that it can outperform a battery's rating - then that is still to be proved.
Obviously
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 02:58:40 AM
And with regard to this post.I have stated this PUBLICLY - right here on this forum. WE PUT THE PROBE OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR DIRECTLY ON THE GATE OF Q1. WE PUT THE TERMINAL OF THAT PROBE DIRECTLY ON THE GATE AT Q2. When the probe voltage applies a positive voltage at Q1 then the voltage at Q2 is in anti polarity. There most CERTAINLY is an applied voltage at the gate of Q2. And Q1. ALWAYS. They're in anti phase or anti polarity. It is NOT.Not sure what you mean to achieve by taking out the CSR. It makes no difference either way. Q1 voltage is precisely in anti phase to Q2 polarity whichever way the function generator has applied that voltage. This is IMPOSSIBLE. We apply that terminal directly to the Gate at Q2. If the Gate at Q1 is negative - then correspondingly the Gate at Q2 is positive. Q2 is turned on by the positive signal applied DIRECTLY to that gate. The Q2 source leg is NOT negative during this phase of the switching cycle. It is POSITIVE. Besides which, Q2's source leg is NOWHERE connected to the negative rail of the battery supply source. (And MileHigh - IF you don't like that term - you'll need to live with it. It's entirely acceptable terminology.) Effectively it FLOATS. One would hope that you'd be dealing with the actual circuit and not some idea that you may have of its configuration.
Do you actually believe the gate of Q2 is not always held at the potential of the non-battery end of the CSR?
There is no way in your circuit that the FG can apply a positive signal directly to the Q2 gate. The Q2 gate is always at or very near ground. Q2 is turned on by the FG when the FG makes the source of Q2 more negative than ground.
The operation of your circuit is fully understood. It is a common configuration used everyday, afterall, there are only three possible configurations for all FET's from which all circuit's are designed. You, apparently, are the only one, or amongst the very few, that does not understand how this circuit operates.
You further demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding your circuit's operation in this post. If you would listen instead of always arguing, you might have had a better understanding of its operation by now. I'm sure most readers would agree. Indeed, go prove something.
'tis a pity,
PW
Is there yet a different schematic, other than the one below, being used??
Or is Rosemary simply talking out of her head again, making things up and contradicting herself yet once more?
And what about that IsoTech GFG324.... the magic invisible function generator that makes all this possible. What about that?
QuoteAnd with regard to this post.I have stated this PUBLICLY - right here on this forum. WE PUT THE PROBE OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR DIRECTLY ON THE GATE OF Q1. WE PUT THE TERMINAL OF THAT PROBE DIRECTLY ON THE GATE AT Q2. When the probe voltage applies a positive voltage at Q1 then the voltage at Q2 is in anti polarity. There most CERTAINLY is an applied voltage at the gate of Q2. And Q1. ALWAYS. They're in anti phase or anti polarity. It is NOT.Not sure what you mean to achieve by taking out the CSR. It makes no difference either way. Q1 voltage is precisely in anti phase to Q2 polarity whichever way the function generator has applied that voltage. This is IMPOSSIBLE. We apply that terminal directly to the Gate at Q2. If the Gate at Q1 is negative - then correspondingly the Gate at Q2 is positive. Q2 is turned on by the positive signal applied DIRECTLY to that gate. The Q2 source leg is NOT negative during this phase of the switching cycle. It is POSITIVE. Besides which, Q2's source leg is NOWHERE connected to the negative rail of the battery supply source. (And MileHigh - IF you don't like that term - you'll need to live with it. It's entirely acceptable terminology.) Effectively it FLOATS. One would hope that you'd be dealing with the actual circuit and not some idea that you may have of its configuration.
Oh really? Both the Gate and the Source of Q2 are POSITIVE at the same time, even though they are hooked to either end of the FG's output? Are you sure about that?
And the FG's internal 50R impedance means that the sources of the Q2s are indeed connected to the negative rail, and the FG is acting in series with that main battery. This has been shown to you in circuit diagrams, explained in publications from the manufacturers of function generators, and has been demonstrated in hardware and simulations. Yet you refuse to understand or believe it.... because it would mean that you would have to admit that you are wrong. But ANY TEST that could show that we are correct and that you are wrong... you refuse to do yourself. JUST DO IT and show the results, LIKE STEFAN ASKED YOU TO.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 03:37:41 AM
Is there yet a different schematic, other than the one below, being used??
Or is Rosemary simply talking out of her head again, making things up and contradicting herself yet once more?
And what about that IsoTech GFG324.... the magic invisible function generator that makes all this possible. What about that?
TK,
More importantly, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the CSR and therefore the voltage at the gate of Q2 can never be any voltage other than that of the non-battery end of the CSR, which is very near ground. I did not know the obvious needed stating.
I seem to be correct in my assumption from that read of the blog link and subsequent responses that RA does not understand that an FG has a bipolar supply and that she believes the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2. Apparently, based on her own statements, she cannot even read her own schematic.
How can the FG signal ground or the Q2 gate EVER be any voltage other than that of the CSR? It can't.
Again I am flabbergasted,
PW
TK,
Have you ever done a search online that directed you to a page of totally disconnected words only there for the purpose of attracting a search engine response?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 03:56:30 AM
TK,
Have you ever done a search online that directed you to a page of totally disconnected words only there for the purpose of attracting a search engine response?
PW
Yes, it always amuses me when it happens. Paragraphs of text that _almost_ make sense and sometimes even border on the poetic. I've never understood the purpose of those things.
Kind of reminds me of someone else's prose style, in a way.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 03:19:04 AM
What we can prove, unequivocally - is that there's MEASURED evidence of a COP INFINITY. How this relates to the fact is still to be determined. It is either a measurements error - in which case standard measurement protocols need revision. Or it's a reflection of an exceptional efficiency in the transfer of energy - that has yet to be demonstrated. If the measurement of INFINITE COP warrants a prize then we can prove it. If it needs to be demonstrated that it can outperform a battery's rating - then that is still to be proved.
Obviously
Rosie Pose
Rosemary's Quote -What we can prove
Does anyone here know who
"WE" is Rosemary keeps talking about ??
Is it a human being ?? A alien ?? A dog (or one sick lap puppy) ?? A troll ??
I keep seeing words to the effect of
"OUR" also ... who is Rosemary talking about ??
There's all these kinds of imaginary people and things Rosemary posts about .... but not one living sole comes forward, no verifiable proof of things she bloviates, murmurs and mutters continuously about.
Who would actually back anything she says or does ??
NO ONE "EVER" DEFENDS ROSEMARY HERE OR ANYWHERE !!! WELL ..... HOW CAN ANYONE DEFEND "STUPID" THOUGH ?? ???
Does anyone here know who
"WE" is that Rosemary so liberally spews everywhere about for the past several years ??
:P
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 03:50:10 AM
TK,
More importantly, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the CSR and therefore the voltage at the gate of Q2 can never be any voltage other than that of the non-battery end of the CSR, which is very near ground. I did not know the obvious needed stating.
I seem to be correct in my assumption from that read of the blog link and subsequent responses that RA does not understand that an FG has a bipolar supply and that she believes the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2. Apparently, based on her own statements, she cannot even read her own schematic.
How can the FG signal ground or the Q2 gate EVER be any voltage other than that of the CSR? It can't.
Again I am flabbergasted,
PW
Well, it's an easy mistake to make if you can't read the schematic. After all she knows the FG puts out a positive and negative going square wave pulse. But since she doesn't understand the schematic, she can't possibly realize that when the "negative" FG lead is attached to the circuit "ground" or battery negative--even if through the 0.25 ohm CVR -- it becomes the reference, and the _OTHER_ lead of the FG (connected to the Q2 sources) swings positive and negative relative to that one. Or simply stays negative, in the DC bias case we have been discussing.
But voltages are relative to something, always. The gate of Q2 is at zero volts wrt the negative battery terminal (neglecting the CVR) and is at -12 volts wrt the positive battery terminal (ETA: this "12" should of course be the total main battery voltage, whatever it is; I was thinking of just one battery, sorry for the confusion) , and at the same time it is at + 5 volts or whatever FG or bias supply voltage, wrt the sources of Q2 which are connected to the FG or bias supply negative terminal. When the mosfet starts to turn on the bias source is placed in series with the main battery, the gate voltage drops and the mosfet starts to turn off and removes the bias source from the series connection and the gate voltage rises and the mosfet starts to turn on..... and we have oscillations from an oscillator oscillating by known principles of oscillation.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 04:22:09 AM
Well, it's an easy mistake to make if you can't read the schematic. After all she knows the FG puts out a positive and negative going square wave pulse. But since she doesn't understand the schematic, she can't possibly realize that when the "negative" FG lead is attached to the circuit "ground" or battery negative--even if through the 0.25 ohm CVR -- it becomes the reference, and the _OTHER_ lead of the FG (connected to the Q2 sources) swings positive and negative relative to that one. Or simply stays negative, in the DC bias case we have been discussing.
But voltages are relative to something, always. The gate of Q2 is at zero volts wrt the negative battery terminal (neglecting the CVR) and is at -12 volts wrt the positive battery terminal, and at the same time it is at + 5 volts or whatever FG or bias supply voltage, wrt the sources of Q2 which are connected to the FG or bias supply negative terminal. When the mosfet starts to turn on the bias source is placed in series with the main battery, the gate voltage drops and the mosfet starts to turn off and removes the bias source from the series connection and the gate voltage rises and the mosfet starts to turn on..... and we have oscillations from an oscillator oscillating by known principles of oscillation.
That's pretty confusing. You lost me at -12 wrt the battery positive...
PW
QuoteWhat we can prove, unequivocally - is that there's MEASURED evidence of a COP INFINITY. How this relates to the fact is still to be determined. It is either a measurements error - in which case standard measurement protocols need revision. Or it's a reflection of an exceptional efficiency in the transfer of energy - that has yet to be demonstrated. If the measurement of INFINITE COP warrants a prize then we can prove it. If it needs to be demonstrated that it can outperform a battery's rating - then that is still to be proved.
Obviously
Rosie Pose
Big deal. What you can PROVE is that you can measure a negative mean power product. You mistakenly think you are applying "standard measurement protocols" but you are not. And additionally you are "overinterpreting" your data, which even taken at face value do not support the conclusions you draw. You have not followed the scientific method, which is to attempt to DISPROVE your claims, at all. The measurements you make do not indicate "COP INFINITE" at all.... rather they indicate that you are not doing it right, and this is why your papers are rejected when they are looked at by experts. Your claim of outperforming battery ratings is, as I have shown several times, a direct result of your math and conceptual errors in making the energy and power calculations, and you have NEVER TESTED that claim in a proper manner at all.
So what it all boils down to is a bunch of mistakes, misinterpretations, and unsupported and untested claims. After all these years. Big deal.
NOBODY IS INTERESTED ANY MORE IN YOUR SCOPE SHOTS OR YOUR NEGATIVE MEAN POWER MEASUREMENTS and nobody doubts that you... or .99, or me, or PW or anyone.... can produce them. THEY DO NOT INDICATE WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY MEAN.
The only test that matters any more is the one you still won't do-- the simple DIM BULB test of battery performance.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 04:27:18 AM
That's pretty confusing. You lost me at -12 wrt the battery positive...
PW
Yes, it is confusing, that I freely admit.
If you hook the negative lead -- the reference lead -- of the DMM voltmeter to the battery positive pole and the other lead to the Q2 gate as the circuit is drawn ... what does the DMM voltmeter read? Is the voltmeter wrong?
(ETA: AH... I see the 12 is the problem, not the -. Sorry, that's right, I was thinking just the one battery. The number will be the battery voltage of course, more properly 48, 60 or 72 volts. )
A Rosie Poseo:
QuoteThe CSR is NOT tied to ground.
What a joke. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Rosemary if you only knew how ridiculous a spectacle you are making of yourself. Electronics is not "your bag" and you don't stand a chance. Just do the dim bulb test and find out the truth for yourself.
I will try to catch up over the weekend but that comment caught my eye. You really are suffering from that syndrome. You are clueless with respect to electronics yet you forcefully reject the truth as told to you by the experts. It's nuts.
The Bizarro Universe is unfolding as it should.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 01:47:01 AM
I claim NOTHING related to the NERD circuit. We have presented two papers that need expert evaluation and those papers only POINT AT QUESTIONS. We are asking those questions. And there is no mere mortal who will EVER know the truth in any absolute sense.
Regards
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
I'll take this as a retraction then of your application for the OUR Award.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 03:50:10 AM
More importantly, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the CSR and therefore the voltage at the gate of Q2 can never be any voltage other than that of the non-battery end of the CSR, which is very near ground. I did not know the obvious needed stating.
Picowatt - I assure you. The Gate leg of Q2 is connected to the Source leg of Q1. The Source leg of Q1 is connected to the battery negative rail. It is ONLY the source leg of Q1 that has the current sensing resistor in series with that negative terminal. Q2 source leg goes NOWHERE. It floats. Q1's source leg is most assuredly negative - as you say - but it is negative ONLY when the Gate at Q2 is positive. Then. The Source leg of Q2 is connected to the Gate of Q1. The source leg of Q2 is absolutely not connected to anything other than the Gate at Q1. Please look again at the NERD schematic and then look again at my diagram of the connection points. Because that configuration is a fact. And that is most certainly how those legs are LITERALLY connected to each other. And that the Q2 Source leg is floating is also evident on a view of those photos of the circuit board. And it is and will be easily evidenced when we do our demos. I do not know if that's how TK has configured his circuit. It most certainly is how we've configured ours.
For the battery to be able to discharge any current through Q2 during the 'off' period of each switched cycle it would not be able to discharge that positive current flow through its source leg and onto the Gate at Q1. The blocking diode at Q1 opposes a positive flow of current. It would effectively leave the circuit open. The resulting positive current flow - from the battery - assuming that there was any - would need to move through the function generator's terminal to it's probe and then onto the Source leg of Q1 and then only onto the source rail of the battery supply - literally THROUGH the function generator probe and terminal. Then it would need to resolve as a positive current flow. Above zero. And typically - the current from the battery supply needs must pass from the Drain leg of Q2 to the Source leg of Q2 before it can go anywhere at all. The voltage at this point in the switching cycle is NEGATIVE. So clearly it is NOT coming from the battery supply. Quite apart from which that battery supply would also then need to be discharging a negative current flow evident in that negative voltage during that 'off' period of each duty cycle. Which is impossible. One could argue that the voltage is weakening during that switching cycle - and that capacitance from the MOSFETs kick in. Then there would be a reversal of that voltage. But there is way too much current to be accounted for by capacitance. So where does that really robust current flow come from? If that current flow is indeed able to pass through the function generator's probe and terminal - then the strength of that current flow - as mentioned - is far greater than the capacitance that is available at the MOSFETs and far greater than the level of applied voltage that is measured across those switches.
continued/...
And the resulting current flow is assuredly AC because the resulting oscillation is AC. But in our first test - as described in our paper - at no stage during a period of upwards of 2 minutes between each switched cycle - does the function generator apply anything other than a DC signal to those MOSFETs. The positive applied directly to the gate of Q2 while the negative is applied directly to the gate of Q1. I am well aware of the fact that the applied signal from the function generator CAN be AC and therefore sinusoidal. But the applied setting during that first test of ours it is only AC if you take in each switch change at every 2.8 minutes or thereby. Between switches it's effectively a DC current.
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 03:50:10 AMI seem to be correct in my assumption from that read of the blog link and subsequent responses that RA does not understand that an FG has a bipolar supply and that she believes the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2. Apparently, based on her own statements, she cannot even read her own schematic.
You are liberal with your criticisms of my lack of comprehension. And then you seem to take offense when I point out that it is YOUR OWN erroneous assumptions related to both the circuit and my understanding. How can I not know - after all these years - that a function generator is capable of putting out a variety of waveforms? I would need to have less than a functional intelligence. It is NOT a difficult thing to understand. It is ABSURDLY simple. I know very well what signals a function generator is capable of generating. I've said this before. This kind of reckless reliance on insulting my intelligence is positively slanderous. And as ever - it is patently evident that you have NOT yet seen that the Source leg of Q2 is floating and is absolutely NOT connected to the source rail of the battery supply. So who then is the 'fool' that you're so anxious to 'spin'?
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 03:50:10 AMHow can the FG signal ground or the Q2 gate EVER be any voltage other than that of the CSR? It can't. Again I am flabbergasted.
And so am I. And I'm also looking forward to showing you this 'lack of connection' between the Q2 source and that Q1 source - that you're depending on. Because I see now that it has entirely eluded you.
Rosemary
A short simple quiz. This "should" be for RA but since I know she won't take it seriously or cooperatively I'm opening it to anyone who might still give a flying blimp. Maybe something will sink in by osmosis, if it even makes it as far as her eyeballs.
Consider the diagrams below. I have simply removed the Q1 part of the circuit since it is not involved at all when the FG or other source is sending a negative signal to the sources of Q2 and a positive signal to the gates.
Right so far?
The blue oval represents the FG where it is hooked into the circuit. I have taken out the FG and put in a simple battery and switch, with the appropriate battery polarity. This is equivalent to the FG set to make a long, negative 5 volt pulse, just waiting for the switch to be closed. And it is equivalent to what we have been using for two weeks now in Tar Baby to make oscillations and negative mean power products.
Right so far?
I've indicated where a voltmeter can be placed, with the green wires. And I've indicated where 2 "perfect" ammeters can be placed, with grey circles.
In the first diagram I have also disconnected the load and in the second diagram it is in its normal place.
Now... for the first diagram, close the switch and observe what happens. This is equivalent to the FG coming to the end of the "off" portion of the long duty cycle and turning "on", but with no load in place.
1. What does the voltmeter indicate?
a) nothing, zero volts
b) about 72 volts
c) about 5 volts
d) about 77 volts
e) some other voltage very different from b, c, or d
2. Does the ammeter A1 indicate anything, and if so, what?
a) no, nothing
b) yes, constant current flow
c) a brief small surge, then nothing
d) oscillations around the zero current line
e) oscillations around a line of constant DC current flow
3. Does the ammeter A2 indicate anything, and if so, what?
a) no, nothing
b) yes, constant current flow
c) a brief small surge, then nothing
d) oscillations around the zero current line
e) oscillations around a line of constant DC current flow
EXTRA CREDIT: What would a voltmeter read hooked directly across where the load goes?
Now, the same questions with respect to the second diagram, with the load in place. Close the switch and observe what happens.
4. What does the voltmeter indicate?
a) nothing, zero volts
b) about 72 volts
c) about 5 volts
d) about 77 volts
e) some other voltage very different from b, c, or d
5. Does the ammeter A1 indicate anything, and if so, what?
a) no, nothing
b) yes, constant current flow
c) a brief small surge, then nothing
d) oscillations around the zero current line
e) oscillations around a line of constant DC current flow
6. Does the ammeter A2 indicate anything, and if so, what?
a) no, nothing
b) yes, constant current flow
c) a brief small surge, then nothing
d) oscillations around the zero current line
e) oscillations around a line of constant DC current flow
EXTRA CREDIT: What would a voltmeter read hooked directly across the load?
"They are just questions, Leon. They are written down for me."
Guys - TK is now proposing that there's yet another circuit.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 03:37:41 AM
Is there yet a different schematic, other than the one below, being used??
Or is Rosemary simply talking out of her head again, making things up and contradicting herself yet once more?
Or - as he 'spins' it I'm talking out of my head? Where else? That I'm making things up? That there's some contradiction?
Please note carefully where the Source leg of Q2 goes. It ONLY goes to the function generator. It does NOT, most assuredly - go to the negative or source rail of the battery supply. It is floating. It has always been floating. This has NEVER varied.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
IT IS NOT FLOATING. The FG has an internal impedance of FIFTY OHMS. The sources of Q2 are connected to the battery negative through this 50 ohm impedance and the CVR. Most assuredly.
If we only had the schematic diagram for the ISOTECH GFG324.... even you could see the connection.
But unfortunately we only have the schematic diagram for the INSTEK GFG8216a that was used by you in the DEMO VIDEO.... and it shows this connection internally very clearly, to those who can read a schematic.
You are once again wrong in your assertion and easily refuted by FACTS and EXPERIMENT.
Please note carefully the FUNCTION GENERATOR listed below.
What is it? A misprint, a typo, , an error..... or something common that we can find on the internet?
You have zero credibility left here, woman.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 10:48:04 AM
IT IS NOT FLOATING. The FG has an internal impedance of FIFTY OHMS. The sources of Q2 are connected to the battery negative through this 50 ohm impedance and the CVR. Most assuredly.
Guys,
TK has just argued our point by showing that the Q2 Source leg is floating. Now he needs to argue is own argument. Somehow. Because what he needs to prove is that the flow of current from the battery can now move through the function generator itself. Through those probes. And then the voltage would need to be greater than zero. Not less than zero - which is evident in this phase of the oscillation. It is an IMPOSSIBLE argument because the waveform evidence belies it.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Bear in mind that the Source leg at Q2 is CLEARLY not connected to the current sensing resistor as picowatt claims. And bear in mind that if there is a connection between the Gate of Q2 and the source leg of Q1 - then it would simply discharge current in from the battery in exactly the same way as it does when the Gate at Q1 is positively charged. Because the Gate at Q2 is most assuredly positively charged during the 'off' period of the switching cycle.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 10:58:24 AM
Guys,
TK has just argued our point by showing that the Q2 Source leg is floating.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I HAVE SHOWN AT ALL. I HAVE SHOWN JUST THE OPPOSITE. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT "FLOATING" MEANS.
QuoteNow he needs to argue is own argument. Somehow. Because what he needs to prove is that the flow of current from the battery can now move through the function generator itself.
No, AINSLIE, you need to prove SOMETHING... anything.... by proper testing. I have shown that there IS current flowing... now you get your stuff together, your two video cameras and your fancy scope, and show that it IS NOT, by proper testing.
QuoteThrough those probes. And then the voltage would need to be greater than zero. Not less than zero - which is evident in this phase of the oscillation. It is an IMPOSSIBLE argument because the waveform evidence belies it.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
You idiot. You have no idea how to interpret your waveform evidence, which supports ME entirely.
READ THE AGILENT DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO THE POST.
"Because what he needs to prove is that the flow of current from the battery can now move through the function generator itself."
I HAVE PROVED THIS SEVERAL TIMES and I will do it again. What do you think is heating your load? Oh... you think it has got to be zipons since you can't believe WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS TELLING YOU , along with what all of us here are telling you, and the Agilent document is telling you.
Answer the questions in my quiz, if you think you are so smart.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 11:03:27 AM
You idiot.
READ THE AGILENT DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO THE POST.
"Because what he needs to prove is that the flow of current from the battery can now move through the function generator itself."
I HAVE PROVED THIS SEVERAL TIMES and I will do it again. What do you think is heating your load? Oh... you think it has got to be zipons since you can't believe WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS TELLING YOU , along with what all of us here are telling you, and the Agilent document is telling you.
Answer the questions in my quiz, if you think you are so smart.
My dear TinselKoala - IF the function generator is discharging energy to heat the load then it would need to pass its energy through the battery supply and through the load itself and through the resistance of the function generator. NOW how much energy is that function generating delivering? DO THE MATH.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 10:12:40 AM
Picowatt - I assure you. The Gate leg of Q2 is connected to the Source leg of Q1. The Source leg of Q1 is connected to the battery negative rail. It is ONLY the source leg of Q1 that has the current sensing resistor in series with that negative terminal. Q2 source leg goes NOWHERE. It floats. Q1's source leg is most assuredly negative - as you say - but it is negative ONLY when the Gate at Q2 is positive. Then. The Source leg of Q2 is connected to the Gate of Q1. The source leg of Q2 is absolutely not connected to anything other than the Gate at Q1. Please look again at the NERD schematic and then look again at my diagram of the connection points. Because that configuration is a fact. And that is most certainly how those legs are LITERALLY connected to each other. And that the Q2 Source leg is floating is also evident on a view of those photos of the circuit board. And it is and will be easily evidenced when we do our demos. I do not know if that's how TK has configured his circuit. It most certainly is how we've configured ours.
For the battery to be able to discharge any current through Q2 during the 'off' period of each switched cycle it would not be able to discharge that positive current flow through its source leg and onto the Gate at Q1. The blocking diode at Q1 opposes a positive flow of current. It would effectively leave the circuit open. The resulting positive current flow - from the battery - assuming that there was any - would need to move through the function generator's terminal to it's probe and then onto the Source leg of Q1 and then only onto the source rail of the battery supply - literally THROUGH the function generator probe and terminal. Then it would need to resolve as a positive current flow. Above zero. And typically - the current from the battery supply needs must pass from the Drain leg of Q2 to the Source leg of Q2 before it can go anywhere at all. The voltage at this point in the switching cycle is NEGATIVE. So clearly it is NOT coming from the battery supply. Quite apart from which that battery supply would also then need to be discharging a negative current flow evident in that negative voltage during that 'off' period of each duty cycle. Which is impossible. One could argue that the voltage is weakening during that switching cycle - and that capacitance from the MOSFETs kick in. Then there would be a reversal of that voltage. But there is way too much current to be accounted for by capacitance. So where does that really robust current flow come from? If that current flow is indeed able to pass through the function generator's probe and terminal - then the strength of that current flow - as mentioned - is far greater than the capacitance that is available at the MOSFETs and far greater than the level of applied voltage that is measured across those switches.
Rosemary-I assure you.
I quote you from above, "The gate leg of Q2 is CONNECTED to the source leg of Q1. The source leg of Q1 is CONNECTED to the battery negative rail" (via the CSR). Parenthetical and emphasis added
Therefore, the source leg of Q1 AND the gate leg of Q2 are ALWAYS at the same potential, they are, afterall, CONNECTED. The potential to which they are both CONNECTED is at or very near the battery negative rail.
Therefore, the voltage at the source leg of Q1 AND at the gate of Q2 is ALWAYS at or very near ground, which is the battery negative rail. Again, the gate of Q2 is always at or near ground potential.
(As they are actually connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, they will always be at the same voltage as is measured at the non-battery end of the CSR, which is near ground potential)
The function generator CANNOT apply a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2, as the gate of Q2 is ALWAYS connected to the negative rail (ground) via the CSR (as is the source of Q1).
The function generator outputs a voltage that is either positive or negative with respect to the FG's signal common (the signal common being the function generator's BNC connector outer metal contact, typically the black lead on a BNC cable with clip leads).
The function generator signal common is CONNECTED to GROUND and is therefore ALWAYS at ground potential (or the CSR voltage depending on its connection point). The FG signal common does not change polarity, only the function generator's output signal changes polarity (the FG output signal is the BNC center contact, typically red clip lead on BNC cable).
The source leg of Q2 is connected to the battery negative rail (or CSR) by way of the function generator. When the function generator output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the source leg of Q2 causes Q2 to partially turn on and the current that ensues flows through the source leg of Q2 and the function generator to the battery negative rail via the CSR.
I suggest you spend some time understanding this, you now argue against even the most obvious,
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 11:06:18 AM
My dear TinselKoala - IF the function generator is discharging energy to heat the load then it would need to pass its energy through the battery supply and through the load itself and through the resistance of the function generator. NOW how much energy is that function generating delivering? DO THE MATH.
Rosie Pose
Approximately 200ma. We did the math, TK made the empirical measurement.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 11:06:18 AM
My dear TinselKoala - IF the function generator is discharging energy to heat the load then it would need to pass its energy through the battery supply and through the load itself and through the resistance of the function generator. NOW how much energy is that function generating delivering? DO THE MATH.
Rosie Pose
It is indeed doing just that. YOU DO THE MATH, you idiot hypocrite. The FG is adding its power to the system when it is hooked up as shown. How else can you explain the fact that A BATTERY CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FG and the circuit functions identically, until THIS BATTERY RUNS DOWN?
Guys - this is another circular argument. In terms of the applied voltage at the gates of Q1 or Q2. IF Q1 is negative then Q2 is positive. IF Q2 is positive then Q1 is negative. We can prove this. Effectively if we connect the source leg of Q2 directly to the source or negative rail of the battery supply - which is what picowatt is claiming - then we will most certainly show you a continual positive flow of current from the battery supply during the full 2.8 minutes of that switching cycle. And it will ALSO be positive during the period when Q1 is biased on. Therefore we will show you that when the source leg of Q2 is ACTUALLY connected to the source or negative rail of the battery supply it will generate a continuous positive current during both periods of each switching cycle.
That's easy and we've done that test. But I'll show you all.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 11:10:53 AM
Approximately 200ma. We did the math, TK made the empirical measurement.
Then your math is wrong. We can get oscillations upwards of 4 amps. Where does that energy come from? Capacitance at the MOSFET's?
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
It is indeed doing just that. YOU DO THE MATH, you idiot hypocrite. The FG is adding its power to the system when it is hooked up as shown. How else can you explain the fact that A BATTERY CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FG and the circuit functions identically, until THIS BATTERY RUNS DOWN?
Your problem with that battery operated switch - TinselKoala - is that REFUSE to use a small rechargeable battery. If you DID you'd see that there's energy going back to that battery. Don't give me the 'proof' because the battery discharges - thing. Of COURSE it'll discharge. It's used PRECISELY to obviate any advantage in returning energy. That's part of your SPIN cycle.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 11:19:08 AM
Guys - this is another circular argument. In terms of the applied voltage at the gates of Q1 or Q2. IF Q1 is negative then Q2 is positive. IF Q2 is positive then Q1 is negative. We can prove this. Effectively if we connect the source leg of Q2 directly to the source or negative rail of the battery supply - which is what picowatt is claiming - then we will most certainly show you a continual positive flow of current from the battery supply during the full 2.8 minutes of that switching cycle. And it will ALSO be positive during the period when Q1 is biased on. Therefore we will show you that when the source leg of Q2 is ACTUALLY connected to the source or negative rail of the battery supply it will generate a continuous positive current during both periods of each switching cycle.
That's easy and we've done that test. But I'll show you all.
Regards,
Rosemary
You have already proved what the voltage at the Q2 gate and Q1 source is. As the source leg of Q1 and the gate of Q2 are both connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, one need only look at the voltage indicated by the 'scope shots of the CSR voltage.
The argument is not circular, you are just completely and unbelievably wrong.
You demonstrate an inability to read even your own simple schematic, let alone understand your circuit's operation.
I have a "broken record" I would rather listen to.
(technically speaking, a record with a scratch that causes the needle to track to the previous groove, over and over and over and...)
PW
(and again you put your words in my mouth as a tool for your "argument")
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 11:24:15 AM
Then your math is wrong. We can get oscillations upwards of 4 amps. Where does that energy come from? Capacitance at the MOSFET's?
Rosemary
Of course you do, we are discussing the DC bias current that flows thru the FG necessary to bias Q2 into a linear region of operation so it can oscillate. You are in this post referring to AC current.
If you could ever grasp the DC path and operation, possibly you could understand how and why the circuit oscillates and the AC current flow you are discussing.
But I doubt it,
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 11:27:55 AM
Your problem with that battery operated switch - TinselKoala - is that REFUSE to use a small rechargeable battery. If you DID you'd see that there's energy going back to that battery. Don't give me the 'proof' because the battery discharges - thing. Of COURSE it'll discharge. It's used PRECISELY to obviate any advantage in returning energy. That's part of your SPIN cycle.
Rosie Pose
Prove it!
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 02, 2012, 06:27:16 PM
Hi Rosemary,
I think it is better to make some new experiment, than to rant here all the time.
Just do the experiments and prove TK wrong if you can do this with your setup...
And show it in videos as he is showing it.
I got again some complains of some users that you only rant here and don´t do the required
experiments.
Regards, Stefan
Ranting Rosemary cant stop ranting on and on and on, and nothing will ever change, she can't admit she's wrong
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 11:10:53 AM
Approximately 200ma. We did the math, TK made the empirical measurement.
I did the measurement in the simulation as well....and it confirms the 200mA area.
Ainslie's 4 amps current is happening when she is using a bipolar pulse and doesn't realize it and is turning the Q1 mosfet ON with the positive portion of the pulse , and having oscillations when Q1 is OFF due to the negative offset. This is a result of the offset usage of the function generator and her lack of understanding of it.
We are here discussing, and have for a long time been discussing, the strictly NEGATIVE stimulation that provides the low-heat mode and small current flows. At least everybody except Ainslie is discussing that mode-- SINCE THAT IS WHAT THE TEST REQUIRES.
These two distinctly different modes of operation are shown in Ainslie's scope shots below. And they would show even more distinctly if the COMMON MOSFET DRAIN signal were shown.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 11:27:55 AM
Your problem with that battery operated switch - TinselKoala - is that REFUSE to use a small rechargeable battery.
That's another lie. When did I ever REFUSE to use such a battery? If I had one handy I'd gladly use it.
How about this: what if I use a large rechargable CAPACITOR instead of a battery for the bias supply? Oh.... there's that dreaded "C" word. Inductors are merely mysterious but CAPACITORS.... scare Ainslie to death.
QuoteIf you DID you'd see that there's energy going back to that battery. Don't give me the 'proof' because the battery discharges - thing. Of COURSE it'll discharge. It's used PRECISELY to obviate any advantage in returning energy. That's part of your SPIN cycle.
Rosie Pose
There's energy going back, even to the bias battery.. but of course it discharges... but a function generator in its place wouldn't provide any power... but a rechargeable battery would stay charged..... and I refuse to use one because of SPIN??? When if I DID.... I would have a FREE ENERGY machine on my workbench?
Yeah... right. That makes perfect sense... to an oyster, maybe.
GET OUT YOUR EQUIPMENT AND PROVE YOUR CONTENTIONS by showing your circuit doing something different than mine under the same conditions.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 04, 2012, 12:39:48 PM
I did the measurement in the simulation as well....and it confirms the 200mA area.
.99,
So, mathematical prediction, your simulation, and TK's empirical measurments all seem to be in agreement.
The "odd man out", apparently, is Rosemary.
When I began posting, I was wondering about the neg mean pwr measurement, and how that could be. I greatly appreciate all the time you have spent performing your simulations and analysis, and the time and money TK has spent collecting empirical data.
I have learned a lot.
I thank-you both for that,
PW
You're quite welcome, and I've learned a lot in turn from the both of you as well. And I've also learned a lot from Ainslie, which applies to my major field of study and expertise. Enough, perhaps, for a publishable article as a case history report.
Meanwhile... back at the ranch.... Tar Baby takes a day off and Willy WaveTek and Hi-way F43 play together alone for a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIcgFfBuMbM
I know, I know... more incomprehensible misdirection, insufficient lighting, and obviously TK is using special garage-sale equipment that isn't like anything anybody around here has ever seen. Why... there aren't even any numbers in boxes !
Therefore aliens.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 12:58:58 PM
You're quite welcome, and I've learned a lot in turn from the both of you as well. And I've also learned a lot from Ainslie, which applies to my major field of study and expertise. Enough, perhaps, for a publishable article as a case history report.
Meanwhile... back at the ranch.... Tar Baby takes a day off and Willy WaveTek and Hi-way F43 play together alone for a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIcgFfBuMbM
I know, I know... more incomprehensible misdirection, insufficient lighting, and obviously TK is using special garage-sale equipment that isn't like anything anybody around here has ever seen. Why... there aren't even any numbers in boxes !
Therefore aliens.
TK,
If I ever see an F43 at a "garage sale", I will definitely snatch it up!
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 01:13:25 PM
TK,
If I ever see an F43 at a "garage sale", I will definitely snatch it up!
PW
The WaveTek Model III VCO has some good features too. It also will put out nearly 40 volts p-p into a high impedance, and it has a separate 5 ns risetime square wave output and multiple outputs for other waveshapes simultaneously. It also has a fine frequency vernier... which the Interstate doesn't. But the Interstate has the offset adjustment and the WaveTek doesn't....
I also have an Interstate F34 Sweep Function Generator, similar in appearance to the F43 but with the sweep functionality. They seem to be rare.... I can't find manuals or much info about the company, but inside they are bulletproof construction, discrete transistors and TTL chips mostly, on big-trace circuit boards that are easy to figure out and work on.
But of course the same "trick" can be done with any modern function generators... except perhaps the "IsoTech GFG324". For example, say you need a 2 v p-p signal with a - 72 volt DC offset --- that is, you want a signal that varies from -70 volts to -74 volts in a square wave... what do you do? Well, you simply hook your FG in series with a 72 volt battery, and the load you are driving, with the proper polarity. (Respecting the fact that the 50R in the FG is probably only a 2 or 3 Watt resistor, of course, so your load mustn't draw too much current.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 01:31:50 PM
The WaveTek Model III VCO has some good features too. It also will put out nearly 40 volts p-p into a high impedance, and it has a separate 5 ns risetime square wave output and multiple outputs for other waveshapes simultaneously. It also has a fine frequency vernier... which the Interstate doesn't. But the Interstate has the offset adjustment and the WaveTek doesn't....
I also have an Interstate F34 Sweep Function Generator, similar in appearance to the F43 but with the sweep functionality. They seem to be rare.... I can't find manuals or much info about the company, but inside they are bulletproof construction, discrete transistors and TTL chips mostly, on big-trace circuit boards that are easy to figure out and work on.
But of course the same "trick" can be done with any modern function generators... except perhaps the "IsoTech GFG324". For example, say you need a 2 v p-p signal with a - 72 volt DC offset --- that is, you want a signal that varies from -70 volts to -74 volts in a square wave... what do you do? Well, you simply hook your FG in series with a 72 volt battery, and the load you are driving, with the proper polarity. (Respecting the fact that the 50R in the FG is probably only a 2 or 3 Watt resistor, of course, so your load mustn't draw too much current.)
What??? Draw current thru an FG...?
"Slow boat" just arrived moments ago. Could have sworn I ordered 20, only got ten. Looks like that is all I was charged for as well. 10 pieces and shipping for under $25. Not bad. I have two left over from an old project from a few years ago (that I finally found). So that makes 12. I'll have to compare their Vthresh.
Can anyone say "high votage electrostatic driver"?
PW
QuoteYour problem with that battery operated switch - TinselKoala - is that REFUSE to use a small rechargeable battery. If you DID you'd see that there's energy going back to that battery. Don't give me the 'proof' because the battery discharges - thing. Of COURSE it'll discharge. It's used PRECISELY to obviate any advantage in returning energy. That's part of your SPIN cycle.
Rosie Pose
I'm still having trouble parsing this apparently English paragraph. Let's ignore the lack of a subject in the second phrase of the first sentence and presume she means ME.
First the issue of whether Tar Baby's results are applicable to hers seems settled, since she is telling me how my circuit will behave.
So...if I did use a small rechargeable battery for the gate bias supply I would see energy going back to that battery. OK... that's clear enough and it is TESTABLE BY AINSLIE HERSELF and of course by me.
Next, if I should claim -- or demonstrate -- that the battery discharges, she agrees totally with me OF COURSE it will discharge but denies that I can use this as proof that the battery will discharge.... since that's all I said it would do, isn't it? So this part seems to have some difficulty since it appears to be completely self contradictory. The battery discharging OF COURSE isn't proof that the battery will discharge? And the sun coming up isn't proof that the sun comes up, or what???
Finally, there's the accusation that I am using a non-rechargeable battery deliberately to prevent the free energy from appearing as part of some kind of SPIN. The problem with that is.... I have shown the negative power product, just as Ainslie has shown, in the same way, on digital oscilloscope math traces, and with even stronger evidence than she has shown: a completed negative-going energy integral across the entire screen, and a computed negative total AREA for the instantaneous power curve, both of which confirm strongly the negative mean power measurement. And I've done this using the non-rechargeable battery that Ainslie says will prevent the effect. So... again there seems to be a glaring contradiction in Ainslie's fevered prose.
@PW: Great ! I hope your electrostatic driver works out, I definitely want to see it when you are done.
And just in time for the weekend, too. You should be able to put the Ainslie affair to bed by midnight tonight, I'd guess.
Meanwhile here's a bit better retake of the boring lost trigger scene in the previous video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8szx6Fa19s
Quotes by Rosemary Ainslie -
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291184/#msg291184 :o
This is why. We use a functions generator. The setting on ALL THOSE GENERATORS are brittle. Either that or something in the experiment factors in. The settings CHANGE. For whatever reason - it then it develops SO MUCH ENERGY over the circuit apparatus that EVERYTHING COOKS and we've even had an occasion where the battery caught alight. THEREFORE IT NEEDS CONSTANT MONITORING. If it's run continuously - it would need to be monitored DAY AND NIGHT. I do not have the energy to manage this. I do not have the funds to pay for this continual monitoring. BUT I AM ON RECORD. IF THERE IS ANY SOLEMN UNDERTAKING BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT SUCH A RESULT WILL BE CONSIDERED UNEQUIVOCAL - THEN I WILL HAPPILY RUN THIS TO THE EXTENT OF THE BATTERIES' WATT HOUR RATING. But I'm NOT about to embark on that test UNLESS there's that undertaking. Because my experience is that NOTHING - NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER - is going to cut it. Unhappily.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291323/#msg291323 :o
What the thesis relies on is this. Every current flow has a distinct CHARGE. A positive current flow leads with the positive - something like this >-+ -+ -+. And correspondingly a negative current flow leads with a negative charge - like this <-+ -+ -+. Now. Put those two together as they present in real time as in a sine wave. It would be >-+ -+ -+>then<-+ -+ -+<. You see for yourself that there's no conflict of like charges. NOW. Back to our circuit and let's factor in the charge at the gate. There's an applied current coming from the battery. It's justification is >-+ -+ -+> In order for this to find an appropriate charge at the bridge the functions generator would need to APPLY a '-+' because IF that charge was presented '+-' then the two positives '-+ +-' would repel. But to present that '-+' the functions generator is actually presenting a NEGATIVE charge that simply 'reads' as a positive charge relative to the system. So. Now we correctly should see that as a charge coming from the generator <-+ . It's leading with a NEGATIVE signal. The battery current sees this applied charge as a PERFECTLY POSITIVE charge alignment to link up and flow to its own source or negative rail. But the DIRECTION of that charge from the FG has reversed.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318699/#msg318699 ???
That last post of TK's relies on the association of prior claims that were, presumably, not proved. I have NEVER made any claims about the battery being recharged as a result of that circuit configuration. On the contrary. We do NOT need that to prove the anomaly of a negative wattage. Again. This value is that absurd that it has no meaning at all within any standard paradigms. However. I was more than ready to show this to Poynty Point and/or Stefan and/or Professor Steven E Jones. And right now I'm making sure that we can all evaluate the battery performance in a wholly public demonstration - AS WELL. Then I, like you, will learn if there is any value at all in that computed 'negative' number. I simply do not know. None of us do. And we'll also be able to test our earlier claim related to COP>17. And we're more than ready to do this from a 555 signal as from a function generator. And we intend using both and testing batteries against a control - on both. That's the first point.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292115/#msg292115 ???
THEN. There is a signal applied by the signal generator to the Gate of Q1. Its widely referenced as a POSITIVE signal which is possibly erroneous. But I'll get back to this. For now - and for this description - it most certainly IS positive with respect to ((wrt) ;D) the current that is now ABLE to flow from the anode of the battery to the cathode of the battery - from the plus terminal to the negative terminal. That's the standard - predictable - respectable - result - precisely in line with what a well behaved circuit should do. All's good. The previously OPEN circuit is now CLOSED. The gate has been bridged. The current can flow.
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg321217/#msg321217 ???
I have stated this PUBLICLY - right here on this forum. WE PUT THE PROBE OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR DIRECTLY ON THE GATE OF Q1. WE PUT THE TERMINAL OF THAT PROBE DIRECTLY ON THE GATE AT Q2. When the probe voltage applies a positive voltage at Q1 then the voltage at Q2 is in anti polarity. There most CERTAINLY is an applied voltage at the gate of Q2. And Q1. ALWAYS. They're in anti phase or anti polarity.
FTC
:P
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 02:00:16 PM
@PW: Great ! I hope your electrostatic driver works out, I definitely want to see it when you are done.
And just in time for the weekend, too. You should be able to put the Ainslie affair to bed by midnight tonight, I'd guess.
Meanwhile here's a bit better retake of the boring lost trigger scene in the previous video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8szx6Fa19s
As if I don't have "real work" to do...
PW
Ok, let's review.
Ainslie has "applied" for the two or three OU prizes: one from this forum, one at OUR, and Prof. Jones's prize. She has at various times claimed COP > INFINITY, COP INFINITY, COP = INFINITY, and COP Exceeds INFINITY for the NERD circuit presented (in two distinctly different schematics) in the two "papers" that we all know about.
She made those claims based on measurements of "negative mean power" which she believes were obtained using "standard protocols".
And she has claimed that the circuit produces high heat in a resistive load, for hours at a time, even boiling water, without any power being supplied by the main batteries, OR whatever is powering the +/- signals like a FG or bias supply. As part of this she has claimed that the batteries are prevented from discharging, or are being recharged, or are simply not involved somehow with running the circuit, powering the oscillations, and heating the load.
She admits, however, that the battery capacity has NEVER been tested and she doesn't know what the outcome would be. Even though she's been telling us what she GUARANTEES the outcome will be.
And now.... in the past 24 hours.... she has backed down seemingly totally. She now says that she makes ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS as to the circuit's performance and that she has no idea... nobody does.... about whether the batteries have stayed charged up or not. All she now appears to be "claiming" is that she can produce the negative power readings on demand.
So what? So can anyone. All that it is evidence of is improper incorrect measurement protocols coupled with a lack of critical analysis. And this is what the reviewers of the submitted drafts perceived immediately.
.99 has acknowledged that Ainslie has withdrawn her claim to the OUR prize, as is proper, since nothing seems to be claimed, only a conjecture is made that even the claimant doesn't know the truth of.
Presumably the claims for this forum's prize and that of Prof. Jones will soon also be renounced, as is proper, since NOTHING is claimed regarding the NERD circuit by Ainslie. She's only making claims -- easily refuted ones -- about function generators and current flows now. So where's the beef? Those claims are not more crackpot than many others on this forum, and they certainly don't pose a threat to Big Oil or the MiBs.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 01:47:01 AM
I claim NOTHING related to the NERD circuit. We have presented two papers that need expert evaluation and those papers only POINT AT QUESTIONS. We are asking those questions. And there is no mere mortal who will EVER know the truth in any absolute sense.
Regards
Rosie Pose
You claim nothing now. Fine, that's good.
The "papers" you have presented can't even agree on the circuit diagram and the instruments used, and they don't specify components in sufficient detail. Not only that they present an incomprehensible "thesis" that is completely at odds with conventional understanding, makes no quantitative predictions, and is contradicted by experiment. The "questions" pointed at have in large part been answered just fine, only you, Ainslie, reject the explanations because you can't understand them nor do they support your "thesis" word salad.
And finally, yes, there are plenty of mere mortals who will and do already know the truth about you and your circuit, Ainslie.
But all that is moot, because finally, YOU CLAIM NOTHING.
Wow, another tough few days at "the office" around here I see. Rosemary doesn't even understand what a "voltage source" really means and as a result she thinks that the Q2 array source pins are "floating." She rants about this "antiphase" business between the Q1 and Q2 array gates being driven by he function generator without understanding that one leg of the function generator is effectively tied to ground. It's reminiscent of Poynt's formal "exercise in power analysis" with Rosemary where the circuit in question for the exercise was a single resistor connected to a battery. That resulted in a near total freakout/meltdown by Rosemary.
There is no solution to the real problem, and we all know what the real problem is.
That's related to my lament about "free energy" "researchers" in general. The learning curve is slow or sometimes doesn't even exist. The hope for some synergy and advancement of the group is dashed by the "belief systems" that exist. Some of these belief systems are deep-rooted are actively promoted by some high-profile and notable personalities that have a pseudo professional sheen about them. Things like "negative 'radiant' energy" and "positive 'radiant' energy."
Clearly Rosemary has her own belief systems based on God knows what, and she isn't really going to budge. She is simply a more extreme example of a typical misinformed free energy researcher. That enigmatic high voltage spike has transfixed thousands of them because they think that they are seeing something "magic" or "from the vacuum." They play with a 12-volt battery and discover that they can generate hundreds of volts with a coil and then think that they have tapped into the source of the space-time continuum or something.
Rosie refuses to learn, and realistically she would need about two years of schooling to know what she is talking about. That's not going to happen so there is no solution along those lines.
The only solution is to go the dim bulb route. With small enough batteries and properly done testing, poor Rosie Posie will discover that every single test that she runs will show that everything is 100% conventional and nothing special is happening.
So the ball is in your court Rosemary. It's impossible to teach you how your circuit works, you won't listen or learn. So the solution is to bypass this "strong point" and continue the battle closer to your home.
Run the battery tests, that's the only thing that you have got left. Technically, after the past dozen or so pages on this thread, you are in a complete shambles. It has been a tiresome spectacle to see how you can't understand what is going on around you.
"Something is happening, and you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?"
Please just do the battery testing.
MileHigh
MileHigh, regarding your comments here...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 04, 2012, 10:06:25 PMThat's related to my lament about "free energy" "researchers" in general. The learning curve is slow or sometimes doesn't even exist. The hope for some synergy and advancement of the group is dashed by the "belief systems" that exist. Some of these belief systems are deep-rooted are actively promoted by some high-profile and notable personalities that have a pseudo professional sheen about them. Things like "negative 'radiant' energy" and "positive 'radiant' energy."
Clearly Rosemary has her own belief systems based on God knows what, and she isn't really going to budge. She is simply a more extreme example of a typical misinformed free energy researcher. That enigmatic high voltage spike has transfixed thousands of them because they think that they are seeing something "magic" or "from the vacuum." They play with a 12-volt battery and discover that they can generate hundreds of volts with a coil and then think that they have tapped into the source of the space-time continuum or something.
Not one of my collaborators subscribe to free energy or even 'over unity'. And nor do I. Therefore IF we are simply more extreme examples of a 'typical misinformed free energy researchers' - then CONFUSINGLY - we also DENY it's existence. Do not try and paint us with the same tar brush that TK applies to our technology with his heavily 'blackened' Tar Baby. Your comments are profoundly incorrect. And they simply constitute more of that vigilante 'spin'. And that use of the term 'vigilante' is unfortunately appropriate - as the entire concept of the 'tar baby' has racial and prejudicial implications that are entirely unacceptable in any social context at all - let alone in a scientific context.
That you all INSIST on this shows us all that you have NOT read our papers. Or you have not understood them. In either case you are patently under qualified to comment. And our papers are NOT the 'word salad' that TK suggests. They have been widely commended for their 'clarity' and this from professionals that include some highly respected names. I'd disclose them if they wouldn't then be associated with this and my own threads littered as they all are with that reckless and criminal slander that you all indulge. With all that vigilante zeal.
What we propose is that there's a second energy supply source. Factor that supply into those results and we most assuredly do NOT exceed unity. We simply propose that there's some evident need to redefine 'unity'. And THAT redefinition - will then point to the existence of dark energy. Which is NOT our discovery. We merely give further evidence of the existence of dark matter. Which is required as there is already unequivocal evidence of dark matter in the vacuum of space and around our galaxies. All of them.
Regards,
Rosemary
She's never going to do any battery testing.
Here's what I think. There is a bare minimum of knowledge and common terminology that simply must be required by anybody who wants to engage in this kind of research - to be polite - and this kind of discussion. Since in the present case we are talking about electronic circuitry and power measurement.... I mean, really.
Ainslie should be made to explain the errors, correct them, revise the conclusions based on the errors, and post the corrections publicly, for the "math" that she has performed in the quotes below from this forum and her blog.
If she spouts that asinine "DO THE MATH" thing one more time, yet lets this garbage stand uncorrected..... well, do the math.
Let's just say that Ainslie has absolutely no credibility until she can show she understands what == or WATT == is wrong with these "calculations". And that's just the first step in establishing any smidgen of credibility at all... since there are many many more errors and false claims that she has made that are easily refutable.
Quote
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Quote
In any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
Guys - TK needs to address some serious and slanderous allegations before he can expect any kind of engagement. Had his 'attitude' been more politically and scientifically appropriate - then he'd have solicited co-operation. We are not encouraged to engage with those who criminally slander our work and our names. And we do not engage on a serious level with vigilantes. And we will do our tests - NOT for the benefit of these vigilantes - but for the benefit of Open Source. The distinction being that the former is destructive and utterly inappropriate. The latter is required to protect these very desirable results for the public good.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:02:29 AM
She's never going to do any battery testing.
Here's what I think. There is a bare minimum of knowledge and common terminology that simply must be required by anybody who wants to engage in this kind of research - to be polite - and this kind of discussion. Since in the present case we are talking about electronic circuitry and power measurement.... I mean, really.
Ainslie should be made to explain the errors, correct them, revise the conclusions based on the errors, and post the corrections publicly, for the "math" that she has performed in the quotes below from this forum and her blog.
If she spouts that asinine "DO THE MATH" thing one more time, yet lets this garbage stand uncorrected..... well, do the math.
Let's just say that Ainslie has absolutely no credibility until she can show she understands what == or WATT == is wrong with these "calculations". And that's just the first step in establishing any smidgen of credibility at all... since there are many many more errors and false claims that she has made that are easily refutable.
A claim of COP INFINITY or even COP>17 is not a claim of overunity? You are squirming in your hot seat. Everybody knows, and an internet search reveals, that you have claimed overunity performance many times. In the two quotations I have cited above you are claiming overunity performance. You can wave your hands about and talk about "circuit materials" somehow being converted to heat in the load and the mosfets without discharging the batteries. And I can talk about the snails and worms crawling between your ears and chewing on your brain, and we would both be talking about the same things and with the same validity. YOU HAVE DONE NO EXPERIMENTS TO VALIDATE YOUR "THESIS" CLAIMS which include this bizarre idea that the battery isn't responsible for your heat. And that's why the experts have uniformly rejected your papers, and that's why nobody-- despite your lies -- will come forward in support of them. NOT EVEN YOUR "collaborators", who as FTC points out have all jumped ship long ago.... because they all probably can DO THE MATH.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 12:10:48 AM
Guys - TK needs to address some serious and slanderous allegations before he can expect any kind of engagement. Had his 'attitude' been more politically and scientifically appropriate - then he'd have solicited co-operation. We are not encouraged to engage with those who criminally slander our work and our names. And we do not engage on a serious level with vigilantes. And we will do our tests - NOT for the benefit of these vigilantes - but for the benefit of Open Source. The distinction being that the former is destructive and utterly inappropriate. The latter is required to protect these very desirable results for the public good.
Regards,
Rosemary
DO THE MATH, you lying cretin.
NOBODY expects any "serious engagement" from you, you have totally blown it bigtime in the last few days.
In fact everybody in the Open Source research areas would benefit greatly if you would JUST GO AWAY because you are doing far more harm than good.
Well, some of them are probably happy that you are keeping me busy so that I can't debunk their buoyancy drives or centrifugal toolbox lifters.
It seems that you are able to couple this zeal with an endless access to SPIN.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:15:42 AM
A claim of COP INFINITY or even COP>17 is not a claim of overunity? You are squirming in your hot seat. Everybody knows, and an internet search reveals, that you have claimed overunity performance many times. In the two quotations I have cited above you are claiming overunity performance. You can wave your hands about and talk about "circuit materials" somehow being converted to heat in the load and the mosfets without discharging the batteries. And I can talk about the snails and worms crawling between your ears and chewing on your brain, and we would both be talking about the same things and with the same validity. YOU HAVE DONE NO EXPERIMENTS TO VALIDATE YOUR "THESIS" CLAIMS which include this bizarre idea that the battery isn't responsible for your heat. And that's why the experts have uniformly rejected your papers, and that's why nobody-- despite your lies -- will come forward in support of them. NOT EVEN YOUR "collaborators", who as FTC points out have all jumped ship long ago.... because they all probably can DO THE MATH.
COP INFINITY is MEASURED on our circuit using standard measurement protocols. We claim that this is MEASURED. We have done over 200 experiments ALL of which validate those MEASUREMENTS. And we'll soon see if no-one comes forward with support - when the evidence of our tests will not only be unequivocal but they will support the evidence in our papers and they will be publicly demonstrated.
Rosie Pose
added.
And I actively dissuade any of my collaborators engaging here. This thread is TOXIC. It serves no purpose. I only subscribe in as much as your 'spin' will otherwise not be addressed. It's MUCH NEEDED. But it only needs my input. If it needed more I'd rethink this.
QuoteThey have been widely commended for their 'clarity' and this from professionals that include some highly respected names. I'd disclose them if they wouldn't then be associated with this and my own threads littered as they all are with that reckless and criminal slander that you all indulge. With all that vigilante zeal.
OK, then, how about just quoting the "commendations" themselves without revealing the "professionals" highly respected names.
YOU CANNOT. Go ahead, just make some "commendations" up, like you did for your alphabet companies who "endorsed" your earlier bogus claim of overunity performance. There are lots of professionals who HAVE read your "papers", though, and who have criticised them strongly, and who have chucked them into the circular file where they belong.
TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:16:41 AM
DO THE MATH, you lying cretin.
NOBODY expects any "serious engagement" from you, you have totally blown it bigtime in the last few days.
In fact everybody in the Open Source research areas would benefit greatly if you would JUST GO AWAY because you are doing far more harm than good.
Well, some of them are probably happy that you are keeping me busy so that I can't debunk their buoyancy drives or centrifugal toolbox lifters.
I've said this before. You do an invaluable job of advertising our work. It's much appreciated.
Rosie Pose
TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:25:05 AM
OK, then, how about just quoting the "commendations" themselves without revealing the "professionals" highly respected names.
YOU CANNOT. Go ahead, just make some "commendations" up, like you did for your alphabet companies who "endorsed" your earlier bogus claim of overunity performance. There are lots of professionals who HAVE read your "papers", though, and who have criticised them strongly, and who have chucked them into the circular file where they belong.
To what end should I quote them? That you can then claim that I invented them and their comments? So NO. It would be absurd to do so. Certainly NOT until I've got a moderated thread and their permissions.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 12:21:15 AM
It seems that you are able to couple this zeal with an endless access to SPIN.
COP INFINITY is MEASURED on our circuit using standard measurement protocols.
YOU ARE NOT USING STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, which call for rigorous power supply decoupling, among other niceties that you are not respecting. Every time you say this "using standard measurement protocols" you are LYING.
QuoteWe claim that this is MEASURED. We have done over 200 experiments ALL of which validate those MEASUREMENTS.
AT THIS POINT, thick headed AINSLIE, nobody questions your MEASUREMENTS at all. Since they are easy to reproduce. YOUR MATH AND YOUR CLAIMS BASED ON YOUR MATH .... that is what is being questioned and that is what you cannot defend. I can tell you some highly respected names that summarily chuck your papers into the trash after the first read, they are so bad.
QuoteAnd we'll soon see if no-one comes forward with support - when the evidence of our tests will not only be unequivocal but they will support the evidence in our papers and they will be publicly demonstrated.
Rosie Pose
added.
And I actively dissuade any of my collaborators engaging here. This thread is TOXIC. It serves no purpose. I only subscribe in as much as your 'spin' will otherwise not be addressed. It's MUCH NEEDED. But it only needs my input. If it needed more I'd rethink this.
What's needed, Rosie Poser, is for you to respect our host's wishes and STOP POSTING YOUR NONSENSE and do the tests LIKE I HAVE DONE and show that your circuit does something different than mine does under the same circumstances. THIS YOU CANNOT DO so you won't even attempt it.
Yes, Tar Baby is toxic to NERD claims, that is certain... by REPRODUCING THEM. How odd.... the claimant must debunk the debunker who has actually reproduced all the data that the claimant's claim is based on.
AGAIN.
Here. Just start with this one. Explain why it is right, or correct it, IN YOUR NEXT POST, or go away and play on the highway.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
If you make statements like this you should be expected to defend them.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:32:08 AM
YOU ARE NOT USING STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, which call for rigorous power supply decoupling, among other niceties that you are not respecting. Every time you say this "using standard measurement protocols" you are LYING. AT THIS POINT, thick headed AINSLIE, nobody questions your MEASUREMENTS at all. Since they are easy to reproduce. YOUR MATH AND YOUR CLAIMS BASED ON YOUR MATH .... that is what is being questioned and that is what you cannot defend. I can tell you some highly respected names that summarily chuck your papers into the trash after the first read, they are so bad.
We most certainly ARE using standard measurement protocols.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:32:08 AMWhat's needed, Rosie Poser, is for you to respect our host's wishes and STOP POSTING YOUR NONSENSE and do the tests LIKE I HAVE DONE and show that your circuit does something different than mine does under the same circumstances. THIS YOU CANNOT DO so you won't even attempt it.
I would have no need to post if you own posting, and your tests, and your attitude show some modicum of professionalism coupled with an earnest evaluation. And when your comments and those of picowatt and MileHigh and FTC - no longer slander our work or my name.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:32:08 AMYes, Tar Baby is toxic to NERD claims, that is certain... by REPRODUCING THEM. How odd.... the claimant must debunk the debunker who has actually reproduced all the data that the claimant's claim is based on.
I believe you've attempted to 'replicate our work'? And that under the banner of the 'Tar Baby'? Rest assured. We will NEVER associate with such an unfortunate title and we will never endorse work that is so utterly unscientifically presented.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 12:29:38 AM
TK
To what end should I quote them? That you can then claim that I invented them and their comments? So NO. It would be absurd to do so. Certainly NOT until I've got a moderated thread and their permissions.
Rosie Pose
Look here, Ainslie. I have certified documents that aliens from Alpha Ophiuchi 8 are living in Des Moines, Iowa and influencing the world's weather patterns from there, to make Earth more habitable for them.
I can't show you these documents or the notarized statements from all the academics who have seen them and agreed that they are authentic, because you would just claim that I invented them. So NO. It would be absurd to do so.
That's why I DON'T TALK about things I cannot prove, like my alien documents. And you must not speak of "endorsements" or such if you are not prepared to produce them. Because, you see... NOBODY WILL BELIEVE YOU, since you don't even correct your basic math errors when they are pointed out to you.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 12:40:38 AM
We most certainly ARE using standard measurement protocols.
I would have no need to post if you own posting, and your tests, and your attitude show some modicum of professionalism coupled with an earnest evaluation. And when your comments and those of picowatt and MileHigh and FTC - no longer slander our work or my name.
I believe you've attempted to 'replicate our work'? And that under the banner of the 'Tar Baby'? Rest assured. We will NEVER associate with such an unfortunate title and we will never endorse work that is so utterly unscientifically presented.
Rosie Pose.
You lie yet again. You have no idea what "standard measurement protocols" are. How have you measured your battery's state of charge? With a no-load voltmeter test. How have you decoupled your main power supply? Not at all. What kind of calorimetry have you done? None.
And ONCE AGAIN::: I don't care who you "care to associate" with. Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects and is READY TO PROVE IT NOW in comparison testing, side by side or REMOTELY with NERD NOW.
Can you perform even a single one of the demonstrations I've done with Tar Baby and show a different result from NERD? No, you cannot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:35:09 AM
Here. Just start with this one. Explain why it is right, or correct it, IN YOUR NEXT POST, or go away and play on the highway.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
If you make statements like this you should be expected to defend them.
Correct it or fly away, woman. You have no business posting in this thread if you can't even do simple math and you continue to confound your terminology.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:43:05 AM
Look here, Ainslie. I have certified documents that aliens from Alpha Ophiuchi 8 are living in Des Moines, Iowa and influencing the world's weather patterns from there, to make Earth more habitable for them.
I can't show you these documents or the notarized statements from all the academics who have seen them and agreed that they are authentic, because you would just claim that I invented them. So NO. It would be absurd to do so.
That's why I DON'T TALK about things I cannot prove, like my alien documents. And you must not speak of "endorsements" or such if you are not prepared to produce them. Because, you see... NOBODY WILL BELIEVE YOU, since you don't even correct your basic math errors when they are pointed out to you.
Actually TK - our justice system - those of us who live and work under democracies (and with the possible exception of Italy) BELIEVE what is stated unless and until they are PROVED TO BE FALSE. We BELIEVE in the presentations of papers unless they're proven to be fraudulent. In the same way those of us who are in any way fair minded BELIEVE in innocence until proven otherwise.
We are inordinately PROUD of our work in those papers. With good reason. As we've also had those that compliment on our work. Indeed it is also a compliment in a strange way - when you 'disparage' that work. I'd be sorry that such esteemed academics would - in any way - endorse your own opinions. They'd be 'blackened' 'tarred' by association.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:49:56 AM
If you make statements like this you should be expected to defend them.
Correct it or fly away, woman. You have no business posting in this thread if you can't even do simple math and you continue to confound your terminology.
Why must I answer this AGAIN? I've already done so. You know this full well. And why do you tell me to play in the highway? WHICH highway? And why? I don't play - anywhere - unless its a hand a bridge, scrabble - or, latterly, sudoku. What highway? I don't even know what this means.
Rosie Pose
added.
QuoteGuys - TK needs to address some serious and slanderous allegations before he can expect any kind of engagement.
I can prove everything I've ever said about you, from the willfull ignorance to the scrawny wench, most of it in your own words and images. Every lie you've told about your work, about the posts of others, and about me is documented in my database. Why do you think I come up with IMAGES AND QUOTES so quickly when you commit another egregious mendacity? I've got the evidence and proof for everything I've ever said about you right here.
Meanwhile, you need to prove that I am... as YOU have called ME... a criminal psychopath like Hitler, Mussolini, and Savonarola, who is even shorter than Hitler, and so on and so forth, denigrating MY education when you have none, and you have made physical threats against me, even saying that you would "kill two birds with one stone, one being TK...". And now you slanderously talk about my "slander". You are a hypocrite of the finest water; it is your chief distinguishing characteristic, right next to your classic paranoia.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 12:54:56 AM
Why must I answer this AGAIN? I've already done so. You know this full well. And why do you tell me to play in the highway? WHICH highway? And why? I don't play - anywhere - unless its a hand a bridge, scrabble - or, latterly, sudoku. What highway? I don't even know what this means.
Rosie Pose
added.
You have not ever corrected that calculation. Post a link to where you did. YOU CANNOT. You are lying yet again.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 12:59:30 AM
You have not ever corrected that calculation. Post a link to where you did. YOU CANNOT. You are lying yet again.
No Tk. I'll not indulge you. Rather allow you full use of this slanderous piece of nonsense. I've already told you. I am GREATLY advantaged by your 'spin'. Strangely so. But there you go. It is an ironic consequence of an excessive zeal that it carries the seeds of its own destruction.
Rosie Posie
CAN ANYONE, anywhere, please point me to where AINSLIE has corrected her calculation in either of the quoted cases?
ANYONE?
And while you're at it.... there is the matter of the IsoTech GFG324 function generator.
ANYONE?????
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 12:54:56 AM
Why must I answer this AGAIN? I've already done so. You know this full well. And why do you tell me to play in the highway? WHICH highway? And why? I don't play - anywhere - unless its a hand a bridge, scrabble - or, latterly, sudoku. What highway? I don't even know what this means.
Rosie Pose
added.
So you do claim to have corrected the calculation?
Do you realize that the CORRECT calculation does not support the conclusion, in fact it is entirely unremarkable as a fraction of the battery's capacity? Do you realize that your misuse of the terms of power and energy, and your failure to include units in your calculations, lead directly to your egregious mistakes? AND FINALLY do you then acknowledge plainly and simply that the conclusion of using more than the battery's capacity is WRONG?
Because all of that is what a correction of that calculation means, Ainslie. So if you've corrected it, LET'S SEE JUST WHERE and how you've done so.
Insert sound of crickets chirping peacefully, here.
QuoteWe are inordinately PROUD of our work in those papers. With good reason.
My goodness golly. You are indeed inordinately PROUD of your "work", that is the truth. Perhaps the only true statement you've made, lately.
And since you are so smart I am sure you mean just what you say.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=inordinately&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 12:51:46 AM
Actually TK - our justice system - those of us who live and work under democracies (and with the possible exception of Italy) BELIEVE what is stated unless and until they are PROVED TO BE FALSE. We BELIEVE in the presentations of papers unless they're proven to be fraudulent. In the same way those of us who are in any way fair minded BELIEVE in innocence until proven otherwise.
We are inordinately PROUD of our work in those papers. With good reason. As we've also had those that compliment on our work. Indeed it is also a compliment in a strange way - when you 'disparage' that work. I'd be sorry that such esteemed academics would - in any way - endorse your own opinions. They'd be 'blackened' 'tarred' by association.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary Ainslie's Quote -
We BELIEVE in the presentations of papers unless they're proven to be fraudulent.
Well you are "NOT" a inventor of electronic circuitry and cannot read a electronic schematic or construct a electronic device, which Rosemary you have admitted this countless times in your postings at several forums. Tell us now Rosemary, how you can apply in a patent application with requirements for that patent as a "INVENTOR" of that electronic device or circuitry when it is a actual regulation of application as being a inventor to be able to construct (build) what you Rosemary are applying for and you Rosemary can't do the application requirement ?
HARNESSING A BACK EMF ( WO9938247A1.pdf ) JULY 29, 1999
POWER SUPPLY FOR ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE OPERATED INSTALLATIONS AND APPLIANCES ( WO03007657A2.pdf ) JULY 3, 2002
METHOD OF HARNESSING A BACK EMF AND APPARATUS USED IN PERFORMING THE METHOD ( EP0932248A1.pdf ) JUNE 29, 1998
HARNESSING A BACK EMF ( ZA9900385A.pdf ) JANUARY 20,1999
Each one of these four (4) patent applications has you Rosemary Ann Ainslie as the "INVENTOR" of the device and/or circuit ..... all using somewhere in the application papers content a MOSFET with a function, signal or pulse generator and a fly back diode.
So, Rosemary your "NOT" a inventor or have been and you have no clue on the operation characteristics of a n-channel mosfet or it's standard excepted diagrammatic representation the operation fundamentals of a common function, signal or pulse generator and how to read, comprehend and present collected data from a oscilloscope properly you Rosemary have proved this repeatedly without any exceptions.
You, Rosemary have more years of experience than anyone known in the Open Source community as a FRAUD and LIAR ... and I'm sure your very proud of those facts. :P
Yep, fraud and liar.
Her "overunity" or COP INFINITY claim is based on three things:
1. The "average mean power" measurements cited in her drafts.
2. The "still fully charged" open-circuit voltage measurements on her batteries.
3. The ASSUMPTION that the batteries do not have sufficient capacity to support even one of her heat runs.
Well.... #1 is a measurement error, caused by NOT using standard measurement protocols, and can be easily reproduced using a wide variety of circuit variants. Not even the magic IRFPG50 is necessary... with enough loose wires, even IRF830as can be used and likely any N channel mosfet of the required voltage and current ratings could be used. Tar Baby has no difficulty reproducing this measurement error at all.
#2 is just ridiculous to anyone who has ever worked with lead-acid batteries. We've posted discharge curves for similar batteries (Ainslie has never specified EXACTLY her batteries) and these curves show that a nominal 12 volt battery of the type used by Ainslie will not drop below 12 volts until it is over 80 percent DISCHARGED; in other words a 60 Amp-hour capacity battery might have delivered 50 amp hours of its energy before dropping below 12 volts indicated on the test Ainslie claims is "standard measurement protocol" for testing battery energy content or state of charge.
And #3.... has never been tested by Ainslie at all, it is just a conjecture BASED ON HER MATH ERRORS AND CONCEPTUAL MUDDLING. As I and others have shown using her own numbers and calculating correctly, each of the mentioned heat trials used only a small fraction of the battery's capacity and are otherwise unremarkable....yet her ignorant math errors have led her to claim in several places that these trials "far exceeded" the battery's capacity. When in fact they do not, not by a wide margin, not even close, no contest at all. And she's made these or similar errors MANY TIMES.
If she simply would carry out the CORRECT calculation on either of the quoted trials I've referred to, she could see this for herself. However she refuses even to do this simple thing--- to repeat those calculations correctly and revise the conclusion based on the erroneous first result. This would take one simple paragraph.... yet she prefers to fill page after page of lies claiming to have corrected them but cannot point to WHERE this correction is, and neither can anyone else. And the bogus conclusions still appear, and have never been corrected.
Now, in the past several days, she has stated that she "claims NOTHING at all" with respect to the NERD circuit, that she has NEVER claimed "overunity" performance, and that she in fact has NO IDEA about the state of charge of her batteries.
So what are we talking about here? The raw data is easily reproducible, it's a mistaken interpretation of known phenomena caused by improper testing procedures and overinterpretation of the results therefrom. The conclusions drawn by the claimants in their draft documents (fraught with other errors as well) are not supported EVEN BY THEIR OWN MISTAKEN MEASUREMENTS, much less by those same measurements done correctly.
And finally, the claimant appears to have withdrawn all claims relating to the NERD circuit and apparently is no longer pursuing the three monetary prizes, and clearly has no intent to perform the REQUESTED TESTS, which are simple, direct and unequivocal and do not depend on any instrument readings or interpretations.
(Instead she claims that she will "prove" her measurements, which of course will only prove that the same mistakes can be repeated, on demand. (However, there seems to be some difficulty there too.... since she can't get a 555 timer to do what she needs it to and nobody is helping her any more.))
Well, under these circumstances it is difficult for me to understand just WHERE IS THE BEEF. What is Ainslie objecting to? She either thinks Tar Baby IS an accurate replication of NERD... in which case she's got some testing to do to show that my results are not comparable to hers... OR she thinks it IS NOT, in which case wtf is she doing posting in this thread, which is about testing the TAR BABY.
After all.... I have never claimed that Tar Baby IS an EXACT REPLICATION.... how could it be, it doesn't have a white pegboard or a dozen clipleads soldered to mosfets. It only uses the same schematic, the same components and gives the same results.... but it's not a replication because it isn't "overunity". What's that you say, neither is NERD? Well.... of course it isn't.
What I have claimed and still claim is that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in all significant respects when tested in the same manner, side-by-side. Or even REMOTELY when operated by trusted competent hands with opposable thumbs. And this is still true today, and Tar Baby is ready to prove it today.
At various times, the battery capacity of the Ainslie Raylite silver calcium lead acid batteries has been given as 40, 50, or 60 Amp-hours. The model number of these batteries has never been given by Ainslie but guesses have been made and it appears that 60 Amp-hours may be the correct value. But this is NO THANKS to Ainslie, who should have specified the exact model number and amp-hour capacity in the "papers". Since the claim is based on exceeding the capacity of the battery.... the capacity of the battery must be known with some accuracy and precision. A 30 percent uncertainty in this fundamental value... with the best estimate being a "guess" as to battery model, based on looking at images from a video, rather than a battery data sheet.... is unacceptable.
The two "papers" that seem to refer to the same set of "experiments" contain two distinct and different schematic diagrams for the circuit. Perhaps one or the other is the correct one or perhaps we are to believe that both were used somehow. Either way, this ambiguity must be officially addressed by the authors in an edit or erratum statement. To do otherwise, but to continue to refer to these "papers" as containing anything of veracity or importance... is unacceptable.
The "papers" contain a reference to the equipment and apparatus allegedly used in the "experiments". The function generator is not listed by type at all in one of the drafts, and in the other it is given as "IsoTech GFG324". Yet in the video demonstration the function generator can be seen to be an InsTek GFG 8216a or similar model. An internet search for "IsoTech GFG 324" or variants comes up empty, although IsoTech does manufacture or rebrand many function generators. The function generator used in these demonstrations is a critical component and Ainslie has made claims for its performance that do not correspond with the performance of standard function generators. So we MUST be allowed to have more information about the "GFG324" or other function generator used in the "experiments" described in the "papers". The present state of affairs -- either a mistake in the equipment list OR a nonstandard FG used without documentation -- is clearly unacceptable.
These are three glaring difficulties with the drafts. How could anyone recommend or consider publication of these draft documents with these problems?
Further analysis of the data presented reveals still further problems that the authors have refused to deal with seriously, such as oscilloscope indications of damaged transistors in the apparatus during certain data runs. Inconsistent descriptions of circuit behaviour, compounded by a "thesis" or conjecture about current flow that has no connection to accepted electronic theory, indicate that the author(s) do not understand basic electronics, test equipment, or power measurement protocols, and outside material available from and about the principal author indicates that she is woefully ignorant about mathematics, physics, electronics in general, test equipment, measurement and analysis protocols, and even the behaviour of her own circuit.
In addition, the author refuses to engage in constructive dialog about the questioned points, and has failed to correct a single mistake or answer a single relevant question about these "papers". Where is the erratum sheet explaining the difference in the circuit diagrams? Where is the information about the batteries, about the function generator? What about the scope traces that appear to show damaged transistors? What about the calculations ... not given in the papers but alluded to ... that mistakenly indicate exceeding battery capacity? None of this has been properly addressed by the author, who prefers to threaten, intimidate, insult, lie and bloviate rather than simply answering the questions with truth, accuracy and more data.
So why is this person given any credence at all? The claims are bogus and not supported, the papers are fatally flawed, the person herself is terminally uncooperative and obnoxious, and further.... the main claim has been refuted over and over. Yet like a zombie on steroids or the Energizer bunny on crank.... it just keeps going and going and going...from forum to forum, burning through collaborators and interested bystanders and eating their brains wherever they are encountered.
Rosemary:
Your words come back to haunt you one more time:
QuoteIt is an ironic consequence of an excessive zeal that it carries the seeds of its own destruction.
Doing battle with excessive zeal with people that are clearly far superior to you in electronics knowledge and experience has indeed carried the seeds of your own destruction. Over the years you have been repeatedly exposed as being incompetent and clueless but the recent battle over the past few weeks has really sealed your fate.
It's plainly obvious to any reader of this thread that your circuit has no merit and for the most part you don't even know what you are talking about. Just do the battery testing and then let's all move on.
MileHigh
Fuzzy, thanks for posting those patent applications. A blast from the past...
This is where I came in, in fact. Someone from this forum PMed me about Ainslie, who was at that time posting on Naked Scientists, a well-moderated forum consisting mostly of professionals discussing "real" scientific issues of a more technical nature, with a "theoretical" section containing more speculative discussions. She was over there, doing exactly what she's been doing here, pushing her "thesis" and telling experts that they know nothing and she knows everything. She was claiming to have a patent at that time, and was talking to the people on NS -- some of whom actually DID hold granted patents for mosfet circuits and switching power supplies using mosfets and so on -- as if she should be considered a peer. She engaged in several threads there, theoretical and practical, and was trying to get someone to build and test the COP>17 claim from the Quantum magazine article. I searched and found that she in fact had no patent, just the applications which had lapsed and never been pursued, and most particularly had never been GRANTED. So her claim at that time to "have a patent" was a lie, and she knew it. When I started engaging her in dialog about this patent issue, it was like pulling teeth to get her to admit that she held no patent at all. I think someone must have advised her that it is illegal to claim you have a patent when you don't, because she finally stopped claiming that she "had a patent" on her kludge.
Of course she was banned from Naked Scientists in short order. But the threads where she was posting are still available from their archive... and read pretty much like the Ainslie threads here, and on energeticforum -- eventually banned there too, and wherever she pops up. Hsn't she been banned here too, at least once, and reinstated ON CONDITIONS.... that she appears not to have met?
@MH: Ever feel like life imitates art?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0
BTW, did you see my longer Lissajous video, with speakers playing the tones and the counter displaying the frequency ratios?
Has the new math from Rosemary been posted yet?
No? (Gasp! Shock!! No!!!)
Until she posts that, she's just making noise...
Where is the new math Rosie??
Face it, you have been found out as a fraud. Now go away and find another forum to 'spin' your web of lies. Nobody here believes you anymore Rose.
TK showed you in excessive detail how the circuit works, yet you focus on ??? distractions, denials, old posts, lame, lame, lame.... Admit that you are out of your depth. Learn! Move on.
From what I've been reading, you can't admit defeat because your world view is skewed. You can't be taught anything because you already know everything. You won't listen to anyone because you're too busy cutting their posts to pieces and trying to turn the focus away from your LACK OF PROPER TESTING METHODS, BAD MATH, and A POOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPTS UNDER DISCUSSION.
Your attempt to discredit others here is as transparent as is your lack of expertise. Any 'spin' that I have run across in your threads has come from YOU trying to 'spin' how you discovered some imaginary 'dark energy' when you can't even use your scope properly, OR DO PROPER MATH. YOUR MATH IS SPIN. Get that?
Spin: "...a heavily biased portrayal of an event or situation..."
Sounds like Rosemary talking about her circuit, or her demonstration, or her views in general...
Where is your new math?!?!?
Hello hello Rosemary: Where are your NEW calculations?
We are waiting... Have been waiting a while actually...
Post your new numbers.
Or post some of your 'threats' if you can find them (without the 'spin' if you can manage it).
Or post something relevant to the circuit that MAKES SENSE. Do a Dim Bulb Test... Do SOMETHING besides repeating yourself, it is getting old. Post the numbers or shut up already!!
Funny how this fact keeps getting ignored isn't it??
A daily reader,
PC
(Edited to remove the word 'for' from the first sentence...)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:33:01 AM
Fuzzy, thanks for posting those patent applications. A blast from the past...
This is where I came in, in fact. Someone from this forum PMed me about Ainslie, who was at that time posting on Naked Scientists, a well-moderated forum consisting mostly of professionals discussing "real" scientific issues of a more technical nature, with a "theoretical" section containing more speculative discussions. She was over there, doing exactly what she's been doing here, pushing her "thesis" and telling experts that they know nothing and she knows everything. She was claiming to have a patent at that time, and was talking to the people on NS -- some of whom actually DID hold granted patents for mosfet circuits and switching power supplies using mosfets and so on -- as if she should be considered a peer. She engaged in several threads there, theoretical and practical, and was trying to get someone to build and test the COP>17 claim from the Quantum magazine article. I searched and found that she in fact had no patent, just the applications which had lapsed and never been pursued, and most particularly had never been GRANTED. So her claim at that time to "have a patent" was a lie, and she knew it. When I started engaging her in dialog about this patent issue, it was like pulling teeth to get her to admit that she held no patent at all. I think someone must have advised her that it is illegal to claim you have a patent when you don't, because she finally stopped claiming that she "had a patent" on her kludge.
Of course she was banned from Naked Scientists in short order. But the threads where she was posting are still available from their archive... and read pretty much like the Ainslie threads here, and on energeticforum -- eventually banned there too, and wherever she pops up. Hsn't she been banned here too, at least once, and reinstated ON CONDITIONS.... that she appears not to have met?
Hi TK,
Yep, to think this has been going on for years especially the patent references that still to this day exist that never has been corrected for some "ODD" reason like the Rosemary Ainslie Blogspot
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/ with the "filed patent can be found here"
The reference to the Rosemary Ainslie Blogspot is still at her
"SCRIBD" account
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising under one of her many aliases "aetherevarising" ???
To this day no corrections or retractions to information in this bogus Blog site on her
"NOT" having a patent from Rosemary, with the appearance of a tool used for investor scams to recruit fresh device project funding from the deep pockets of the uneducated believers.
Fuzzy
;)
HO HUM.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AM
At various times, the battery capacity of the Ainslie Raylite silver calcium lead acid batteries has been given as 40, 50, or 60 Amp-hours. The model number of these batteries has never been given by Ainslie but guesses have been made and it appears that 60 Amp-hours may be the correct value. But this is NO THANKS to Ainslie, who should have specified the exact model number and amp-hour capacity in the "papers". Since the claim is based on exceeding the capacity of the battery.... the capacity of the battery must be known with some accuracy and precision. A 30 percent uncertainty in this fundamental value... with the best estimate being a "guess" as to battery model, based on looking at images from a video, rather than a battery data sheet.... is unacceptable.
And so it goes. Round and round. Not ONE accurate statement anywhere evident. Battery performance NOWHERE a part of the claim. We still have not established those battery capacities. They're UNMARKED and right now their rating 'untraceable' - possibly as they were not made available for sale. We were DONATED those batteries.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMThe two "papers" that seem to refer to the same set of "experiments" contain two distinct and different schematic diagrams for the circuit. Perhaps one or the other is the correct one or perhaps we are to believe that both were used somehow. Either way, this ambiguity must be officially addressed by the authors in an edit or erratum statement. To do otherwise, but to continue to refer to these "papers" as containing anything of veracity or importance... is unacceptable.
There is only ONE circuit diagram
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AM
The "papers" contain a reference to the equipment and apparatus allegedly used in the "experiments". The function generator is not listed by type at all in one of the drafts, and in the other it is given as "IsoTech GFG324". Yet in the video demonstration the function generator can be seen to be an InsTek GFG 8216a or similar model. An internet search for "IsoTech GFG 324" or variants comes up empty, although IsoTech does manufacture or rebrand many function generators. The function generator used in these demonstrations is a critical component and Ainslie has made claims for its performance that do not correspond with the performance of standard function generators. So we MUST be allowed to have more information about the "GFG324" or other function generator used in the "experiments" described in the "papers". The present state of affairs -- either a mistake in the equipment list OR a nonstandard FG used without documentation -- is clearly unacceptable.
There are NO incorrect references on our submitted papers.
continued/...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AM
These are three glaring difficulties with the drafts. How could anyone recommend or consider publication of these draft documents with these problems?
Since they're not applicable these comments are utterly inappropriate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMFurther analysis of the data presented reveals still further problems that the authors have refused to deal with seriously, such as oscilloscope indications of damaged transistors in the apparatus during certain data runs. Inconsistent descriptions of circuit behaviour, compounded by a "thesis" or conjecture about current flow that has no connection to accepted electronic theory, indicate that the author(s) do not understand basic electronics, test equipment, or power measurement protocols, and outside material available from and about the principal author indicates that she is woefully ignorant about mathematics, physics, electronics in general, test equipment, measurement and analysis protocols, and even the behaviour of her own circuit.
Actionable and criminal slander - everywhere apparent here in these unsupported allegations.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMIn addition, the author refuses to engage in constructive dialog about the questioned points, and has failed to correct a single mistake or answer a single relevant question about these "papers". Where is the erratum sheet explaining the difference in the circuit diagrams? Where is the information about the batteries, about the function generator? What about the scope traces that appear to show damaged transistors? What about the calculations ... not given in the papers but alluded to ... that mistakenly indicate exceeding battery capacity? None of this has been properly addressed by the author, who prefers to threaten, intimidate, insult, lie and bloviate rather than simply answering the questions with truth, accuracy and more data.
I refuse to co-operate with any thread that flaunts the entirely politically incorrect title of 'tar baby' and that is then littered with the kind of criminal allegation that is evidenced in the context of the previous paragraph and the next.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMSo why is this person given any credence at all? The claims are bogus and not supported, the papers are fatally flawed, the person herself is terminally uncooperative and obnoxious, and further.... the main claim has been refuted over and over. Yet like a zombie on steroids or the Energizer bunny on crank.... it just keeps going and going and going...from forum to forum, burning through collaborators and interested bystanders and eating their brains wherever they are encountered.
THAT is why there is zero co-operation from me TK. And why there is zero co-operation from my colleagues. And it is also why you are given zero credibility other than by MileHigh, PhiChaser, picowatt, FTC, and other noisy minorities.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:33:01 AM
Fuzzy, thanks for posting those patent applications. A blast from the past...
This is where I came in, in fact. Someone from this forum PMed me about Ainslie, who was at that time posting on Naked Scientists, a well-moderated forum consisting mostly of professionals discussing "real" scientific issues of a more technical nature, with a "theoretical" section containing more speculative discussions. She was over there, doing exactly what she's been doing here, pushing her "thesis" and telling experts that they know nothing and she knows everything. She was claiming to have a patent at that time, and was talking to the people on NS -- some of whom actually DID hold granted patents for mosfet circuits and switching power supplies using mosfets and so on -- as if she should be considered a peer. She engaged in several threads there, theoretical and practical, and was trying to get someone to build and test the COP>17 claim from the Quantum magazine article. I searched and found that she in fact had no patent, just the applications which had lapsed and never been pursued, and most particularly had never been GRANTED. So her claim at that time to "have a patent" was a lie, and she knew it. When I started engaging her in dialog about this patent issue, it was like pulling teeth to get her to admit that she held no patent at all. I think someone must have advised her that it is illegal to claim you have a patent when you don't, because she finally stopped claiming that she "had a patent" on her kludge.
Of course she was banned from Naked Scientists in short order. But the threads where she was posting are still available from their archive... and read pretty much like the Ainslie threads here, and on energeticforum -- eventually banned there too, and wherever she pops up. Hsn't she been banned here too, at least once, and reinstated ON CONDITIONS.... that she appears not to have met?
More utterly unsubstantiated nonsense. I have NEVER claimed to have a patent. EVER. I have not even IMPLIED that we have a patent. I did NOT engage with any EXPERTS EVER - on that forum. Certainly NOT with anyone who had designed MOSFET's or any TRANSISTORS. I certainly DID NOT expect or ask anyone to build the circuit. It did not even occur to me. I was NOT banned from that forum - in short order. I was BANNED long after I joined EF.com and then because I posted a portrait of one of their members showing that his head was full of fish. And I followed this up with an appropriate limerick. It had NOTHING to do with our work or my thesis. And I NEVER progressed my thesis on that forum EVER.
Rosie Pose
Point 1: The battery capacity is an integral part of the claim. Ainslie lies when she says it is not.
Point 2: There are two diagrams in the two papers. Ainslie lies when she says that there is only one.
Point 3: The function generator listed is IsoTech GFG324. There is no such function generator. Ainslie lies when she says that this is the FG used.
Point 1: From the first "Paper":
QuoteSome mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage
conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each
working day, during that period, continually subjected as they
were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this
extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss
of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.
QED: The battery capacity is an integral part of the claim.
Points 2 and 3 are proven by the screenshots below. Two distinct diagrams, and the listing of the IsoTech GFG324 non-existent function generator.
AINSLIE LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN and is refuted by her own words and "publications".
Only in the art of SPIN is is possible to interpret the following disclaimer related to battery performance - as an INTEGRAL part of the claim. This is UTTERLY ABSURD.
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage
conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each
working day, during that period, continually subjected as they
were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this
extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss
of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.
TK This is taking SPIN to the outer boundaries of any kind of reason at all. This is meant to be a serious forum. You're turning it into a farce.
And the papers that you persist in referencing are all of them CORRECTED. That I have not published a corrected copy on this ridiculous thread is precisely because it would be sullied by association.
Rosie Pose
TK:
I saw the Lissajous clip. It felt like that "Lost" show minus the hot Latina. lol
Here is a doobie-liscious Lissajous clip, an "inside the Lissajous" kind of feeling!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdmNom9xmE
Meanwhile.... life goes on... *sigh*
Rosemary make some cheese and test your batteries!
Make some cheese and test your batteries!
Churn some cheese and test your batteries!
Eat some cheese and test your batteries!
Make cheese not war. If there is any cheese to be found...
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 07:56:03 PM
More utterly unsubstantiated nonsense. I have NEVER claimed to have a patent. EVER. I have not even IMPLIED that we have a patent. I did NOT engage with any EXPERTS EVER - on that forum. Certainly NOT with anyone who had designed MOSFET's or any TRANSISTORS. I certainly DID NOT expect or ask anyone to build the circuit. It did not even occur to me. I was NOT banned from that forum - in short order. I was BANNED long after I joined EF.com and then because I posted a portrait of one of their members showing that his head was full of fish. And I followed this up with an appropriate limerick. It had NOTHING to do with our work or my thesis. And I NEVER progressed my thesis on that forum EVER.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary, your threads are still available there and anyone can look and see that you are lying YET AGAIN.
Reference to "THE PATENT" :http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008/09/patent.html
Naked Scientist thread referring to "taking out the patent" :
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0 reply # 17
I assure you that the people she was talking to had the impression, until they checked, that Ainslie had a patent based on statements like this... as she intended.
The Naked Scientist thread where she solicits replication, beginning with the very first post:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0
Within that thread you can see her prevarication about whether her "thesis" is a "theory" or a "model" but she most certainly is pushing her conjectures there.
And you can simply skip to the end of that thread and see why she got herself banned.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350
The people on that forum most certainly are experts... you define them otherwise only because they disagree with you.
You are such a transparent liar, Ainslie.
Why don't you EVER support your assertions with references, like I ALWAYS do? It's because you CANNOT, you miserable liar you.
MileHigh,
Quote from: MileHigh on May 05, 2012, 08:09:00 PM
TK:
I saw the Lissajous clip. It felt like that "Lost" show minus the hot Latina. lol
Here is a doobie-liscious Lissajous clip, an "inside the Lissajous" kind of feeling!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdmNom9xmE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdmNom9xmE)
Meanwhile.... life goes on... *sigh*
Rosemary make some cheese and test your batteries!
Make some cheese and test your batteries!
Churn some cheese and test your batteries!
Eat some cheese and test your batteries!
Make cheese not war. If there is any cheese to be found...
MileHigh
Our 'cheese' at you put it is well branded - well matured - and very much available for public consumption. It's been advertised in 5 papers - and is about to be brought to the public forum for an official launch and 'tasting' in about 2 to three weeks from now.
Rosie Pose
The battery capacity is an integral part of the claim. How else can you claim that the batteries have not discharged, or that a particular test used more than the battery's capacity? You are squirming like a worm on a hot skillet, Ainslie.
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
The battery capacity is an integral part of the overunity claim of Ainslie. Does anyone believe that it is not? Anyone besides the mendacious Ainslie, that is.
And, Ainslie.... a "correction" isn't a correction until it's POSTED and NOTED and an effort is made to assure that ALL COPIES OF THE INCORRECT POSTING are somehow corrected or at least notified.
There is no indication that any errors or corrections have been made to your "papers". These linked here, for example, certainly have NOT been corrected.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/226-golly.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 08:19:10 PM
Rosemary, your threads are still available there and anyone can look and see that you are lying YET AGAIN.
Reference to "THE PATENT" :http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008/09/patent.html
Naked Scientist thread referring to "taking out the patent" :
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0) reply # 17
I assure you that the people she was talking to had the impression, until they checked, that Ainslie had a patent based on statements like this... as she intended.
The Naked Scientist thread where she solicits replication, beginning with the very first post:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0)
Within that thread you can see her prevarication about whether her "thesis" is a "theory" or a "model" but she most certainly is pushing her conjectures there.
And you can simply skip to the end of that thread and see why she got herself banned.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350)
The people on that forum most certainly are experts... you define them otherwise only because they disagree with you.
You are such a transparent liar, Ainslie.
Why don't you EVER support your assertions with references, like I ALWAYS do? It's because you CANNOT, you miserable liar you.
NO TK. It is not ME that is the liar. Those links do NOT PROMOTE MY THESIS. The thesis is NOT MINE TO PROMOTE. It promotes the model that relies entirely on KNOWN PHYSICS. WHAT THESIS THEN IS MINE? And I have NEVER claimed to have a patent. EVER. Not even by innuendo. I would be ASHAMED to own any such.
TK. I think this thread is now no longer about further tests of yours and is now regressing to a 'bash Rosemary Ainslie' theme which I think is thoroughly exhausted. I also therefore suggest that this thread is closed - unless you have any further tests to conduct.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 08:20:31 PM
MileHigh,
Our 'cheese' at you put it is well branded - well matured - and very much available for public consumption. It's been advertised in 5 papers - and is about to be brought to the public forum for an official launch and 'tasting' in about 2 to three weeks from now.
Rosie Pose
You aren't going to be showing any real tests of anything. Anyone can reproduce your "negative mean power" measurements and we all know you aren't going to be doing any tests of your battery capacity. And we also know that your idea of "standard measurement protocols" has nothing to do with standard measurement protocols... because we have many times pointed you to correct standard protocols from Agilent, Tektronix, IEEE and ASTM for measuring power, energy, and battery capacity and you ignore them and use your own uncorrected mindless multiplication of scope traces and your voltmeter.... which are definitely NOT standard measurement protocols for the kind of claims you are making.
Oh... sorry, I forgot. Now you are not making ANY claims any more. So big deal, go and do your demos however you like, they have no significance at all. But you won't be able to PROVE ME WRONG with any of it, because TAR BABY PERFORMS JUST LIKE NERD in all significant respects, and YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DOESN'T.
This is rich.
Our paper EXPLICITLY states that we have not qualified anything against the battery draw down and that this needs to be established. And you PERSIST in advising all and sundry that this DISCLAIMER is therefore somehow claiming an out performance. Are you utterly deluded by the written word - or do you think that our readers are UTTERLY stupid? It can only be one or the other.
Here it is again...
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage
conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each
working day, during that period, continually subjected as they
were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this
extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss
of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 08:32:10 PM
The battery capacity is an integral part of the claim. How else can you claim that the batteries have not discharged, or that a particular test used more than the battery's capacity? You are squirming like a worm on a hot skillet, Ainslie.
The battery capacity is an integral part of the overunity claim of Ainslie. Does anyone believe that it is not? Anyone besides the mendacious Ainslie, that is.
And, Ainslie.... a "correction" isn't a correction until it's POSTED and NOTED and an effort is made to assure that ALL COPIES OF THE INCORRECT POSTING are somehow corrected or at least notified.
There is no indication that any errors or corrections have been made to your "papers". These linked here, for example, certainly have NOT been corrected.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/226-golly.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/226-golly.html)
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 08:35:49 PM
NO TK. It is not ME that is the liar. Those links do NOT PROMOTE MY THESIS. The thesis is NOT MINE TO PROMOTE. It promotes the model that relies entirely on KNOWN PHYSICS. WHAT THESIS THEN IS MINE? And I have NEVER claimed to have a patent. EVER. Not even by innuendo. I would be ASHAMED to own any such.
I am flabbergasted. There it is on your own blog page: a link to the PATENT. And there it is in your own words in the posts I've linked. CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN WRITING ANY MORE? You have indeed claimed many times to have a patent, and the story is just as I have said: you finally were FORCED to admit that you do not, and since then you haven't done so overtly. BUT THE LINK IS STILL THERE on that abandoned blog page. Lost your password again, did you?
Quote
TK. I think this thread is now no longer about further tests of yours and is now regressing to a 'bash Rosemary Ainslie' theme which I think is thoroughly exhausted. I also therefore suggest that this thread is closed - unless you have any further tests to conduct.
Rosemary
You bet I have further tests to conduct. You are trying to censor the truth. YOU CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE THING I'VE SAID with references. I have demonstrated IN YOUR OWN WORDS that you lie and distort the truth over and over again.
If you don't want to be bashed, then DO WHAT OUR HOST ASKED YOU TO DO, all those pages ago.
POST WORK OF YOUR OWN THAT SHOWS THAT I AM WRONG.
Of course we all know you cannot. WHERE ARE THE TESTS STEFAN ASKED YOU TO PERFORM WEEKS AND MONTHS AGO?
Nowhere, that's where.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 08:40:01 PM
This is rich.
Our paper EXPLICITLY states that we have not qualified anything against the battery draw down and that this needs to be established. And you PERSIST in advising all and sundry that this DISCLAIMER is therefore somehow claiming an out performance. Are you utterly deluded by the written word - or do you think that our readers are UTTERLY stupid? It can only be one or the other.
Here it is again...
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.
Rosemary
You are making a claim against the battery capacity right there. Call it a disclaimer, I call it weaseling.
YOU AND I BOTH KNOW that you believe you have exceeded the battery's capacity. Or did you finally revise your calculations below and see that you actually ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE to exceeding the capacity? You can't have it both ways, Marie Antoinette.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
You are claiming to have exceeded the battery's capacity, over and over and over again.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 08:49:41 PM
You are making a claim against the battery capacity right there. Call it a disclaimer, I call it weaseling.
YOU AND I BOTH KNOW that you believe you have exceeded the battery's capacity. Or did you finally revise your calculations below and see that you actually ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE to exceeding the capacity? You can't have it both ways, Marie Antoinette.
You are claiming to have exceeded the battery's capacity, over and over and over again.
Those references art NOT part of the paper therefore they are NOT part of the CLAIM. And your highlighted text IS NOT A CLAIM OF OVER PERFORMANCE.
Rosie Pose
But OK, fine, if you are no longer claiming to have exceeded the battery capacity, that's OK with me, certainly.
So... you are no longer claiming Overunity performance... in fact according to you you NEVER have claimed OU performance, and COP>17, COP=INFINITY, COP exceeds INFINITY, and COP>INFINITY are not to be construed as meaning "overunity" or "free energy" when coming from Ainslie. OK, that's also OK with me.
And you have withdrawn your claim to the 3 prizes, and .99 has accepted your official withdrawal of your claim for that prize. Good. Now we just have two more official withdrawals to go.
And you don't intend to do battery capacity testing, you will only "prove" what anyone can prove: a negative mean power product shown on an oscilloscope. And you aren't going to use this "proof" for a claim of overunity or free energy, because you never claim that. OK, that's fine with me too.
And of course I have Tar Baby, right here, right now, ready to reproduce every measurement you can make, RIGHT NOW. Don't forget, though... I've demonstrated some things with Tar Baby that you claim are impossible, like current flowing through the FG. So you will need to show that NERD behaves differently somehow.... or you will have to acknowledge fully what we all know already: Tar Baby does indeed perform just like NERD in all significant respects.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 08:58:50 PM
But OK, fine, if you are no longer claiming to have exceeded the battery capacity, that's OK with me, certainly.
So... you are no longer claiming Overunity performance... in fact according to you you NEVER have claimed OU performance, and COP>17, COP=INFINITY, COP exceeds INFINITY, and COP>INFINITY are not to be construed as meaning "overunity" or "free energy" when coming from Ainslie. OK, that's also OK with me.
And you have withdrawn your claim to the 3 prizes, and .99 has accepted your official withdrawal of your claim for that prize. Good. Now we just have two more official withdrawals to go.
And you don't intend to do battery capacity testing, you will only "prove" what anyone can prove: a negative mean power product shown on an oscilloscope. And you aren't going to use this "proof" for a claim of overunity or free energy, because you never claim that. OK, that's fine with me too.
And of course I have Tar Baby, right here, right now, ready to reproduce every measurement you can make, RIGHT NOW. Don't forget, though... I've demonstrated some things with Tar Baby that you claim are impossible, like current flowing through the FG. So you will need to show that NERD behaves differently somehow.... or you will have to acknowledge fully what we all know already: Tar Baby does indeed perform just like NERD in all significant respects.
GOOD. We're agreed. Then we're finished? Here? No further need of this thread? Because then I can get the time required to concentrate on the work needed.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 08:58:37 PM
Those references art NOT part of the paper therefore they are NOT part of the CLAIM. And your highlighted text IS NOT A CLAIM OF OVER PERFORMANCE.
Rosie Pose
So you will of course be posting corrections to the circuit diagrams, the function generator model number and so on, since your "papers" contain your claims and must be considered correct by anyone who reads them. Right? But the papers linked from your blog... presumably the definitive copies... have not been corrected.
And nobody has been able to find any place where you have corrected your errors in your calculations, in spite of your claim that you have corrected them. Are you telling the truth? I doubt it.
Just do this one, it's easy. Well, it's easy for someone who has studied the subject matter.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
@FTC:
But wait... those can't be genuine Ainslie documents can they? I mean, those documents clearly claim "overunity" don't they?
"Enables overunity results", "Enables Breach of Unity". That's pretty strong language; in the English I speak the difference between claiming "enables breach of unity" and claiming overunity performance is a fine distinction indeed and not one that would normally be drawn from the statements.
But our Rosemary Ainslie has NEVER claimed overunity. Has she.
TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:05:07 PM
So you will of course be posting corrections to the circuit diagrams, the function generator model number and so on, since your "papers" contain your claims and must be considered correct by anyone who reads them. Right? But the papers linked from your blog... presumably the definitive copies... have not been corrected.
And nobody has been able to find any place where you have corrected your errors in your calculations, in spite of your claim that you have corrected them. Are you telling the truth? I doubt it.
Just do this one, it's easy. Well, it's easy for someone who has studied the subject matter.
Everything that will be needed will be posted. I assure you. Again. Are you finished here? Or do you just post compulsively because you cannot resist this 'ainslie bash'?
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, posting as witsend on Naked Scientists:
QuoteAgain, the link to 'over unity' and perpetual motion is a misconcpetion. And it is not true that 'no-one has presented' such a device. There are any number of such. The truth is that no-one has managed to publish in a reviewed journal. I never believed this before my own experience of it. Now I know it to be true. The 'lock out' is not at universities but at the owners of those journals.
If you know anyone who could apply the technology - feel free. There are no patent restrictions on this. I only took out the patent to ensure that it was published. That means that it is and has been in the public domain for the last ten years. I am now, for the first time, doing everying I reasonably can, to get the information out there. It is really useable on torches, and lighting generally. Especially low energy LED's. The restrictions, as written apply to the MOSFET. It needs that intrisic diode to allow the current path from the collapsing fields. It would ne nice if these could be made more robust as it could then be used on higher wattages - boilers and so forth. Not so good for signals because of that high frequency - so no good for cell phones. My own interst in this technology is only in the hopes that it will be used. I really don't want financial rewards. My actual interest is in the field model. Here's there's enormous promise.
Regarding the need to avoid referencing over unity. You're probably right. But I'm not a marketer and I don't intend capitalising on the technology.
As mentioned. I just want the technology to be used. By the way - it would also be very useful in battery cars, not to power the car but to recharge those batteries.
and a reply from Vern:
QuoteIf it works as a battery charger just make it into a charger for small batteries. If you have a working model, it would be a simple matter.
witsend:
Quote
Vern - I am not an engineer. I really do not know how to promote this technology. I need others to take it up - if interested. What I would really like is to find some academics to test this device from their homes. That way - no bad 'press' so to speak. My hope is perhaps to reach such an academic audience. I'm not sure that there are any at this forum. The technology is available - usable - free - clean - exploitable - anything you want. Just don't ask me to promote it. I have no idea how to do this. And I'm not an electrical engineer.
I'd like to remind you that you said you'd test it if you saw merit? Perhaps you could get it onto your bench. You'd know how to exploit it. It's such an easy circuit to set up.
There's always an interesting first reaction to seeing the numbers. It takes a while to digest it. Unity, as defined by our Laws, definitely does not apply to electric applications.
witsend:
Quote
it seems that this forum is not going to get the experiment replicated, as hoped. Is there any interest in the field model? That - when understood - shows a much more dynamic potential in energy transfer. Has anyone understood it enough to see where it points? I'm afraid the ideas may be too obtuse and badly explained to be immediately evident. But that is a really interesting field of development and I would love to be involved. Here I fondly believe that not only is there a cheaper cleaner form of generating electricity - but the real means of defeating gravity - et al. I think so, in any event. I can see ways to applying 'broken symmetries' that should produce some interesting effects. I don't have the wherewithall to test it but I can explain what's needed.
Vern:
Quote
The problem is that anyone capable of doing the experiment already knows that it can't work.
TK
May I impose on you to reference DATES when you reference anything at all that I've written. That way it can be read in context. What is applicable to 2009 is not applicable to 2012. You rely on keeping this hidden to spin your spin.
There has been some CONSIDERABLE progress since those early discussions. And you're well aware of it.
Rosie Pose
And again. Are you finished with your tests? And do you really expect anyone at all to believe that you've got anything other than a HUGE investment in these 'spins' of yours? Because each post that you make also makes that investment more patently obvious.
I think this thread is now concluded. Surely?
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 09:07:22 PM
TK
Everything that will be needed will be posted. I assure you. Again. Are you finished here? Or do you just post compulsively because you cannot resist this 'ainslie bash'?
Rosie Pose
Everything that YOU think is needed will be posted? Sure you assure me again... but you can't point to any corrections that you have made, not even to the egregious math errors that I keep referencing and that DEMOLISH your claims altogether with your own data.
No, Ainslie, as long as you continue to LIE I am not finished here. Are you?
Our host has asked you to stop doing this and post your own work. Did you forget, or do you just not respect Stefan at all?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 09:17:54 PM
TK
May I impose on you to reference DATES when you reference anything at all that I've written. That way it can be read in context. What is applicable to 2009 is not applicable to 2012. You rely on keeping this hidden to spin your spin.
There has been some CONSIDERABLE progress since those early discussions. And you're well aware of it.
Rosie Pose
I'm aware that you were lying then and you are lying now.
I posted those links in DIRECT REFUTATION of the things you said in an earlier post. It matters not the date or "progress" since then. I said you said things, you said you did not, I posted the links where you DID say them. The dates are irrelevant and besides, are included in the original links.
Again, you lie. YOU LIE WITH EVERY POST YOU MAKE. You disgust me with your lies and your pretensions.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 09:05:03 PM
GOOD. We're agreed. Then we're finished? Here? No further need of this thread? Because then I can get the time required to concentrate on the work needed.
Rosie Pose.
There has been no need, EVER, for you to post in this thread, UNLESS you answer the questions that have been posed -- which you continually refuse to do.
And you will NEVER be able to concentrate on "the work needed" as long as I have my NERD Tesla Longitudinal linecaster operating, preventing you from being able to do the simplest math or even to be able to think clearly about what you actually are claiming.
Go ahead.... try to get this thread closed, TRY TO CENSOR THE TRUTH, with your calls to Stefan and your back-channel bloviating. We all know the truth.
But OK, fine, if you are no longer claiming to have exceeded the battery capacity, that's OK with me, certainly.
So... you are no longer claiming Overunity performance... in fact according to you you NEVER have claimed OU performance, and COP>17, COP=INFINITY, COP exceeds INFINITY, and COP>INFINITY are not to be construed as meaning "overunity" or "free energy" when coming from Ainslie. OK, that's also OK with me.
And you have withdrawn your claim to the 3 prizes, and .99 has accepted your official withdrawal of your claim for that prize. Good. Now we just have two more official withdrawals to go.
And you don't intend to do battery capacity testing, you will only "prove" what anyone can prove: a negative mean power product shown on an oscilloscope. And you aren't going to use this "proof" for a claim of overunity or free energy, because you never claim that. OK, that's fine with me too.
And of course I have Tar Baby, right here, right now, ready to reproduce every measurement you can make, RIGHT NOW. Don't forget, though... I've demonstrated some things with Tar Baby that you claim are impossible, like current flowing through the FG. So you will need to show that NERD behaves differently somehow.... or you will have to acknowledge fully what we all know already: Tar Baby does indeed perform just like NERD in all significant respects.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 09:05:03 PM
GOOD. We're agreed. Then we're finished? Here? No further need of this thread? Because then I can get the time required to concentrate on the work needed.
Rosie Pose.
NOTE WELL: AINSLIE HERE OFFICIALLY AGREES that she has withdrawn her prize claims, that she makes NO claims whatsoever with regards to the NERD circuit, that she no longer claims EVER to have exceeded her battery capacity, and that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects.
However, this thread will continue as long as it's allowed to by our host, and since when Ainslie isn't bloviating the discussion is mostly technical, there is no reason for it to be closed, since work on Tar Baby continues. For example, I have not yet shown that the IRFPG50 is UNNECESSARY to produce the negative mean power product as claimed in Ainslie's papers... much cheaper units can be used just as well.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 09:17:54 PM
TK
May I impose on you to reference DATES when you reference anything at all that I've written. That way it can be read in context. What is applicable to 2009 is not applicable to 2012. You rely on keeping this hidden to spin your spin.
There has been some CONSIDERABLE progress since those early discussions. And you're well aware of it.
Rosie Pose
I'm not hiding anything; the dates are there in the thread, which I linked to... and which reads like a carbon copy of the more recent threads here...except nobody there was foolish enough to want to build your kludge. Therefore, by saying I am hiding something, YOU LIE AGAIN.
May I impose on you to CORRECT YOUR CALCULATION:
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
That way we might not assume that you are such a TOTAL IDIOT that you don't know the difference between a Watt and a Joule and you can't even get your units right. Nor arrive at a correct answer just by pushing calculator buttons like a TOTAL IDIOT.
What progress have you made, when you are STILL making the basic math and conceptual errors now that you were making TEN YEARS AGO ??
That thread at Naked Scientists is a hoot and a half.
Start anywhere, but starting from post # 362 and reading down one finds some very interesting stuff. And no, I was just lurking, not posting.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350
I had to laugh at the part where she claimed a grasp of the "english language". There are several non-sentences and garbled grammar examples as well as misspelled words aplenty in that post of hers alone.
And note again the insults, the ad hominem attacks, and all the rest of what we have been putting up with here and now.
Considerable progress, indeed.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:12:31 PM
Ainslie, posting as witsend on Naked Scientists: and a reply from Vern: witsend:
witsend:
Vern:
I dont see any links in this post
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
That thread at Naked Scientists is a hoot and a half.
Start anywhere, but starting from post # 362 and reading down one finds some very interesting stuff. And no, I was just lurking, not posting.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350)
I had to laugh at the part where she claimed a grasp of the "english language". There are several non-sentences and garbled grammar examples as well as misspelled words aplenty in that post of hers alone.
And note again the insults, the ad hominem attacks, and all the rest of what we have been putting up with here and now.
Considerable progress, indeed.
Ok now we have it
Mags
And just because I love doing it so much.... and for archival purposes of course.... I have this preserved for posterity in my database:
Quote from: Magluvin on May 05, 2012, 10:09:55 PM
Ok now we have it
Mags
And it was also linked by me a few posts _previously_ but got buried by Ainslie-piles, which is why I quoted it directly. Things move fast when the Queen is awake and holding court.
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg321415/#msg321415
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 10:16:40 PM
And it was also linked by me a few posts _previously_ but got buried by Ainslie-piles, which is why I quoted it directly. Things move fast when the Queen is awake and holding court.
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg321415/#msg321415
I had no idea the water ran so deep...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:06:44 PM
@FTC:
But wait... those can't be genuine Ainslie documents can they? I mean, those documents clearly claim "overunity" don't they?
"Enables overunity results", "Enables Breach of Unity". That's pretty strong language; in the English I speak the difference between claiming "enables breach of unity" and claiming overunity performance is a fine distinction indeed and not one that would normally be drawn from the statements.
But our Rosemary Ainslie has NEVER claimed overunity. Has she.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 03:50:57 AM
Hello johnyb
I for one can answer this question. We do have unequivocal proof of overunity. But I have no interest in competing for a prize on this as it would slow down the development. As I see it the ONLY prize would be to see the applications advanced. And we only have proof of concept at a wattage that is painfully inadequate for sensible use. Lots of work needed.
But the proof is there. It's been developed to proof of concept - accredited by reputable laboratories - AND it's been replicated. Finally it's been exhaustively reported in two papers. And it's very much OPEN SOURCE. Absolutely NO patent restrictions.
Hope that helps. The subject is WAY too important to be delayed by extraneous proofs. I'm not sure what Stefan's prize is - nor the conditions to getting that prize. But a cash reward won't cut it. It needs understanding of the effect and promotion to applications. Then that would be prize enough.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising (http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising)
Yep .... "OVERUNITY" all one has to do is a search of the 6000-7000 forum or blog postings of her bloviating and denials.
FTC
;)
Quote from: picowatt on May 05, 2012, 10:29:49 PM
I had no idea the water ran so deep...
PW
Right? It's like deja vu all over again, but without the sims and hardware.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 05, 2012, 10:30:03 PM
Yep .... "OVERUNITY" all one has to do is a search of the 6000-7000 forum or blog postings of her bloviating and denials.
FTC
;)
So she Does claim OU and she Doesn't claim OU. She claims COP exceeds INFINITY and she claims NOTHING. OK.
That much is perfectly clear.
It's the Ainslie Uncertainty Principle. The more you try to pin her down the more she wriggles and squirms and changes meanings and edits old posts, and can't ever back up any claims either whichaway but by redefining commonly-understood words in her own terms. I mean, what use is a word anyway, if it can't mean whatever she wants it to mean?
Rosemary,
why don´t you quit writing and ranting here all day long and better do some new tests ?
Why did you want to buy new batteries ? Are you used ones now broken or discharged ?
When will you start some new tests ?
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 05, 2012, 11:58:04 PM
Rosemary,
why don´t you quit writing and ranting here all day long and better do some new tests ?
Why did you want to buy new batteries ? Are you used ones now broken or discharged ?
When will you start some new tests ?
Regards, Stefan.
Hello Steve,
Since you ask this then let me see if I can put you fully in the picture. The first point is that I've invested an enormous amount of time in this forum. This to promote some insights in physics that are easily demonstrated and that result in a highly efficient transfer of electric energy. Notwithstanding early interest by your members every single thread has then been railroaded by certain members of your forum - the most of whom - or their relatives - dominate this thread of TK's. This has resulted in those threads being locked - and as often as not - I have been banned.
Now. Whatever is said to the contrary - I don't think that anyone can seriously argue my hard work and passionate interest in alternate sources of energy. I also know that your forum and your own apparent promotion of alternate energy indicates a predisposition to exploring all avenues and all claims related to this. And the justification for this interest - and indeed the concerns related to this interest - are now so overwhelming - that without having some viable alternatives - then our poor planet is going to be rendered chronically and catastrophically asthmatic - in short order. And all life that has, to date, enjoyed a relatively uninterrupted evolutionary progression - will then be snuffed - with a force and efficiency equal to that which caused the extinction of our dinosaurs. That threat is ever looming. Which means that your forum and your interests - being as they are designed to promote any alternative energy supplies - is MUCH required. And I'm sure, much appreciated. Certainly by me.
Not so much appreciated is the extraordinary lengths that picowatt, TK, FTC and MileHigh - together with a small band of acolytes - go, in order to disabuse your readers and your members of my competency - either intellectual or as it applies to my knowledge this technology - or, indeed, as it applies to my sanity. And trailing in the wake is the overriding objective of debunking or denying that there is any benefit in this technology. I'll get back to this point. For now, this observation is made with specific reference to the liberal application of slander that is advanced by all these 'personalities' who hide their actual identities and are thereby rendered unaccountable. And seemingly, this is all done with your approval. Nowhere do I see any effort to apply any kind of 'check' against their liberal traducement. And yet, where I do indulge in countering this attack - then my threads are locked. It seems somehow 'unfair'. But as you are the forum owner - then this is, no doubt, the editorial bias that you can advance - or not - at your discretion.
continued/...
continued/...
Back to your question. The delays related to my tests are manifold. I would NEVER advance a test on this, the only remaining thread related to our technology - as its title is entirely and politically unacceptable and its associations somewhat unfortunate. We, that is my collaborators and myself - are from South Africa. We have a long history of injustices advanced by our estwhile National Party who monopolised the governance of this country through far too many generations. There is not much difference between disenfranchisement and slavery. Both are entirely unacceptable. And that 'tarring' with the 'tar brush' has connotations of excess and abuse that TK, picowatt, FTC and MileHigh have indeed employed against my good name and against our technology. And with that 'tarring' is the echo of those dehumanising excesses indulged by certain racists in their abuses against some poor wretched citizens in America. Their intention here is flaunted in that Tar Baby thread title - with their typical lack of respect, constraint or concern for common decency. And quite apart from their application of this abuse to my own good name are the same abuses, the same 'tarring' or 'blackening' applied, still with that well paraded 'intention' of abuse, against our technology. And all this - with the same level of inaccuracy, injustice and lack of validity in their argument. And there has been no protest against this declared intention of abuse - other than by Magsy. There is no self-respecting academic or professional who would associate with this thread title let alone the caliber of posting that is evidenced here. And I need to engage those experts and those professionals.
While I've invested some considerable time in this work and on this forum - I'm now obliged to invest some real money. To start with it was required to 'clear the decks' so to speak - just to find somewhere to accommodate the required tests. Admittedly this was required and is not strictly a cost to this technology - it was nonetheless advanced - simply to 'clear' some much needed space. This has cost me upwards of R30 000.00. About $4 300.00. Then. In order to use the LeCroy without the 'ground pin' - which is to satisfy you that we do NOT have grounding issues - I've been obliged to buy that instrument. This has cost me upwards of R30 000.00 at a HEAVILY discounted price. Again about $4 100.00. Because it's now my personal property we were obliged to get it calibrated. And not as TK thinks of calibration - by simply standardising it's measurements against other uncalibrated machinery - but properly done - through registered calibration laboratories. That's cost me R1 800.00 excluding VAT. About $257.00. (It is STILL not back from that laboratory BTW.) I have to invest in another digital multimeter. That will cost upwards of R7 000.00. About $1 000.00. Then I had to buy a suitable camera in order to make those video downloads that are required. That cost me R9 000.00. About $1 300.00. In order to test ALL the tests detailed in our paper that support our claim - I still have to buy not less than 12 suitable batteries. Since I haven't chosen those batteries yet I can't give you an exact price. But our budget for this is R6 000.00 or about $ 900.00. That's a grand total - of not less than R 83 000.00 or $11 800.00 or thereby. And that has not even factored in the money that will be required to install the software for the 'online' streaming nor the computer nor the software for the intended continual data capture. The hope is that I can use my own. And nor have I touched on the added security that we now need - which was the 'wake up call' of that intrusion and 'armed attack' where Loki was the victim - albeit unintended. Conservatively this will cost us in the region of R12 000.00 or $1 700.00 for the required upgrade. And then only would I feel safe in running those tests at all.
continued/...
Revised the count. As ever, my math is not that good. :o
THEN. I still need to finalise the protocols. At least I have the academics engaged. But then too I need to design the tests that are needed to counter those manifold claims in the Tar Baby tests. There's the argument that the source at Q2 is connected to the battery supply's negative rail. There's the claim that the function generator is responsible for the input of energy. There's the 555 test that needs to have the bias supply run from a rechargeable battery. That's from the top of my head. I have to go through each and every one of TK's videos - with a fine tooth comb - and where there's anything that needs countering then I need to prepare the protocols to counter them. And those protocols will also need to be assessed by experts as being a valid counter claim. And those smaller tests will also require both proof and detailed analysis and detailed results. And that's not even touching on the draw down tests - which will be a challenge all on their own. And it will also require either access to or purchase of a power supply to evaluate the wattage output required for various levels of dissipation - in the first instance. Then too I need to prepare the argument against the EXCELLENT argument forwarded by Groundloop - that claims that we've got a standard Colpitt oscillation with the dissipation at the function generator rather than at the load.
That's a mountain or work. And meanwhile, while I'm something of an insomniac - these long hours that I have every day - are largely monopolised in countering the ongoing attack related to 'tarring' my good name. It is time consuming. And Stefan. If you are anxious to see me 'put foot' then I would also advise you that perhaps TK can defer his efforts on this thread. Clearly he is not going to perform any more tests. And then - in the interests of fair play - and in the interests of expediting all these tests - may I impose on you to lock TK's thread. At least until I have been given my own. Then I will have full moderation and you can give the same to him. And he can then continue his abuses when I'm in a position to counter them.
And just a final word. A 'rant' is never logical, nor clearly expressed. I object to the term 'rant' when I am simply defending my good name and our hard work. I merely 'protest' reasonably and without the use of invective. I do not think that any of these posts of mine are overly - or in any way - emotional. With respect. And NO. Our batteries are STILL at the rate of charge as when we received them. But I won't be using them for the draw down tests because I do not know their watt hour rating and I have NO intention of running our draw down tests on batteries with a watt hour rating in excess of 20 hours. I will GLADLY show you their charge value as they are now. And I have STILL not recharged them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
Good lord you are so deeply involved in this, it's not healthy at all.
For starters, the definition of "Tar Baby:"
QuoteThe Tar-Baby is a fictional character in the second of the Uncle Remus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Remus) stories published in 1881; it is a doll made of tar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar) and turpentine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpentine) used to entrap Br'er Rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%27er_Rabbit). The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.
That's the first definition that comes up in the Wikipedia article and anybody reading this thread can see TK's wit in action. So all of your talk about South African history can be dismissed out of hand.
As far as your expenses go, you are making a serious mistake. You mention $1000 USD for a multimeter? Now _that's_ crazy.
All that you need is to borrow an ordinary scope and get a $30 multimeter. Or buy a used scope on eBay. Buy six new small batteries for perhaps $40 each so that's $240. Buy a cheap battery charger.
Then do a dim bulb test after you confirm that you see your "magic delicious oscillations" on your scope. That's it because it will be game over, just like TK showed you with the Tar Baby.
The most important question is as follows:
Does you circuit have any merit? The answer is NO, it has no merit at all.Your circuit is a bloody joke. It's a Grade Six Science Fair project gone nuts.
I give Stefan lots of credit for allowing all points of view about your "project" being expressed. Some seasoned people with a lot of experience in analog design engineering have weighed in on your device and expressed their learned opinions of the experimental data presented so far. They have made a valuable contribution to the forum and the readers of the forum are much better off and better informed because of it.
So you are not likely to get very far with your requests for censorship. And some people with a world of experience that you don't have are going to express their opinions and that's tough luck for you.
You can spend as much of your money as you want and it's not going to make one bit of difference. Your batteries will show the truth in the dim bulb testing. You don't need any academics to endorse these tests.
Like I stated before, you wouldn't last more than 15 minutes in an interview with an academic anyways. No electrical engineering professor would take you seriously when they soon realize that you don't even understand how your simple circuit works and you are unable to express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy concepts.
Just go buy some small batteries and run your tests and confirm TK's results. That's basically where you are at, replicating and trying to generate as much data as somebody that replicated you. You have lost the leadership position and find yourself confirming someone else's results that the circuit doesn't work.
The whole thing is
doomed and there is no point whatsoever in spending all of that money.
MileHigh
So... when you take an oscilloscope whose BNC probe grounds are all connected together inside the instrument, and cut off the line cord ground plug to make sure the scope isn't grounded......
And then you hook that scope up in strict parallel with another scope, which IS grounded back to earth through the line cord, all probe reference leads hooked to the "ground bus" of a circuit ...... what happens?
Or when you take that ungrounded scope and hook its probes up to a circuit, and then you clip a normal function generator to your circuit, with the FG's BNC "probe" ground lead connected to the same point as the grounds of the scope probes... what happens?
And just how, exactly, does an official calibration laboratory DO that magic "calibration" stuff anyway, I wonder?
;)
(They are just questions, Leon.)
QuoteThat's a mountain or work. And meanwhile, while I'm something of an insomniac - these long hours that I have every day - are largely monopolised in countering the ongoing attack related to 'tarring' my good name. It is time consuming. And Stefan. If you are anxious to see me 'put foot' then I would also advise you that perhaps TK can defer his efforts on this thread. Clearly he is not going to perform any more tests. And then - in the interests of fair play - and in the interests of expediting all these tests - may I impose on you to lock TK's thread. At least until I have been given my own. Then I will have full moderation and you can give the same to him. And he can then continue his abuses when I'm in a position to counter them.
Another lie. Where and how is it "clear" that I am not going to perform any more tests?
Contrariwise, now that Ainslie has acknowledged that Tar Baby is performing just like NERD in all significant respects, I will indeed be doing more tests, just as planned, just as according to schedule.
The first one scheduled is the comparison of MOSFETs which will demonstrate that the mean negative power product can be obtained with cheaper more common transistors. Further down the line will be some simple calorimetry, where I will get better measurements of heat dissipation and electrical power than anything Ainslie has ever done. If necessary I can also perform _precise_ and sophisticated calorimetry using real laboratory _calibrated_ bulk calorimeters... but I am confident that won't be necessary, as I have plenty of regulated power supplies and styrofoam ice chests, and with webcams and time-lapse video, data logging is not much of a problem in the "analog" DeepBunker.
Ainslie clearly seeks to have this thread censored and the work being done here suppressed. Yet all we are doing is repeating her own measurements and examining the validity of the conclusions she has made based on them... and based on her poor math and her misunderstanding of basic electronics and physics. Fair Play, to get this thread locked? What is preventing her from opening her own thread describing her PRESENT TESTING of her NERD DEVICE? Only her lack of testing, as far as I can tell. How would locking this thread be "fair play" in any sense at all? What would be fair play is for her to answer the questions asked, to correct her math and conceptual errors, to post corrections to her "papers", and to perform the tests that could actually demonstrate what she claims.... or fail to do so. What would indeed be "fair play" is to do what Stefan has asked: perform tests, on video, that demonstrate her claims, including refutations of my tests that she finds problematic.
I have never asked for moderation privileges and I don't want or need them. I have at times asked if there is some way to rein Ainslie in, to restrict her to factual discussion and checkable references. Efforts in that direction clearly require her cooperation, which will just as clearly not be forthcoming.
Rosemary,
I have never cut a ground pin off the end of an AC cord. When I do need to lift an AC ground, in the US we have adapters that allow isolation of the AC ground (they were not originaly intended for this purpose, but they work well for AC gnd isolators). If I do need to maintain an AC gnd on bench equipment (which I usually do thru at least one path), there are other methods that can be used related to the power and signal common ground scheme that can ensure there are no "loops".
Possibly in SA there are no adapters available that allow easy isolation of the AC ground. If this is so, and you do need to isolate an AC ground, you can make an extension cord from individual AC connectors and power cord and not hook-up the AC ground at one end. This method would be particularly suitable for equipment that has a fixed, non-removable AC line cord.
However, most newer equipment, including the LeCroy, use a standard IEC connector with a country specific AC connector at one end. You could purchase a few new IEC cords suitable for SA and cut the AC ground pins from these new cords. You could then use these cords whenever you need to isolate equipment that has an IEC connector. Also, if it is necessary to isolate a piece of rental equipment, you can use one of your new isolated cords, leaving the original cord intact.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 09:25:23 AM
And just how, exactly, does an official calibration laboratory DO that magic "calibration" stuff anyway, I wonder?
Stop it TK your making me laugh too much!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration)
"In general use, calibration is often regarded as including the process of adjusting the output or indication on a measurement instrument to agree with value of the applied standard, within a specified accuracy. For example, a thermometer could be calibrated so the error of indication or the correction is determined, and adjusted (e.g. via calibration constants) so that it shows the true temperature in Celsius at specific points on the scale. This is the perception of the instrument's end-user. However, very few instruments can be adjusted to exactly match the standards they are compared to. For the vast majority of calibrations, the calibration process is actually the comparison of an unknown to a known and recording the results."
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 10:21:59 AM
I have never cut a ground pin off the end of an AC cord. When I do need to lift an AC ground, in the US we have adapters that allow isolation of the AC ground (they were not originaly intended for this purpose, but they work well for AC gnd isolators). If I do need to maintain an AC gnd on bench equipment (which I usually do thru at least one path), there are other methods that can be used related to the power and signal common ground scheme that can ensure there are no "loops".
Possibly in SA there are no adapters available that allow easy isolation of the AC ground. If this is so, and you do need to isolate an AC ground, you can make an extension cord from individual AC connectors and power cord and not hook-up the AC ground at one end. This method would be particularly suitable for equipment that has a fixed, non-removable AC line cord.
However, most newer equipment, including the LeCroy, use a standard IEC connector with a country specific AC connector at one end. You could purchase a few new IEC cords suitable for SA and cut the AC ground pins from these new cords. You could then use these cords whenever you need to isolate equipment that has an IEC connector. Also, if it is necessary to isolate a piece of rental equipment, you can use one of your new isolated cords, leaving the original cord intact.
PW
I have NO intention of cutting the ground pin. You really do go to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to trivialise my intelligence. On loan I would NEVER subject the LeCroy to the risk of applying it without ground. It does not have the grounding features of the Tektronix. I am prepared to do this while the instrument is in my ownership. And then I'll be applying it with reasonable protective measures. Otherwise iIt would be in contravention to our loan agreement where it's use is contracted to safe practices
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 09:25:23 AM
And just how, exactly, does an official calibration laboratory DO that magic "calibration" stuff anyway, I wonder?
;)
(They are just questions, Leon.)
Leon - that's so much better than TK. Is that your name? I've always wondered.
The calibration labs compare the performance measurement to proven values. Your own calibration exercise in standardising your measurements were a joke. I gave you the example. You can calibrate your watch to Greenwich Mean Time. You cannot calibrate it to synchronise with your neighbour's watch. What you did was calibrate it to ? I'm not sure which of your instruments. They are all as likely to be as faulty as the next.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 03:27:19 AM
Then. In order to use the LeCroy without the 'ground pin' - which is to satisfy you that we do NOT have grounding issues - I've been obliged to buy that instrument.
Excuse me!
Geesh,
PW
Rosemary,
Do you even use a third chassis connected ground conductor in SA for your AC distrib system?
Some countries don't.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
Rosemary,
Do you even use a third chassis connected ground conductor in SA for your AC distrib system?
Some countries don't.
PW
Never mind, looks like you do in SA.
I've rented plenty of equip over the years and never gave a second thought to floating the ground when necessary. Never had a problem.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 01:06:58 PM
Rosemary,
Do you even use a third chassis connected ground conductor in SA for your AC distrib system?
Some countries don't.
PW
Are there any cases where Lecroy recommends not having the ground connector attached to a ground during use of the equipment? If so, then I would recommend following that procedure. ;]
Mags n The Moonies
QuoteIn order to use the LeCroy without the 'ground pin' - which is to satisfy you that we do NOT have grounding issues - I've been obliged to buy that instrument. This has cost me upwards of R30 000.00 at a HEAVILY discounted price. Again about $4 100.00. Because it's now my personal property we were obliged to get it calibrated. And not as TK thinks of calibration - by simply standardising it's measurements against other uncalibrated machinery - but properly done - through registered calibration laboratories.
Right. Uh-huh. You damaged that instrument and that's why you had to buy it. And also... as soon as you hook it up to your circuit along with your function generator.... it is grounded just as surely as if you hadn't cut off the ground plug. And how does owning an instrument now "oblige" you to get it calibrated? That's just silly. You damaged the instrument and had to get it repaired and RE-calibrated.
And... Rosemary.... the calibration I showed of my current measuring meters and my scope was COMPARING TO OHM'S LAW using a known resistance, measured with a CALIBRATED ohmmeter and voltmeters that all agree with one another and with CALIBRATED instruments. You can't get around OHM's LAW.
How do you think a calibration laboratory calibrates an ammeter, anyway? By waving a magic wand and sticking a little sticker on the instrument?
WHEN WILL YOU RESPECT OUR HOST'S WISHES AND POST YOUR OWN WORK?
Never. You aren't going to do any real tests, this we know, so all your money is wasted.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AM
Good lord you are so deeply involved in this, it's not healthy at all.For starters, the definition of "Tar Baby:" That's the first definition that comes up in the Wikipedia article and anybody reading this thread can see TK's wit in action. So all of your talk about South African history can be dismissed out of hand.
We are ALL aware of the Tar Baby reference. But that the baby is 'TARRED' in the first instance is the point at which this analogy becomes ENTIRELY unacceptable. And while you may find it amusing - there are those of us who find it INTENSELY offensive. But lacking, as you all do, those common decencies - then it is understandable that you see this as evidence of TK's WIT. It is my opinion that is it's proof of TK's entire lack of social conscience. So what does that make your approval of it?
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AMAs far as your expenses go, you are making a serious mistake. You mention $1000 USD for a multimeter? Now _that's_ crazy. All that you need is to borrow an ordinary scope and get a $30 multimeter. Or buy a used scope on eBay. Buy six new small batteries for perhaps $40 each so that's $240. Buy a cheap battery charger.
Then do a dim bulb test after you confirm that you see your "magic delicious oscillations" on your scope. That's it because it will be game over, just like TK showed you with the Tar Baby.
Were we to do tests at the level that TK does his tests - then we would have NO VIABLE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. Any more than TK has an viable scientific argument. All the Tar Baby tests depend on really bad measurement.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AMThe most important question is as follows: Does you circuit have any merit? The answer is NO, it has no merit at all.
THAT is your opinion. And opinions have no relevance to science.
continued/...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AMYour circuit is a bloody joke. It's a Grade Six Science Fair project gone nuts.
Again. That is your opinion. And now you're regressing to invective and slander. We need to show you results. THEN it would be appropriate to pass an opinion. Until then you are indulging in 'prophesy'. That has NO PART OF SCIENCE. And you're indulging in 'slander'. That has NO PART OF DECENT DISCOURSE
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AMI give Stefan lots of credit for allowing all points of view about your "project" being expressed. Some seasoned people with a lot of experience in analog design engineering have weighed in on your device and expressed their learned opinions of the experimental data presented so far. They have made a valuable contribution to the forum and the readers of the forum are much better off and better informed because of it.
Of COURSE you give a lot of credit to Stefan for allowing your points of view about our project. LOL. The most of us are still puzzled as to why you and FTC were allowed to move off moderation - if it wasn't to advance your spin. It's a source of some considerable concern. To many of us. But you have both of you AND picowatt for that matter - HAD very lengthy discussions. Including the fact that the Q2 source leg is connected to the battery supply's negative terminal. Including the fact that the capacitance over the MOSFET discharges through the battery supply and then 'DISSIPATES' its energy - somehow - at the load. And sundry other easily disprovable claims.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AMSo you are not likely to get very far with your requests for censorship. And some people with a world of experience that you don't have are going to express their opinions and that's tough luck for you.
I have NEVER asked for censorship. I have asked for a DELAY. That I can spend my time more constructively than dealing with your 'spin' - your 'tarring' with that 'tar brush' that you're all so proud of applying.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AMYou can spend as much of your money as you want and it's not going to make one bit of difference. Your batteries will show the truth in the dim bulb testing. You don't need any academics to endorse these tests.
It will make an ENORMOUS difference. It will advertise the efficiencies related to the COP>17 test that we KNOW will be greater than COP>17. And we will run our own NERD circuit under strict comparative draw down tests so that we will then LEARN if there is any efficiency. And having completed that very public demonstration - then the convention will allow that those papers of ours will be deemed to have been published. And then academics will be able to 'engage' without the stigma associated with claims that are NOT published.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AM
Like I stated before, you wouldn't last more than 15 minutes in an interview with an academic anyways. No electrical engineering professor would take you seriously when they soon realize that you don't even understand how your simple circuit works and you are unable to express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy concepts.
And like I've stated - many times. We are actively engaged in conversation with academics - and always have been.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 08:43:37 AMJust go buy some small batteries and run your tests and confirm TK's results. That's basically where you are at, replicating and trying to generate as much data as somebody that replicated you. You have lost the leadership position and find yourself confirming someone else's results that the circuit doesn't work.
You wish.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 12:55:28 PM
Leon - that's so much better than TK. Is that your name? I've always wondered.
The calibration labs compare the performance measurement to proven values. Your own calibration exercise in standardising your measurements were a joke. I gave you the example. You can calibrate your watch to Greenwich Mean Time. You cannot calibrate it to synchronise with your neighbour's watch. What you did was calibrate it to ? I'm not sure which of your instruments. They are all as likely to be as faulty as the next.
Rosie Pose
I most certainly can calibrate my watch to my neighbor's watch, or to his water clock or his candles or to how often his dog barks. If you understood the meaning and process of calibration you wouldn't make such silly statements. Synchronization is neither the point nor the process of calibration. Have you ever encountered a calibration graph or a nomograph? No, of course you haven't.
I can trace the calibration of ALL my instruments back to NIST standards -- and you don't even know what that means.
I don't have official calibration stickers on SOME of my instruments because I don't need them... but the accuracy of my instruments is easily verified AND I WILL PUT IT UP AGAINST YOUR OFFICIALLY CALIBRATED INSTRUMENTS AT ANY TIME, subject only to the constraints imposed by my lack of "numbers in boxes". Go ahead, measure the current pushed through a 10 ohm resistor by a supply of 10 volts, and see if you get some other result that I don't get.
And to top it off... NOBODY has ever questioned the calibration of your instruments. Just as they never questioned the calibration of MYLOW's vernier caliper, when he used it to measure his magnet positions. Perfect garbage into a perfect garbage truck will still be perfect garbage when it comes out.
NO INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION IS NECESSARY... no instruments are necessary, in fact. Just hook your circuit up to some batteries, let it run for a reasonable time, then TEST THE BATTERIES USING THE DIM BULB TEST.
QuoteAll the Tar Baby tests depend on really bad measurement.
YOU LIE, AINSLIE.
I have offered time and again to have TAR BABY tested side-by-side with NERD, even by remote control. My measurements are every bit as good as yours... better even, since all details of how MINE are obtained are right there in public, and I don't have any anomalous unexplained scope traces that could only indicate blown transistors in MY reportage.
Again, you lie, without support for your lies, and I can prove it.
TK - you really are an absurd, petty little man. Do you really think I'd buy the LeCroy if it was damaged? At all? Ever? I'd have to be as mad as you claim. If it was damaged they would have been covered by insurance. I would NOT buy a broken machine. EVER.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 01:21:19 PM
Right. Uh-huh. You damaged that instrument and that's why you had to buy it. And also... as soon as you hook it up to your circuit along with your function generator.... it is grounded just as surely as if you hadn't cut off the ground plug. And how does owning an instrument now "oblige" you to get it calibrated? That's just silly. You damaged the instrument and had to get it repaired and RE-calibrated.
Which is just more of that 'tar'.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 01:21:19 PMAnd... Rosemary.... the calibration I showed of my current measuring meters and my scope was COMPARING TO OHM'S LAW using a known resistance, measured with a CALIBRATED ohmmeter and voltmeters that all agree with one another and with CALIBRATED instruments. You can't get around OHM's LAW.
Your calibration exercise was a JOKE. And it still is. It's up there with your application of Ohms law to determine that power measurement.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 01:21:19 PMHow do you think a calibration laboratory calibrates an ammeter, anyway? By waving a magic wand and sticking a little sticker on the instrument?
They don't STANDARDISE their measurements against uncalibrated instruments. And if you're now claiming that they're calibrated - then PROVE IT. Show us that certification. By your own admission those instruments are alternatively 'cheapo's' or antiquated.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 01:11:39 PM
Never mind, looks like you do in SA.
I've rented plenty of equip over the years and never gave a second thought to floating the ground when necessary. Never had a problem.
PW
That's because "you" know what you are doing.
If you did have a problem, though, you'd probably have to pay for the instrument, and then to use it after repair you'd need to get it recalibrated.
Rosemary, I could perform my measurements with a string and a piece of modeling clay and they would STILL be better than yours, because I know how to add and subtract, and how to interpret measurements.
You on the other hand think that a 12 volt battery is fully charged as long as it reads over 12 volts on your multimeter.
And you think that a Watt is a Joule and a Joule is a Watt per Second.
Not only that, my challenge still stands: I'll put my measurements up against yours at any time. Let any third party set out a table of unknown electrical quantities, and let you and i both measure them, one shot, no outside help, starting NOW. How will you perform? How will I?
Anybody want to start a betting pool?
QuoteBy your own admission those instruments are alternatively 'cheapo's' or antiquated.
And that makes them inaccurate or imprecise just how?
You are severely logic-challenged, so I know you won't be able to follow along, but I'll try to explain anyway.
TRACEABLE calibration means just that. I can take my cheapo voltmeter to a laboratory and compare it to a real laboratory standard voltage source that is kept in calibration as a laboratory standard by sending it to a cal lab every year. And this will cost me nothing more than the fuel to get there and the time it takes to do it.
If my cheapo DMM reads to within 1 percent of the laboratory standard, only deviating from the standard in the MILLIVOLT digit.... less than one part per thousand .... I am satisfied that it is sufficiently accurate. You may not be, and if I was serious I'd make a calibration graph so that I could correct for even THAT small error.
If I then take that meter home with me, nothing magic is going to happen on the way home that will affect its accuracy or "calibration" even if it DOESN'T have a magic sticker on it that says "calibration void if removed". As long as I don't drop it in a pail of water or something.
If I then use a one percent precision resistor and that voltmeter to perform a current calibration of another meter, according to OHM'S LAW.... am I going to achieve sufficient precision and accuracy to tell the difference between COP > INFINITY and COP < 1 ?
I think so.
My Philips counter has a crystal-controlled oscillator in a constant-temperature oven that is always on as long as the instrument is plugged in, whether it is on "standby" or turned fully on. It is stable and accurate to some few parts per BILLION and displays nine significant digits. I can use this calibrated and precise frequency standard in various ways to validate and cross calibrate all my other instruments if necessary, even the simple voltmeters and ammeters. But this degree of accuracy is not needed in my lab, nor is it needed in yours.
And... by the way, Rosie Poser.... I don't have to prove anything to you. YOU have to PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, because you are the one claiming OU. Oh... wait.... you've withdrawn your claims, sorry, I forgot for a moment, since you still seem to be defending them so ... astringently.
Rosemary:
QuoteOn loan I would NEVER subject the LeCroy to the risk of applying it without ground.
Another ASSUMPTION where you demonstrate your vast ignorance with respect to the field of electronics. You use that term "ASSUMPTION" as a hot-button word when you try to counter a point that someone is making to you. However, we know your secret Rosemary. Your secret is that you are clueless with respect to electronics and therefore you make ASSUMPTIONS all of the time. You have to make ASSUMPTIONS because you barely know what you are doing. You need them as part of your coping strategy. I can't recall a single time when you sincerely asked for advice on how to do something - so ASSUMPTIONS it is.
And sometimes it's comical to see the kooky perplexing situations you get into because of your ignorance translating into an over reliance on ASSUMPTIONS.
The LeCroy will work JUST FINE without a ground plug. Your ASSUMPTION is wrong. The ground plug is to prevent risk to you, not risk to the equipment.
Dear lord, there are no words.
MileHigh
Quote from: Magluvin on May 06, 2012, 01:15:01 PM
Are there any cases where Lecroy recommends not having the ground connector attached to a ground during use of the equipment? If so, then I would recommend following that procedure. ;]
Mags n The Moonies
Magluvin,
The third wire AC ground connection is there to ensure that in the event of an internal power supply or wiring failure where the isolation between the AC mains and the chassis is compromised, the third wire will return current to the breaker box and blow the mains breaker serving the faulted equipment. This reduces the risk of having a hot chassis and subsequent electrocution hazard. It is usually required code that all equip connected to the AC mains have their chassis connected to this safety path back to the mains (in countries that use such a system) or use a code rated double insulation system and a two prong plug (as is also common). As it is code, all manufacturers must give the same warning to use only with the third prong connected to a separate and low impedance path to the AC neutral at the mains panel on equipment using a third prong.
However, it is often necessary when using test equipment, audio/ video equipmet, etc. that the chassis ground path be broken at the AC cord to eliminate "ground loops". A separately designed ground path for such installations allows the chassis of all equipment to be held at the AC distrib system ground in the event of a fault, while breaking any loops that may cause issues. Often though not always wise, signal shield wires are used as the AC fault path, which, if sized appropriately can suffice, though a separate parallel run conductor is usually wiser. Keep in mind, fault currents are usually brief, being the amount of time required to trip a mains breaker.
Ask anyone who has done audio/video installs to any degree, and they will surely agree regarding the necessity to break loops. Transformers can sometimes be used in the signal path or in the mains circuit to eliminate a loop, or the shield in the signal wires disconnected at one end. But, sometimes it is necessary in multi-equip installs, test or otherwise, to have one piece of equip tied to the AC ground and ensure all chassis leakage currents flow to that piece of equipment with separate parallel conductors following the same path as signal conductors (so induced currents are similar and cancel). Most test equipment has a chassis ground terminal to which a separate, sufficiently sized wire can be attached for the purpose of connecting the chassis to a system ground point, which may be at the device under test if that is called for.
In Rosemary's case, if she is only going to be using a single 'scope and FG for the new tests, I doubt the need to isolate AC is even necessary for the LeCroy. I would likely isolate the FG instead. The problem in the RA circuit is that if the FG signal ground is tied to the non-battery end of the CSR, and the 'scope signal grounds are tied instead to the battery negative, the CSR will be effectively shorted by the AC chassis grounds if the 'scope and FG are not chassis isolated from each other. This could be eliminated by tying the FG signal ground to the battery negative as well, but then the DC bias current flowing thru Q2 would not pass through the CSR and would flow unobserved. If safety is an issue, a sufficiently sized wire can be run from the FG chassis parallel to the FG signal cable and also attach to the non-battery end of the CSR, along with the FG signal common from the BNC cable. Another sucfficiently sized wire can be connected between 'scope ground (or a separate run to the AC ground) and battery negative. The FG AC ground can then be safely floated.
In the event of an AC fault in the FG, AC fault current will flow through the CSR to the 'scope's chassis ground (or to the separate wire ran to the AC ground from battery negative). As the .25 ohm resistance will attempt to draw several hundred amps from the AC mains in the event of an internal FG chassis to AC mains short, the mains breaker will trip fairly quick, placing a short high current pulse on the CSR which it would very likely survive. Its wattage could be increased if there is additional concern, but, honestly, in today's modern equipment, mains to chassis shorts are fairly rare.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 01:56:10 PM
That's because "you" know what you are doing.
If you did have a problem, though, you'd probably have to pay for the instrument, and then to use it after repair you'd need to get it recalibrated.
TK,
The only problem that would be encountered is if a piece of rental equip lost it AC to chassis isolation. That would be a fault with the rented equiment, and hence not my problem (unless of course it "zapped" me!).
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
TK,
The only problem that would be encountered is if a piece of rental equip lost it AC to chassis isolation. That would be a fault with the rented equiment, and hence not my problem (unless of course it "zapped" me!).
PW
Beyond what circuit cellar wizards do, Lecroy, a company that designs and makes the equipment, do they recommend ditching the ground termination during any time of use, and if so, what do they have to say about that?
This company must understand these measurement protocols and also understand the necessity for isolation in given cases such as this. These are the people to ask. What they say in the matter should be golden. Otherwise, what could we say about the quality of the equipment?
Mags n The Moonies
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 02:06:20 PM
Rosemary, I could perform my measurements with a string and a piece of modeling clay and they would STILL be better than yours, because I know how to add and subtract, and how to interpret measurements.
You on the other hand think that a 12 volt battery is fully charged as long as it reads over 12 volts on your multimeter.
And you think that a Watt is a Joule and a Joule is a Watt per Second.
Not only that, my challenge still stands: I'll put my measurements up against yours at any time. Let any third party set out a table of unknown electrical quantities, and let you and i both measure them, one shot, no outside help, starting NOW. How will you perform? How will I?
Anybody want to start a betting pool?
Rosemary odds on being right....... Googolplex to 1.....place your bets ;D The time it would take to write such a number also renders the task implausible: if a person can write two digits per second, it would take around about 1.51×10
92 years, which is about 1.1×10
82 times the age of the universe, to write a googolplex.
Betting on TK being right......... is suspended......no more bets
Quote from: Magluvin on May 06, 2012, 02:45:49 PM
Beyond what circuit cellar wizards do, Lecroy, a company that designs and makes the equipment, do they recommend ditching the ground termination during any time of use, and if so, what do they have to say about that?
This company must understand these measurement protocols and also understand the necessity for isolation in given cases such as this. These are the people to ask. What they say in the matter should be golden. Otherwise, what could we say about the quality of the equipment?
Mags n The Moonies
Magluvin,
Not sure what you mean by "circuit cellar wizards", go talk to pro equip installers. And by "pro" I mean "real pro", not some basement studio or night club. In multi-suite interconnected installs, system grounding is an art in itself.
No manufacturer will likely recommend bypassing the AC ground due to code and liability issues, but, this can be done by an end user and still meet code and safety requirements if done properly. It has little to do with measurement accuracy or equipment operation (except where floating is required to break a loop for an accurate measurement), it is a safety related issue.
Also, as I said, I would not mess with the LeCroy to begin with. I would float the FG as described. Even doing so can still produce issues with regard to stray capacitance at the frequency of oscillation, and this must be considered as well for high accuracy measurements.
The only other alternative is the use of an isolation transformer on the AC supply to the FG so that in the event of an AC to chassis fault, the AC supply is not ground referenced and therefore reduces any shock hazard, or just use an isolated power supply instead of the FG.
PW
@PW: This is separate from the line cord ground issue (sort of...) but consider the following scenario.
A six-year old child, having just learned how to solder, is in your water-heater closet using your DSO to make complete measurements on her Little Miss Mosfet Oven baking set, which is powered by a 72-volt lead acid battery stack. She has several scope probes scattered around the system, most of them grounded to the same point, which is connected to the battery negative pole. Now she decides to take a measurement "across the load", a quite logical thing to do. So she unclips a probe and hooks it to one side of the load... the transistor drain side... and she takes that probe's ground lead and hooks it to the other side of the load.
Of course she is wearing safety glasses and gloves like any six-year old should when playing in the laboratory...er... water closet. But her batteries catch fire anyway, the probe shield leads melt down and the probe BNC connectors weld themselves to the scope chassis connectors.
You are walking through the desert and you see a tortoise......
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 03:34:55 PM
@PW: This is separate from the line cord ground issue (sort of...) but consider the following scenario.
A six-year old child, having just learned how to solder, is in your water-heater closet using your DSO to make complete measurements on her Little Miss Mosfet Oven baking set, which is powered by a 72-volt lead acid battery stack. She has several scope probes scattered around the system, most of them grounded to the same point, which is connected to the battery negative pole. Now she decides to take a measurement "across the load", a quite logical thing to do. So she unclips a probe and hooks it to one side of the load... the transistor drain side... and she takes that probe's ground lead and hooks it to the other side of the load.
Of course she is wearing safety glasses and gloves like any six-year old should when playing in the laboratory...er... water closet. But her batteries catch fire anyway, the probe shield leads melt down and the probe BNC connectors weld themselves to the scope chassis connectors.
You are walking through the desert and you see a tortoise......
Well yeah... that would be a problem!
PW
Lol Pico, I should have put a ;D after the wizards comment. It was meant to be a complement of sorts. Like Tk. Look at all his vids. Amazing stuff. But most of it seems to be done in a cellar. And he is a Wizard at this stuff. So dont take it badly.
I just figured if Lecroy had ideas, they would be good, and this part of the arguments could be long over.
Lets say we had 3 or 4 pieces of equipment going on this project, and a couple of them would be as you describe that you wouldnt disable the gnd. Maybe Lecroy has encountered this and has some recommendations. Certainly they have encountered more complex circuits than this and have been asked this before.
I would lean also to ungrounding the gen before the scope if need be. Do they make isolated scope probes? Or like a self powered(9v) preamp box with isolation built in. Dunno.
Mags
One thing for sure:
Little Miss MOSFET has fallen silent about the grounding issue because she read PW's comments and realizes that she is hopelessly outclassed and it has dawned on her for the 100th time that she barely knows what she is doing.
So the solution is to sign off and run away from the grounding issue and make no more comments. She needs to lick her psychological wounds and willfully forget about this episode and then simply come back and soldier on pushing her proposition.
She knows next to nothing about grounding issues? Who cares! Just forget about it and keep pushing forward. Brute force will get her there!!! For sure!
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 12:55:28 PM
Leon - that's so much better than TK. Is that your name? I've always wondered.
(snip irrelevant innuendo)
Rosie Pose
No, Rosie Poser. You can call me Deckard, if you like.
But you won't be any closer to the truth than you usually are.
@PW:
What do you think of these scope traces shown here?
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/84-10-days-to-go-and-yet-more-surprises.html
QuoteAnd for Poynty et al. There is no question that - on this new setting - there is absolutely NO energy being passed from the battery to the source rail during the 'on' period of the duty cycle. I am reasonably satisfied that it's due to the resistance offered at the FET and to that variation that we have on this circuit.
You know... for once I do believe she's right. A blown mosfet offers a pretty high resistance all right, which would account for why it's not turning on and passing current when it receives that positive 12 volt pulse at its gate during the ON period of the duty cycle.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 04:07:26 PM
@PW:
What do you think of these scope traces shown here?
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/84-10-days-to-go-and-yet-more-surprises.html
You know... for once I do believe she's right. A blown mosfet offers a pretty high resistance all right, which would account for why it's not turning on and passing current when it receives that positive 12 volt pulse at its gate during the ON period of the duty cycle.
TK,
The first and last look like FIG 3 and FIG 4 in the first paper with the same Q1 issue (same date/time stamp as well). RA's circuit is different than yours. Her Q1 works in some 'scope captures, and not so much in others. Yours always works, unless you disconnect or damage your Q1. I see she continues to cling to the same "Q2 can't pass current therefore its a marvelous mystery" claim.
PW
@PW: It's the white pegboard, I just know it.
By the way, when you were teaching your kids to solder, did they ever damage any components from overheating them? I know I certainly have, especially when I was using my nice Craftsman soldering gun at 150 Watts. Bzzzzz!
It's nice to have a modern temperature-regulated soldering iron these days, and clipon heatsinks and all that stuff, especially when soldering directly to the leads of mosfets. Did you know that mosfets can actually be damaged by static electricity, too? Golly.
Sigh. I sure wish I had a digital oscilloscope, so that I could make screenshots like this one.
:o
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 04:36:34 PM
@PW: It's the white pegboard, I just know it.
By the way, when you were teaching your kids to solder, did they ever damage any components from overheating them? I know I certainly have, especially when I was using my nice Craftsman soldering gun at 150 Watts. Bzzzzz!
It's nice to have a modern temperature-regulated soldering iron these days, and clipon heatsinks and all that stuff, especially when soldering directly to the leads of mosfets. Did you know that mosfets can actually be damaged by static electricity, too? Golly.
Sigh. I sure wish I had a digital oscilloscope, so that I could make screenshots like this one.
:o
TK,
Believe it or not, no. But that was using flea clips with thru hole parts, and I always made them wipe on the damp sponge and tin the tip first, trying to instill good habits. I also used TC202 temp controlled stations (they use Curie point in tip metal with magnetic switch). Very reliable. I still have three of those stations and some electronic controlled finer tipped versions for SMT work.
Oh c'mon, you don't need a DSO to duplicate that... well, on second thought, maybe...
(throw that gun aside and break out the torch)
PW
Howdy all,
I just wanted to get this right Rosemary .....
You fabricate a fraudulent YouTube video showing a schematic for a device not shown or demonstrated in the video ....Then you claim that the person "dooziedont" that up-loaded it wasn't you but someone else and you had nothing to do with the video, then admit you did actually up-load the YouTube video and dooziedont one of your many alias's is you.
You fabricated fraudulent documents that were submitted to accredited journals and magazines for possible peer review from academics, engineers or experts and a publication of your claim .... Then these documents have been exposed as having cherry picked inaccurate, erroneous, misrepresented, incomplete information and data, two totally different device schematics are shown one of which you say isn't or never was used in the testing and evaluation of your device and the documents authors referenced that didn't do any experimentation on the device referenced in those documents at all. The authors names with the appearance of possibly pulled from a hat or phone book used to give the documents a mystic illusion on verifable credibility of some unethical kind from your collection of imaginary experts involved.
You have made applications for prize money from OverUnity dot com, Over Unity Research dot com and Steven E Jones for your NERD RAT device that you claim is OVERUNITY and has a COP>INFINITY .... Then you claim you have nothing months later that you are offering information only on some new mystical magical mystery NERD RAT technology.
Your demands now Rosemary ....
You want this thread "Testing the TK TarBaby" locked because you feel totally successful in your misrepresented lame arguments that you are correct and everyone else world wide is wrong, proven by your personal collection of evidence on a theory you have created hacked together all relating to your unproven thesis throwing out and ignoring all excepted conventional proven published electrical theory's ..... Then you want your own thread here at OverUnity dot com, moderated by only yourself that you can cherry pick whats posted who says what with you attempting some new testing and evaluation on the "SAME" device circuit that has been already tested by you incorrectly and those results posted by you already in the threads "Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011" or "another small breakthrough on our NERD technology" and your prior testing results in those two threads duplicated in the "Testing the TK TarBaby"
:P Your insane .......
You said it, Fuzzy. She's up to her scraggly braids in contradictions and mendacity.
Let her have her own moderated thread with her as mod. I'd love to see it. It will be a hoot and a half _at least_.
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker...
As you all know I've been using a potentiometer/series resistor to interface whatever negative bias supply I'm using to the Tar Baby's FG+ and FG- connection points. Well... the cheap 1 megohm pot that I have been using is fried anyway and has to be turned all the way to the stop. So I've improved that system and unless otherwise noted I'll be using the pot/resistor scheme shown in the diagram below. It gives good adjustment with a supply of 6-9 volts. The CAPACITOR shown is what I used for my latest test video -- an unscheduled test, but we managed to fit it in anyway --, showing Tar Baby running on the capactor for its bias source... for a few seconds anyway. Clearly, though, the capacitor IS putting energy into the circuit and IS NOT being in any sense recharged or prevented from putting its power into the circuit.
This video is being processed and uploaded now. It should be available in half an hour or so. Meanwhile here's the schematic for the new potentiometer arrangement. The CAP is only there for this demo and whatever power source you like can be substituted for the Elenco precision regulated PS.
And... Testing Kontinues.
Here is a scope shot I just made. Top trace is across the CVR at 1 volt per division, centerline in the usual place. Bottom trace is "battery" at the board, 50 v/div, centerline at second graticle line up from bottom. (One line below its usual place.) Timebase 0.1 microsecond per division. Inline current indication is about 120 mA, battery voltage 49.4 volts, load heating normally.
I am pretty sure that this condition and these traces will give me a solidly negative mean power product. I'm too lazy to do the work by hand right now, but just eyeballing it, it sure looks like it to me.
Oh.... did I mention? This is using 5 x IRF830a mosfets.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PM
You said it, Fuzzy. She's up to her scraggly braids in contradictions and mendacity.
Let her have her own moderated thread with her as mod. I'd love to see it. It will be a hoot and a half _at least_.
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker...
As you all know I've been using a potentiometer/series resistor to interface whatever negative bias supply I'm using to the Tar Baby's FG+ and FG- connection points. Well... the cheap 1 megohm pot that I have been using is fried anyway and has to be turned all the way to the stop. So I've improved that system and unless otherwise noted I'll be using the pot/resistor scheme shown in the diagram below. It gives good adjustment with a supply of 6-9 volts. The CAPACITOR shown is what I used for my latest test video -- an unscheduled test, but we managed to fit it in anyway --, showing Tar Baby running on the capactor for its bias source... for a few seconds anyway. Clearly, though, the capacitor IS putting energy into the circuit and IS NOT being in any sense recharged or prevented from putting its power into the circuit.
This video is being processed and uploaded now. It should be available in half an hour or so. Meanwhile here's the schematic for the new potentiometer arrangement. The CAP is only there for this demo and whatever power source you like can be substituted for the Elenco precision regulated PS.
TK,
The 670K is probably not needed. You are basically varying Ibias by varying the resistor between the supply and Q2's source, which is the 100R variable in series with the 10R. The 670K is not hurting anything either, however, just a bit more bleed when using the cap by itself.
You did use a "rechargeable" cap didn't you?
PW
It's a little scary when I see that a video I've posted gets some few views even before I've posted a link to it. Gratifying but a little scary anyway. I could never handle fame, not even fifteen seconds much less fifteen minutes of it.
Here's the link to the bias capacitor trial video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVdzTn4Iya0
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 07:04:48 PM
TK,
The 670K is probably not needed. You are basically varying Ibias by varying the resistor between the supply and Q2's source, which is the 100R variable in series with the 10R. The 670K is not hurting anything either, however, just a bit more bleed when using the cap by itself.
You did use a "rechargeable" cap didn't you?
PW
The 670K is there for color-coordination, and to provide a gathering place for zipons, should they arrive early. And as anyone can see, it is a _precision_ resistor, not some cheap inaccurate garage-sale antique.
Sure I used my special rechargeable capacitor.... they are very rare you know.... but capacitors don't work with OU devices, unless they are Tesla frequency devices. There is something special about battery chemistry... you know, the battery that is completely disconnected from the circuit ... that is necessary for the unclaimed overunity effect to appear. Even though the waveforms and everything else look just the same when a capacitor is used, whether for bias or main power, the cap will always run down quickly and no free energy will be related.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 07:21:00 PM
It's a little scary when I see that a video I've posted gets some few views even before I've posted a link to it. Gratifying but a little scary anyway. I could never handle fame, not even fifteen seconds much less fifteen minutes of it.
Here's the link to the bias capacitor trial video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVdzTn4Iya0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVdzTn4Iya0)
I had to watch it twice, due to the vulcan mind meld that flashing color globe to the right kept me looking away. 8) Mib mind erase device. ;) ;D lol it is very distracting. What is it?
Are you running the whole circuit from the cap, or just the signal gen?
Mags
Hi TK:
Good "Clip of DOOM," so to speak. Of course that clip is another form of proof that current passes through the function generator but RA is not on the same page. It's going to take someone that she is "friends" with to convince her of that because if you are a belligerent there is a nearly automatic disagreement with whatever you state. (Might open up an opportunity for a strategically placed piece of reverse psychology, you never know.)
It funny because I invented an elaborate scheme using a very large capacitor to measure the current flow through the main loop yet the solution was always staring "me" in the face - try a multimeter stoopid. Of course one of many ironies with the massive and exhaustive NERD testing over months and months - a dynamic team in action - is that apparently nobody ever thought of putting a $20 multimeter in series with the main loop to see if there was a measurable current flow. They played with a $10,000 digital storage oscilloscope for months and never thought to measure the current with digital mutimeter that can practically be found at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box.
For your negative offset circuit, I suggest that you keep it simple and use the power supply in series with a 50-ohm resistor to emulate the function generator. I take it that your power supply for that purpose has no grounding issues with the scope. If I followed everything correctly all that you need to do is disconnect the mains ground connection for the power supply. The only mains ground connection would be through the scope mains ground. That way your power supply negative output can connected to the MOSFET side of the CVR and bounce up and down relative to the scope ground and everybody's happy. (I have a question to post about grounding for a separate post.)
There is a problem with your potentiometer solution to dial up a negative potential for the offset. Let's suppose that you use a 1K linear potentiometer for the voltage wiper, and you connect a 50-ohm resistor on the wiper output and that connects to the Q2 array source. This is just a simple hypothetical example. If the potentiometer is set to one extreme and is set to ground, then you have a 50-ohm output impedance to ground. At the other extreme you have a 50-ohm output impedance to -12 volts. However, if you set the potentiometer half-way, then you have a (500 + 50) ohm output impedance to -6 volts. The ouput impedance is dependent on the effective parallel resistance of the two halves of the wiper plus the 50-ohm series resistor. It really doesn't make sense if one assumes that you want to work with the same 50-ohm output impedance all the time. Don't forget that the whole mechanism for the negative feedback in the Q2 array oscillator is based on a 50-ohm output impedance from the voltage source. If you change that impedance as you change the voltage you dial, arguably you are throwing a monkey wrench at the negative feedback part of the circuit. I suppose it all depends on what your objectives are.
Personally I would keep it simple, and stick with 50 ohms and dial up the voltage on your power supply.
MileHigh
MilesOffThePointAsEVer
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
Another ASSUMPTION where you demonstrate your vast ignorance with respect to the field of electronics. You use that term "ASSUMPTION" as a hot-button word when you try to counter a point that someone is making to you. However, we know your secret Rosemary. Your secret is that you are clueless with respect to electronics and therefore you make ASSUMPTIONS all of the time. You have to make ASSUMPTIONS because you barely know what you are doing. You need them as part of your coping strategy. I can't recall a single time when you sincerely asked for advice on how to do something - so ASSUMPTIONS it is.
And sometimes it's comical to see the kooky perplexing situations you get into because of your ignorance translating into an over reliance on ASSUMPTIONS.
The LeCroy will work JUST FINE without a ground plug. Your ASSUMPTION is wrong. The ground plug is to prevent risk to you, not risk to the equipment.
Dear lord, there are no words.
MileHigh
That ignorance for which you have no words is a fair description of your own.
picowatt - TK - Magsy - all of you who have posted here regarding this issue - In South Africa and due to the haphazard standards applied by ESKOM - we ONLY have a 220 volt power supply sources at our homes and all our plugs and are subjected to random power surges that are known to fry delicate machinery. Not even earthing can prevent that damage. It can only LIMIT that damage.
And picowatt I am intrigued with your 'chassis to ground' which SPECIFICALLY means that you DO tie your machine to ground. If we in SA relied on that we'd have FRIED our machines long before it found that PATH TO GROUND.
All this pretension. And everyone anxious to show off their superiority. It's the art of spin - applied with the energy of vigilantes - to stroke your own ridiculous egos. Such bombast. Thankfully it has NOTHING to do with science. And EVERYTHING to do with 'tarring and feathering'.
Rosie Pose
TK:
More stuff about the potentiometer issues. If the the potentiometer is 1/2 watt, that's for the entire resistive sheet material that sits on top of the PCB substrate material. So if the potentiometer is 95% towards one of the extremities, then that little remaining 5% of the resistive sheet material can perhaps only sustain 1/30th of a watt. That's why lots of pots burn out when the wipers are close to one of the extremities. I realize that you may know all of this stuff, I am more in broadcasting mode.
If you want to use a potentiometer as an exercise there is a way to do it. Let's assume that you are working with ground and -12 volts. There is probably a decent op-amp that you could power with ground and -12 volts that would have an output that could swing between -0.5 volts and -11.5 volts. In "my time" the new kid on the block was the LM341. The older standby was the 741. You just need to wire up the op-amp as a unity gain voltage follower. So you connect your wiper output to the "+" input and the output of the op-amp is wired back to the "-" input. You might put a small cap between the "+" input and ground.
Now all of a sudden your wiper output has a zero-output-impedance "Hercules" output because of the op-amp. You connect the output of the op-amp to the Q2 array source and all of a sudden you are really in business. You can run that off a single battery if you want to and it should emulate the function generator perfectly.
Even if this discussion is purely academic, it's fun to talk about op-amps. They are so much fun but out of the "knowledge realm" for the forums from what I can see.
Anyway, at least you don't need a variable power supply if you go the op-amp route, and you get your potentiometer for dialing up the output voltage like you wanted, and you get a proper rock-solid 50-ohm output impedance. As long as you don't push the op-amp past it's IV limits, you have zero output impedance from the op-amp.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
QuoteThat ignorance for which you have no words is a fair description of your own.
picowatt - TK - Magsy - all of you who have posted here regarding this issue - In South Africa and due to the haphazard standards applied by ESKOM - we ONLY have a 220 volt power supply sources at our homes and all our plugs and are subjected to random power surges that are known to fry delicate machinery. Not even earthing can prevent that damage. It can only LIMIT that damage.
And picowatt I am intrigued with your 'chassis to ground' which SPECIFICALLY means that you DO tie your machine to ground. If we in SA relied on that we'd have FRIED our machines long before it found that PATH TO GROUND.
All this pretension. And everyone anxious to show off their superiority. It's the art of spin - applied with the energy of vigilantes - to stroke your own ridiculous egos. Such bombast. Thankfully it has NOTHING to do with science. And EVERYTHING to do with 'tarring and feathering'.
Your discussion above is not even applicable to the subject matter at hand and some of it doesn't even make any sense.
Quotewe ONLY have a 220 volt power supply sources at our homes and all our plugs and are subjected to random power surges that are known to fry delicate machinery. Not even earthing can prevent that damage. It can only LIMIT that damage.
The above statement doesn't even make any sense and I am not going to bother to explain anything to you.
QuoteAnd picowatt I am intrigued with your 'chassis to ground' which SPECIFICALLY means that you DO tie your machine to ground. If we in SA relied on that we'd have FRIED our machines long before it found that PATH TO GROUND.
Nor does the above statement make any sense either.
QuoteAll this pretension. And everyone anxious to show off their superiority. It's the art of spin - applied with the energy of vigilantes - to stroke your own ridiculous egos. Such bombast. Thankfully it has NOTHING to do with science. And EVERYTHING to do with 'tarring and feathering'.
Bullshit - the discussion was about the real truth and not the ridiculous and nonsensical ASSUMPTIONS that you are making about grounding issues.
You need two years worth of full-time instruction just so that you will be able to tread water and understand what is going on.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 09:53:06 PM
Of course one of many ironies with the massive and exhaustive NERD testing over months and months - a dynamic team in action - is that apparently nobody ever thought of putting a $20 multimeter in series with the main loop to see if there was a measurable current flow. They played with a $10,000 digital storage oscilloscope for months and never thought to measure the current with digital mutimeter that can practically be found at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box.
I don't know what a Cracker Jack box is - but I do know that if you applied a digital multimeter to measure the voltages that manifest at the frequency of our oscillations - then its results will not be dependable. If it's a fairly dependable DMM it'll give a 'fair' average. If you apply it's ammeter function - it will be ENTIRELY out. If you get one with the required bandwidth - then you've got a sophisticated and EXPENSIVE machine. A DMM found at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box - whatever that is - is not likely to be even partially up to par - if, as I suspect, that means that it's cheap and readily available. And thankfully we DO NOT rely on measurements that are made by substandard machinery. We leave that to the likes of you - your erstwhile 'team' and to this new team 'vigilante' led by TK aka Leon.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 10:24:56 PM
Bullshit - the discussion was about the real truth and not the ridiculous and nonsensical ASSUMPTIONS that you are making about grounding issues.
You need two years worth of full-time instruction just so that you will be able to tread water and understand what is going on.
MileHigh
So you keep saying. With less and less conviction. It's intriguing. Especially your definition of the 'real truth'.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 10:24:56 PM
Rosemary:
Your discussion above is not even applicable to the subject matter at hand and some of it doesn't even make any sense.
I am NOT interested in YOUR discussion. I've already explained that it's just a lot of hot air and bombast. I am simply anxious to advise our readers why it is that the GROUND PIN of our PLUGS are required. And why it is that without the GROUND PIN we will be exposing that machine to UNDUE RISK.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 10:01:19 PM
MilesOffThePointAsEVer
That ignorance for which you have no words is a fair description of your own.
picowatt - TK - Magsy - all of you who have posted here regarding this issue - In South Africa and due to the haphazard standards applied by ESKOM - we ONLY have a 220 volt power supply sources at our homes and all our plugs and are subjected to random power surges that are known to fry delicate machinery. Not even earthing can prevent that damage. It can only LIMIT that damage.
And picowatt I am intrigued with your 'chassis to ground' which SPECIFICALLY means that you DO tie your machine to ground. If we in SA relied on that we'd have FRIED our machines long before it found that PATH TO GROUND.
All this pretension. And everyone anxious to show off their superiority. It's the art of spin - applied with the energy of vigilantes - to stroke your own ridiculous egos. Such bombast. Thankfully it has NOTHING to do with science. And EVERYTHING to do with 'tarring and feathering'.
Rosie Pose
Do you not use a third wire gnd/earth return on your AC system? I looked up connectors and it looks like you use three prong plugs.
With 120 or 220 in the US requires all exposed chassis metal to be connected to a separate ground path to the mains, unless the device is rated as "double insulated". The neutral is not a permissable chassis ground. Near a water source (sinks, etc) we also now require GFI breakers or retrofitted sockets.
No superiority intended, a question was asked and an answer was offered.
'twasn't even directed at you.
PW
Quote from: Magluvin on May 06, 2012, 07:40:47 PM
I had to watch it twice, due to the vulcan mind meld that flashing color globe to the right kept me looking away. 8) Mib mind erase device. ;) ;D lol it is very distracting. What is it?
Are you running the whole circuit from the cap, or just the signal gen?
Mags
The sphere, as you should know by now, is what is preventing the NERDs from testing anything.
It is the Tesla Quantum Frequency Longitudinal Linecaster, programmed with anti-NERD frequencies. You may have wondered why the NERD RATs haven't been able to post any tests or any other data of their own lately. Now... you know why. As long as that thing is flashing, nobody in the entire southern portion of Africa will be able to test an overunity device. Not only that... if they do manage to test one somehow, perhaps by hiring a colorblind technician or sitting in a bismuth foil-lined Maxwell cabinet, it will give all the normal readings it usually does, only it won't be overunity any more.
There is no signal generator in use, nor has there been for some time. I have been supplying Tar Baby with a strict DC voltage... and current.... to "simulate" the situation when the NERD FG is providing the lonnnggg negative-going gate drive pulses of 2 minutes or more in the NERD data ... in other words, DC. The capacitor here just provides this bias voltage (and current) until it runs out. The circuit is running on the 4 x 12 volt, 5 A-H batteries. Perhaps I misspoke in the video when I said that the oscillations are "powered by" the capacitor. They actually only _relate to_ the capacitor.
I'm sure that both voltage sources ... the main battery and the bias source -- each contribute to the total power sloshing around in the circuit during the oscillations.
The point that I'm trying to make is that there IS current supplied by the bias source, and it IS necessary for the oscillations, and there is NOTHING trying to recharge the bias source, and when the bias source RUNS DOWN due to the current being drawn from it.... the oscillations stop.
This of course is contrary to a handful of claims that Ainslie has made, but never demonstrated.
Rosemary:
QuoteI am NOT interested in YOUR discussion. I've already explained that it's just a lot of hot air and bombast. I am simply anxious to advise our readers why it is that the GROUND PIN of our PLUGS are required. And why it is that without the GROUND PIN we will be exposing that machine to UNDUE RISK.
It's not hot air and bombast and in your statement above you are completely wrong again. You are wrong. Get it?
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 10:33:34 PM
I am NOT interested in YOUR discussion. I've already explained that it's just a lot of hot air and bombast. I am simply anxious to advise our readers why it is that the GROUND PIN of our PLUGS are required. And why it is that without the GROUND PIN we will be exposing that machine to UNDUE RISK.
Rosie Posie
Without the ground pin, the operator/user is exposed to undue risk, which is why the third ground pin is required by code.
Most universal off-line switchers (as in the LeCroy) are decoupled for transients across the line (and to reduce RF radiation from the switcher). Some off-line switchers also include L1/L2 to G decoupling as well, but I have yet to see floating the ground on a piece of equipment adversely affect its operation.
PW
Guys,
This post has got me rolling. What a pleasure to find something to laugh at. It's hilarious.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 07:21:00 PM
It's a little scary when I see that a video I've posted gets some few views even before I've posted a link to it. Gratifying but a little scary anyway. I could never handle fame, not even fifteen seconds much less fifteen minutes of it.
It seems that our little Leon is rather frightened at the prospect of FAME which he thinks is imminent. Golly. Could someone please assure him him that there's no chance of this. Unless of course it's in the context of a DR VEST.
Regards,
Rosemary
@MH:
Yep, you are with it on all counts. The "hot setup" I envision will incorporate a simple 555 timer for clocking and an op-amp for offset adjustment and impedance matching as you suggest. I'm in the process of dreaming it into existence already but there are some considerations.
The requirement to produce the High-Heat mode correctly is what is the difficulty, and no doubt is part of what is holding up the NERDs as well. Making a positive going pulse with the 555 powered by the main battery to turn on the Q1 mosfet is no problem at all (unless as in some of Ainslie's scope shots it's damaged or missing.) But for there to be oscillations during the "off" portion of the cycle there MUST be a negative going excursion of the gate voltage, just as in the DC case.
This is masked in the Ainslie gate pulse traces because of the general "fuzz" on all the traces-- the feedback oscillations-- and also because of the voltage "floor" phenomenon that we have remarked upon before. That is, the FG is set to make a positive pulse turning on the Q1, but it is OFFSET negatively so that when the pulse turns "off" it actually drops below zero, going negative and producing the oscillations in the Q2 mosfets just as in the DC case. And you can't do this with a simple 555 timer powered from the main batteries-- you need something like the charge pump inverter, and I'm not sure you can even do it with op-amps off the main battery without such an inverter either.
Using a separate power source, no problem, you just float it and use an op-amp output stage to control the offset just like a FG. But using the main battery is still a bit of a sticky wicket, if circuit simplicity and minimum component count are desired features.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 10:57:17 PM
Guys,
This post has got me rolling. What a pleasure to find something to laugh at. It's hilarious.
It seems that our little Leon is rather frightened at the prospect of FAME which he thinks is imminent. Golly. Could someone please assure him him that there's no chance of this. Unless of course it's in the context of a DR VEST.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here, liar, laugh at this... the video that you claim you didn't post:
And guys - as for this...
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 10:44:45 PM
Without the ground pin, the operator/user is exposed to undue risk, which is why the third ground pin is required by code.
Most universal off-line switchers (as in the LeCroy) are decoupled for transients across the line (and to reduce RF radiation from the switcher). Some off-line switchers also include L1/L2 to G decoupling as well, but I have yet to see floating the ground on a piece of equipment adversely affect its operation.
PW
Again - a direct contradiction with the implication that picowatt 'KNOWS whereof he speaks'. Like he KNOWS that the Source at Q2 is in series with the 'ground' of the battery supply? ? ?
Picowatt - I have EXPLAINED why it is NOT CONSIDERED SAFE PRACTICE to expose our LeCroy to ESKOM's POWER SURGES. Do with that information what you will. But unless you concede this then you will ALWAYS BE WRONG. And while I'm at it... Tell us again why it is that that the Source Leg of Q2 is connected in series with the source supply's negative rail? WHERE exactly?
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 10:57:17 PM
Guys,
This post has got me rolling. What a pleasure to find something to laugh at. It's hilarious.
It seems that our little Leon is rather frightened at the prospect of FAME which he thinks is imminent. Golly. Could someone please assure him him that there's no chance of this. Unless of course it's in the context of a DR VEST.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here, liar, laugh at this:
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
Got that, Bubba? The correct definitions and mathematical relationships of the units of Power and Energy have absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of measuring power and energy of an Ainslie device. Zipons, you know.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 10:57:17 PM
Guys,
This post has got me rolling. What a pleasure to find something to laugh at. It's hilarious.
It seems that our little Leon is rather frightened at the prospect of FAME which he thinks is imminent. Golly. Could someone please assure him him that there's no chance of this. Unless of course it's in the context of a DR VEST.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here, liar, laugh at this:
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
You might as well, because everybody else is.
My dear MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 10:39:36 PM
Rosemary:
It's not hot air and bombast and in your statement above you are completely wrong again. You are wrong. Get it?
MileHigh
No MileHigh. I do not get it. Because I am NOT wrong. And for you to keep stating this does not change the fact. You would need to argue it. You seem to confuse 'brainwashing' repetition with the 'real truth'... as ever. And as ever, you are WRONG.
Rosie Posie
TK said,
QuoteIt's a little scary when I see that a video I've posted gets some few views even before I've posted a link to it. Gratifying but a little scary anyway. I could never handle fame, not even fifteen seconds much less fifteen minutes of it.
And Ainslie interjected,
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 10:57:17 PM
Guys,
This post has got me rolling. What a pleasure to find something to laugh at. It's hilarious.
It seems that our little Leon is rather frightened at the prospect of FAME which he thinks is imminent. Golly. Could someone please assure him him that there's no chance of this. Unless of course it's in the context of a DR VEST.
Regards,
Rosemary
And this demonstrates once again that Ainslie apparently cannot read or understand English sentences-- or rather CHOOSES to bloviate, lie and misrepresent whenever she can. Where in my statement do I say or imply that I think FAME is imminent? Rather, say that I think that someone is waiting for my videos and is watching them as soon as they appear. This, I do find slightly scary. It has nothing to do with FAME, which is clearly Ainslie's goal. Rather, it has to do with my desire to protect myself and those close to me from IDIOT THREATS that I've received from people like Ainslie.
And all this has to do with the subject matter of the video REFUTING AINSLIE'S CLAIMS YET AGAIN..... just how? Not at all. Ainslie seeks once again to divert attention from the major issues: The circuit makes NEGATIVE MEAN POWER measurements using other transistors than the IRFPG50, and the circuit DOES INDEED draw current from the bias source.
And guys - another 'red alert' to yet more misdirections.
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 04:27:24 PM
TK,
The first and last look like FIG 3 and FIG 4 in the first paper with the same Q1 issue (same date/time stamp as well). RA's circuit is different than yours. Her Q1 works in some 'scope captures, and not so much in others. Yours always works, unless you disconnect or damage your Q1. I see she continues to cling to the same "Q2 can't pass current therefore its a marvelous mystery" claim.
PW
In our second test we simply and deliberately adjust the settings and use this to show you that notwithstanding the high input during the on period we still measure a COP INFINITY. What picowatt is 'spinning' or 'tarring' is the implication that we cannot adjust those settings. Be cautioned. It's just more 'tarring' with that tar brush. And we all know why.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 11:02:28 PM
And guys - as for this...
Again - a direct contradiction with the implication that picowatt 'KNOWS whereof he speaks'. Like he KNOWS that the Source at Q2 is in series with the 'ground' of the battery supply? ? ?
Picowatt - I have EXPLAINED why it is NOT CONSIDERED SAFE PRACTICE to expose our LeCroy to ESKOM's POWER SURGES. Do with that information what you will. But unless you concede this then you will ALWAYS BE WRONG. And while I'm at it... Tell us again why it is that that the Source Leg of Q2 is connected in series with the source supply's negative rail? WHERE exactly?
Rosemary
You have "explained" nothing.
More misquoting I see.
The source of Q2 is connected to the negative rail (or CSR) through the function generator.
The gate of Q2 and the source of Q1 are connected to the non-battery end of the CSR and can therefore NEVER be at any potential other than the potential indicated by the CSR trace, which is near ground potential, particularly with respect to DC (below the Vgs required for turn on). When the FG output is a positive voltage, a positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 and Q1 turns on (except as noted in your FIG 3 where the Q1 is not functioning). Q2 is off during this phase.
When the FG output is a negative voltage, a negative voltage (i.e., more negative than the batt-) is applied to the source of Q2 and a DC current flows through Q2 and the function generator to the CSR (or batt- if that is where the FG common is connected, as in the March video). Q1 is off during this phase.
The DC current flow thru Q2, that is, Ibias, is limited to around 200ma plus or minus 50ma or so by the action of the applied negative voltage from the FG, the Rgen=50R, and the turn on voltage of Q2, which biases Q2 into a linear region of operation.
PW
Really, PW, is that what you are implying? That Ainslie can't adjust her settings? Funny, I didn't get that at all from your posts. Could you show me where you are implying that Ainslie can't adjust her settings?
Rosemary:
QuoteI am simply anxious to advise our readers why it is that the GROUND PIN of our PLUGS are required. And why it is that without the GROUND PIN we will be exposing that machine to UNDUE RISK.
PW just explained this stuff to you and your skull is too thick and it did not sink in. Having the ground pin connected does not protect the machine in any way against surges. By the way, just go buy a surge protector for your expensive equipment.
The ground pin is there to prevent you from getting electrocuted. That's what it is there for, it's not there to protect the equipment like you state above.
One more time, another ASSUMPTION that you make out of pure ignorance is wrong. You navigate though this whole project about half of the time based on your ASSUMPTIONS due to your lack of experience and education. For most of the ASSUMPTIONS that you make, you don't have a clue if they are right or wrong.
Face it Rosemary, a lot of what you do to navigate through this electronics maze is just "purple haze" screaming in your brain. You just hope and cross your fingers that you are right and a substantial percentage of the time you are dead wrong. It's going to be quite a barrel of monkeys when you take the plunge into the purple haze and try to do a new round of experiments. I am anticipating that you will not ask for help even though you know that we would be glad to respond to your questions.
MileHigh
My dear Leon,
Regarding this rather fatuous disclaimer - with or without respect...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 11:15:49 PM
And this demonstrates once again that Ainslie apparently cannot read or understand English sentences-- or rather CHOOSES to bloviate, lie and misrepresent whenever she can. Where in my statement do I say or imply that I think FAME is imminent? Rather, say that I think that someone is waiting for my videos and is watching them as soon as they appear. This, I do find slightly scary. It has nothing to do with FAME, which is clearly Ainslie's goal. Rather, it has to do with my desire to protect myself and those close to me from IDIOT THREATS that I've received from people like Ainslie.
Your rather heady rush to confuse a limited interest with 'fame' is also rather overwhelming evidence of your own rampant delusions. Why else would you confuse interest with fame? And if you are 'frightened' by me then there is yet more evidence of your rampant delusions. I am merely a really old woman with nothing stronger at my disposal than my rather limited language skills to counter your excessive efforts as a self declared Southern State Racist Vigilante - with the flaunted mission to 'tar and feather' me and together with me - all our hard work.
And as for this...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 11:15:49 PMAnd all this has to do with the subject matter of the video REFUTING AINSLIE'S CLAIMS YET AGAIN..... just how? Not at all. Ainslie seeks once again to divert attention from the major issues: The circuit makes NEGATIVE MEAN POWER measurements using other transistors than the IRFPG50, and the circuit DOES INDEED draw current from the bias source.
This 'spin' is to do with your need to IMPLY that I have stated that ONLY an IRFPG50 is the required transistor. I have gone so far as to state that just about any transistor can be used in place of that IRFPG350. It ONLY needs a diode and that diode can be added to any transistor at all. SO. What is your point? Other than a spurious attempt to apply some relevance to what you loosely term 'tests'? So that you can justify keeping this thread open to continue with your 'tarring' objectives which you've stated in the theme of this thread?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 11:19:29 PM
And guys - another 'red alert' to yet more misdirections.
In our second test we simply and deliberately adjust the settings and use this to show you that notwithstanding the high input during the on period we still measure a COP INFINITY. What picowatt is 'spinning' or 'tarring' is the implication that we cannot adjust those settings. Be cautioned. It's just more 'tarring' with that tar brush. And we all know why.
Regards,
Rosemary
In FIG3 of the first paper, during the period wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the 'scope shot is indicating that +12 volts or so is being applied to the gate of Q1 which should turn on Q1. The CSR trace during that same time period indicates no significant current flow, therefore Q1 is not turning on. This can only mean that Q1 is either disconnected or damaged.
Your assertions with regard to not reading the 'scope shots correctly or needing to somehow factor in the OFS numbers has been easily disproved by a call to LeCroy in NY. The voltage applied to the gate of Q1 is as it was stated to be, approx +12, and therefore Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG 3.
PW
My dear MileHigh,
You, like picowatt - assume that you cannot be wrong. Sadly. I assure you that our ground pin is a required condition of operating that LeCroy. And that recommendation is NOT so much recommended as REQUIRED. And while I am reasonably certain that LeCroy would want to protect their users against any possible chance of electrocution - they have an equally urgent need to protect that machine against power surges. We, in South Africa - are subject to CONTINUAL power surges - courtesy the sad standards that are applied by ESKOM - a monopolist grid supplier. And while the ground pin does not ALWAYS offer protection - it MOSTLY is enough. Therefore is that ground pin required. It is NOT required by Tektronix.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 11:32:22 PM
Rosemary:
PW just explained this stuff to you and your skull is too thick and it did not sink in. Having the ground pin connected does not protect the machine in any way against surges. By the way, just go buy a surge protector for your expensive equipment.
The ground pin is there to prevent you from getting electrocuted. That's what it is there for, it's not there to protect the equipment like you state above.
One more time, another ASSUMPTION that you make out of pure ignorance is wrong. You navigate though this whole project about half of the time based on your ASSUMPTIONS due to your lack of experience and education. For most of the ASSUMPTIONS that you make, you don't have a clue if they are right or wrong.
Face it Rosemary, a lot of what you do to navigate through this electronics maze is just "purple haze" screaming in your brain. You just hope and cross your fingers that you are right and a substantial percentage of the time you are dead wrong. It's going to be quite a barrel of monkeys when you take the plunge into the purple haze and try to do a new round of experiments. I am anticipating that you will not ask for help even though you know that we would be glad to respond to your questions.
And when you lapse into the use of 'purple hazes' and things that 'scream in the brain' - then you've lost me. I simply do NOT know what you're referring to. Any more than I know what a cracker box is.
Rosie Pose
Guys - picowatt seems to think that he can promote those same arguments that have already been disproved. I've said it before. This entire thread is INFINITELY circular. I think I'll pass on arguing it again. Just know that it's wrong. In every sense of the word.
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 11:37:33 PM
In FIG3 of the first paper, during the period wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the 'scope shot is indicating that +12 volts or so is being applied to the gate of Q1 which should turn on Q1. The CSR trace during that same time period indicates no significant current flow, therefore Q1 is not turning on. This can only mean that Q1 is either disconnected or damaged.
Your assertions with regard to not reading the 'scope shots correctly or needing to somehow factor in the OFS numbers has been easily disproved by a call to LeCroy in NY. The voltage applied to the gate of Q1 is as it was stated to be, approx +12, and therefore Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG 3.
And this latter part of his post needs PROOF. Not ALLEGATION. I can EASILY disprove it as I will DEMONSTRATE that the MOSFET IS NOT BLOWN. And then I will PROVE that the voltage changes when we apply the AC coupled value.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on May 06, 2012, 11:32:22 PM
Rosemary:
PW just explained this stuff to you and your skull is too thick and it did not sink in. Having the ground pin connected does not protect the machine in any way against surges. By the way, just go buy a surge protector for your expensive equipment.
The ground pin is there to prevent you from getting electrocuted. That's what it is there for, it's not there to protect the equipment like you state above.
One more time, another ASSUMPTION that you make out of pure ignorance is wrong. You navigate though this whole project about half of the time based on your ASSUMPTIONS due to your lack of experience and education. For most of the ASSUMPTIONS that you make, you don't have a clue if they are right or wrong.
Face it Rosemary, a lot of what you do to navigate through this electronics maze is just "purple haze" screaming in your brain. You just hope and cross your fingers that you are right and a substantial percentage of the time you are dead wrong. It's going to be quite a barrel of monkeys when you take the plunge into the purple haze and try to do a new round of experiments. I am anticipating that you will not ask for help even though you know that we would be glad to respond to your questions.
MileHigh
TK,
Some off-line switchers do use L1/L2 to Ground decoupling, and in those units, RF emission and HF spikes can be reduced by a decent AC ground connection. Usually there is so much inductance in the AC wiring back to the mains panel that "spike" reduction (and RF emission reduction) is minimal at best with normal AC connection practices. That is why a lot of switcher supply cords (monitors, laptop supplies, etc) use a ferrite core in the line cord to reduce RF emissions.
As for large variations in the supply voltage or lower frequency transients, the AC ground will be of no use in stabilizing that.
Just wanted to be very clear.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 11:50:12 PM
Guys - picowatt seems to think that he can promote those same arguments that have already been disproved. I've said it before. This entire thread is INFINITELY circular. I think I'll pass on arguing it again. Just know that it's wrong. In every sense of the word.And this latter part of his post needs PROOF. Not ALLEGATION. I can EASILY disprove it as I will DEMONSTRATE that the MOSFET IS NOT BLOWN. And then I will PROVE that the voltage changes when we apply the AC coupled value.
Regards,
Rosemary
PW
Nothing circular at all, just facts based upon the presented data. If you want to prove something, demonstrate another test where +12 is applied to the gate of Q1 as in FIG 3 and where there is no indicated current flow. If Q1 is both connected properly and functioning, it can't be done.
Q1 must pass current if +12 volts is applied to it's gate. Surely you must agree with that.
PW
Hello hello Rosemary.
Got any new math for us today?
No??
Hmmm... Why not??
Zipons got your tounge?? ;)
PC
PW:
Thanks for that information. My guess is that you are a very senior or retired analog/RF engineer with a vast amount of knowledge and experience under your belt. The breadth of your experience probably spans the 60s through the 2000s. And of course if you worked during the 60s that means your experience actually encompasses the technology of the 40s and 50s. Therefore you have upwards of 70 years worth of tech experience under your belt. Pretty awesome.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 06, 2012, 11:50:12 PM
Guys - picowatt seems to think that he can promote those same arguments that have already been disproved. I've said it before. This entire thread is INFINITELY circular. I think I'll pass on arguing it again. Just know that it's wrong. In every sense of the word.And this latter part of his post needs PROOF. Not ALLEGATION. I can EASILY disprove it as I will DEMONSTRATE that the MOSFET IS NOT BLOWN. And then I will PROVE that the voltage changes when we apply the AC coupled value.
Regards,
Rosemary
And the PROOF you claim to need is right there staraing at everyone in the FGG 3 'scope shot in the first paper.
All readers are advised to have a look for themselves (it is also the first figure in the new blog posting TKprovided a link to recently). During the positive portion of the FG cycle, the indicated voltage is approx. +12 volts. If the FIG 3 represents a test performed with a circuit connected as in the schematic of the first paper, Q1 must turn on at that applied voltage. However, the CSR trace demonstrates no significant current flow during that period, so either Q1 is disconnected or damaged.
In FIG 5 of the first paper, less than +12 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 during the same period and the CSR trace readily demonstrates current flow as would be expected.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 11:26:11 PM
You have "explained" nothing.
More misquoting I see.
The source of Q2 is connected to the negative rail (or CSR) through the function generator.
Not actually picowatt. That's your latest much needed qualification. And you're still wrong. Self evidently. And we will PROVE this. It's a very easy test
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 11:26:11 PMThe gate of Q2 and the source of Q1 are connected to the non-battery end of the CSR and can therefore NEVER be at any potential other than the potential indicated by the CSR trace, which is near ground potential, particularly with respect to DC (below the Vgs required for turn on). When the FG output is a positive voltage, a positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 and Q1 turns on (except as noted in your FIG 3 where the Q1 is not functioning). Q2 is off during this phase.
And here your sense is lost in all that 'hand waving'. IF the function generator is NOT functioning - as you put it - then NOR does it function in TK's Tar Baby REPLICATION. Which both he and we can manage without even using the function generator. Explain THAT if you dare.
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 11:26:11 PMWhen the FG output is a negative voltage, a negative voltage (i.e., more negative than the batt-) is applied to the source of Q2 and a DC current flows through Q2 and the function generator to the CSR (or batt- if that is where the FG common is connected, as in the March video). Q1 is off during this phase.
NOT actually. When the negative voltage is applied to Q1 - then the positive is applied to Q2 - WHICH WE WILL DEMONSTRATE. And the battery supply can be negative 72 volts. Therefore is it NOT 'more negative than the batt negative'.
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2012, 11:26:11 PMThe DC current flow thru Q2, that is, Ibias, is limited to around 200ma plus or minus 50ma or so by the action of the applied negative voltage from the FG, the Rgen=50R, and the turn on voltage of Q2, which biases Q2 into a linear region of operation.
Then you will need to argue how we read a negative voltage that varies between 4 amps and upwards. And how it is that Poynty cannot simulate the oscillation with 50 Ohms resistance from the function generator. Among many OTHER glaring contradictions to this 'argument' - if such it is?
Rosie Posie
Quote from: MileHigh on May 07, 2012, 12:05:47 AM
PW:
Thanks for that information. My guess is that you are a very senior or retired analog/RF engineer with a vast amount of knowledge and experience under your belt. The breadth of your experience probably spans the 60s through the 2000s. And of course if you worked during the 60s that means your experience actually encompasses the technology of the 40s and 50s. Therefore you have upwards of 70 years worth of tech experience under your belt. Pretty awesome.
MileHigh
MH,
Thanks for all that, but I am still learning. I cut my teeth on tubes. When I was a child, my mother used to have to catch me at the door on trash days as I brought all manner of old radios and TV's home with my red wagon. Eventually she would make me pull parts on the sidewalk and take the chassis back from whence they came. But ma, there's still a bunch of good parts...
And yeah, I'm gettin' old...
PW
Rosie Posie:
PW is absolutely right about your circuit operation and you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.
That's just the way it is. Please read over his points and look at your schematic and try to understand what is going on. Print out his comments and your schematic and spend an afternoon trying to understand, or go see one of your experts or something.
If you can't get over this hurdle to understand how your circuit works then there is no hope for you, your circuit, and your future experiments. It will all be a waste if you don't understand how the circuit actually works.
MileHigh
LOL MileHigh, as ever, your transparency is that guileless it's endearing.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 07, 2012, 12:05:47 AM
PW:
Thanks for that information. My guess is that you are a very senior or retired analog/RF engineer with a vast amount of knowledge and experience under your belt. The breadth of your experience probably spans the 60s through the 2000s. And of course if you worked during the 60s that means your experience actually encompasses the technology of the 40s and 50s. Therefore you have upwards of 70 years worth of tech experience under your belt. Pretty awesome.
MileHigh
That makes picowatt even older than ME. And by my reckoning NO-ONE is older than me. But I could add a few. Spin the spin. I suppose. Therefore, here's my best shot. Since my experience encompasses the greats - all the way back to Isaac Newton - and even Galileo then that makes me VASTLY more antiquated. Hopefully not less relevant.
Rosie Pose
;D
Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:12:10 AM
MH,
Thanks for all that, but I am still learning. I cut my teeth on tubes. When I was a child, my mother used to have to catch me at the door on trash days as I brought all manner of old radios and TV's home with my red wagon. Eventually she would make me pull parts on the sidewalk and take the chassis back from whence they came. But ma, there's still a bunch of good parts...
And yeah, I'm gettin' old...
PW
Dear God, spare us from these self declared geniuses. Between you and TK it's tedious. Show us your credentials picowatt. That would be of interest. Thankfully I have nothing more than a functional intelligence - and it's more than enough to see through this rather sad exercise in self- promotion. And MileHigh - the ONLY true genius amongst the four of you - is possibly yourself. You've managed a perpetual state of denial in spite of the evidence. And that takes the hard application of a CONSIDERABLE imagination. And it's the scope of one's imagination that determines that IQ.
Rosie Posie
You know Rosemary I don't know what to make of that last posting of yours. Spin what? Transparency about what? Here I feel about as clueless as you normally do.
If you read something untoward into a sincere compliment and you can't sense that it was simple and genuine, then I am glad that I don't live in your world.
PW:
This gentleman repairs old radios from the 1920s and 30s. He also does some basic educational clips about electronics. You might really enjoy his clips:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 12:09:16 AM
Not actually picowatt. That's your latest much needed qualification. And you're still wrong. Self evidently. And we will PROVE this. It's a very easy test
And here your sense is lost in all that 'hand waving'. IF the function generator is NOT functioning - as you put it - then NOR does it function in TK's Tar Baby REPLICATION. Which both he and we can manage without even using the function generator. Explain THAT if you dare.
NOT actually. When the negative voltage is applied to Q1 - then the positive is applied to Q2 - WHICH WE WILL DEMONSTRATE. And the battery supply can be negative 72 volts. Therefore is it NOT 'more negative than the batt negative'.
Then you will need to argue how we read a negative voltage that varies between 4 amps and upwards. And how it is that Poynty cannot simulate the oscillation with 50 Ohms resistance from the function generator. Among many OTHER glaring contradictions to this 'argument' - if such it is?
Rosie Posie
Well then, what's the beef?
Although your circuit and TK's are connected similarly as in the first paper's schematic, both utilizing essentially similar components, both producing esentially similar oscillations and waveshapes, and both capable of producing a negative mean power measurement, obviously the similarity ends there.
TK's circuit operates as one would expect based on standard electronic theory and demonstrates measurements that are predicted, simulated, and empirically confirmed. Yours apparently, must operate based on anything but standard electronics.
TK's Q2 can only be turned on by making the source of Q2 more negative than the batt- and then readily demonstrates the bias current flowing thru the FG necessary to bias Q2 into linear operation. Your circuit must use a magical function generator wherein this does not occur and Q2 forms an oscillator without a required bias path to the batt-.
TK's Q1 always turns on if a positive voltage is applied to its gate, and current flow is noted at the CSR when Q1 is turned on. TK would have to disconnect Q1 or damage it for there to be a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and not have current flow indicated at the CSR. In your circuit, Q1 does not necessarily have to turn on when a positive voltage is applied to its gate, possibly it is dependent on moon phase.
So, with all these critical differences between your two circuits, I do not understand why you waste your time here discusing TK's circuit. His apparently follows standard theory, and yours apparently does not.
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on May 07, 2012, 12:27:39 AM
PW:
This gentleman repairs old radios from the 1920s and 30s. He also does some basic educational clips about electronics. You might really enjoy his clips:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio
MileHigh
MH,
Some of those old radios look more familiar than I care to admit! I am indeed gettin' old.
I took a kid to a flea market a few years back and he saw an old upright console radio. He was looking at the back of it and asked me what all the light bulbs were for. I thought someone possibly converted it to an ornamental piece and put light bulbs in the back, but when I walked over and looked I had to laugh, they were the radio's tubes, which he had never seen before. That was good for an hour's discussion.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
TK's circuit operates as one would expect based on standard electronic theory and demonstrates measurements that are predicted, simulated, and empirically confirmed. Yours apparently, must operate based on anything but standard electronics.
WHAT is standard about a measured negative wattage? I have not seen this question addressed anywhere at all - certainly NOT by mainstream. That TK manages a negative wattage with the ease at which we do - simply endorses that claim.
Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AMTK's Q2 can only be turned on by making the source of Q2 more negative than the batt - and then readily demonstrates the bias current flowing thru the FG necessary to bias Q2 into linear operation. Your circuit must use a magical function generator wherein this does not occur and Q2 forms an oscillator without a required bias path to the batt-.
Not actually. TK demonstrates that the 'bias current'... at the source leg of Q2 is LESS negative than the battery negative - is the first OBVIOUS error. But you're right. So does ours. The negative at the source leg is INVARIABLY less than the negative at the supply source. Which makes this argument absurdly inappropriate. And guys, for those of you who read here - NOTA BENE. The ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected.
Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AMTK's Q1 always turns on if a positive voltage is applied to its gate, and current flow is noted at the CSR when Q1 is turned on. TK would have to disconnect Q1 or damage it for there to be a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and not have current flow indicated at the CSR. In your circuit, Q1 does not necessarily have to turn on when a positive voltage is applied to its gate, possibly it is dependent on moon phase.
Not the phase of the moon so much picowatt. But that's an interesting proposal. Our findings are precisely in line with the evidence. When Q1 is positive - then Q2 is negative. And when Q1 is negative - then Q2 is positive. You seem to think that this is impossible. Strangely. But you are, as ever, entitled to your 'beliefs'. We - on the other hand - deal with the evidence.
Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AMSo, with all these critical differences between your two circuits, I do not understand why you waste your time here discusing TK's circuit. His apparently follows standard theory, and yours apparently does not.
I am not interested in TK's circuit. I am only interested in denying TK's allegations as they relate to OUR circuit.
Rosie Pose
I think it's pretty funny that I can be put down for not using the "right" mosfets in the beginning.... and then when I clearly show that the negative power product can be obtained with IRF830s too.... then suddenly "any mosfet" that has a "diode" will do and Ainslie claims that she has never claimed that the PG50 is actually necessary.
How do you like them apples, PW? You could have just grabbed some random mosfets out of your bench stock, even 540s would work. No need to pay exorbitant Chinese prices for magic mosfets or wait for that slow boat to pull up to the dock in Kansas City.
How many pages of Ainslie-piles have we had this time, since Stefan asked her AGAIN to put up or shut up? How many insulting, lying posts without any hint of proof of her claims? How many idiotic misquotes and misinterpretations of the posts of others? How many refusals to correct her errors? Pages and pages, I've lost count.
And now we have her continuing to claim that a positive 12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 won't turn it on, or somehow does turn it on but its current bypasses the CVR so it doesn't show up.
This is actually clear evidence that she can't interpret her own scope traces, much less mine with no numbers in boxes. She doesn't even acknowledge the issue: why is there no current shown on those particular scopeshots, when there clearly IS in others with the same gate drive voltage? Just like the math errors she's made and refuses to correct... she does not even understand how wrong she is or just where the error lies.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 01:03:07 AM
WHAT is standard about a measured negative wattage? I have not seen this question addressed anywhere at all - certainly NOT by mainstream. That TK manages a negative wattage with the ease at which we do - simply endorses that claim.
You lie, you idiot. Reams have been written about how to avoid making this elementary FULLY UNDERSTOOD mistake in power measurement, and if you could only READ you would find this out. STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS include decoupling capacitors to avoid making just the kind of errors you continue to make.
Quote
Not actually. TK demonstrates that the 'bias current'... at the source leg of Q2 is LESS negative than the battery negative - is the first OBVIOUS error. But you're right. So does ours. The negative at the source leg is INVARIABLY less than the negative at the supply source. Which makes this argument absurdly inappropriate.
Now you are really outdoing yourself. What does this all mean? You have no idea what I've demonstrated, that's for sure. But nevertheless it seems that you manage to contradict yourself again.
QuoteAnd guys, for those of you who read here - NOTA BENE. The ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected.
Another word salad. Q2 less than the battery supply. What does this mean? Go ahead, Ainslie... show us how you make oscillations WITHOUT USING AN EXTERNAL SUPPLY. You cannot... not without doing it like I do. PROVE ME WRONG, you empty sack of hot air.
Quote
Not the phase of the moon so much picowatt. But that's an interesting proposal. Our findings are precisely in line with the evidence. When Q1 is positive - then Q2 is negative. And when Q1 is negative - then Q2 is positive. You seem to think that this is impossible. Strangely. But you are, as ever, entitled to your 'beliefs'. We - on the other hand - deal with the evidence.
That's not what he or anybody else thinks. You are again LYING deliberately to "spin" what you fear the most: the truth.
Quote
I am not interested in TK's circuit. I am only interested in denying TK's allegations as they relate to OUR circuit.
Rosie Pose
Get lost, Poser. Prove your claims with tests, like Stefan has asked you to, or shut up. You clearly have accepted that my circuit makes the same "proof" of "overunity" measurements that yours does. So you have nothing more to say here until you can PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
Once again, Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects, and is ready NOW to prove it in side-by-side or even remote testing. Where are your refutations of MY assertions? You are full of words and nothing more.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 01:03:07 AM
WHAT is standard about a measured negative wattage? I have not seen this question addressed anywhere at all - certainly NOT by mainstream. That TK manages a negative wattage with the ease at which we do - simply endorses that claim.
Not actually. TK demonstrates that the 'bias current'... at the source leg of Q2 is LESS negative than the battery negative - is the first OBVIOUS error. But you're right. So does ours. The negative at the source leg is INVARIABLY less than the negative at the supply source. Which makes this argument absurdly inappropriate. And guys, for those of you who read here - NOTA BENE. The ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected.
Not the phase of the moon so much picowatt. But that's an interesting proposal. Our findings are precisely in line with the evidence. When Q1 is positive - then Q2 is negative. And when Q1 is negative - then Q2 is positive. You seem to think that this is impossible. Strangely. But you are, as ever, entitled to your 'beliefs'. We - on the other hand - deal with the evidence.
I am not interested in TK's circuit. I am only interested in denying TK's allegations as they relate to OUR circuit.
Rosie Pose
My favorite chuckle was "the ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected". I assume by "source at Q2" you mean as I do, that the source leg of Q2 must be made more negative than the batt- to turn on.
The FG is connected to the source of Q2 and the 'scope traces for the FG output clearly demonstrate that the source of Q2 is being pulled negative, that is, less than the batt- voltage. And the battery supply need not be disconnected for this to occur.
Thanks for the chuckle,
PW
This is truly astounding. After reading over Ainslie's last few thrashing and flailing posts, I can see clearly that she doesn't even realize that the bias supply must be _negative_... .that when the function generator's minus lead is connected to the battery negative pole, the _POSITIVE_ lead of the FG must wind up reading MORE NEGATIVE than that for the oscillations to happen. She can't even use a simple voltmeter to see this and she cannot possibly understand how I have FOR WEEKS been making the oscillations using a battery or power supply instead of the FG to do this.
She's sitting there with no apparatus and no test equipment and no electronics skills and from her posts it's evident that she has no clue at all. It's really too bad that she SIMPLY WON'T EVEN MEASURE HER DEVICE WITH A SIMPLE VOLTMETER because if she did she might learn something.
Come on, Ainslie. Make your oscillations without using a FG or an external power supply. I've done it... can't you, Little Miss Mosfet expert? Several different ways, in fact. What's so hard, since you know everything? Just DO IT. Make some oscillations using the main batteries alone, any way you like.
Oh that's right, sorry.... you can't do anything without two academics on board, and then there's my NERD Preventer.... that's still got you all tied up in "nots".
And again, the source leg of Q1 and the gate of Q2 are connected to the non-battery end of the CSR. Therefore, the source leg of Q1 and the gate of Q2 can never be any other voltage than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR. I do not know how anyone can refute this statement. Look at the schematic.
PW
ADDED:
The function generator signal ground is also tied to the non-battery end of the CSR, therefore the FG signal common can also never be any voltage other than that of the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR (or the batt- if the FG sig. com is tied to batt- instead). The FG output will either be positive with respect to the CSR or negative with respect to the CSR. The FG's signal common voltage does not change, it is tied to the CSR (or batt-).
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 01:36:04 AM
This is truly astounding. After reading over Ainslie's last few thrashing and flailing posts, I can see clearly that she doesn't even realize that the bias supply must be _negative_... .that when the function generator's minus lead is connected to the battery negative pole, the _POSITIVE_ lead of the FG must wind up reading MORE NEGATIVE than that for the oscillations to happen. She can't even use a simple voltmeter to see this and she cannot possibly understand how I have FOR WEEKS been making the oscillations using a battery or power supply instead of the FG to do this.
She's sitting there with no apparatus and no test equipment and no electronics skills and from her posts it's evident that she has no clue at all. It's really too bad that she SIMPLY WON'T EVEN MEASURE HER DEVICE WITH A SIMPLE VOLTMETER because if she did she might learn something.
Come on, Ainslie. Make your oscillations without using a FG or an external power supply. I've done it... can't you, Little Miss Mosfet expert? Several different ways, in fact. What's so hard, since you know everything? Just DO IT. Make some oscillations using the main batteries alone, any way you like.
Oh that's right, sorry.... you can't do anything without two academics on board, and then there's my NERD Preventer.... that's still got you all tied up in "nots".
TK,
That is what I meant when I said I did not believe she understood an FG is bipolar and that she was speaking in terms of absolute and not relative voltage. She apparently believes that somehow the FG is applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2 causing it to turn on.
All the discussions regarding current flow thru the FG were for nought as the concept of the Q2 source needing to be less negative than batt- was not even understood. Good luck making the circuit oscillate without pulling Q2's source negative wrt the batt-.
Why on earth did you go to all that trouble to bulid the inverting charge pump?
PW
I mean.... if you asked Ainslie to explain in simple words the differences between these two scope shots... what would she say? Of course she would never deign to "teach" us by explaining these shots... But it is curious that the positive gate signal in one shot results in a lot of current in the CVR.... and the positive gate signal of the same magnitude or perhaps even a bit more, in the other shot... does not.
Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 01:45:07 AM
TK,
That is what I meant when I said I did not believe she understood an FG is bipolar and that she was speaking in terms of absolute and not relative voltage. She apparently believes that somehow the FG is applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2 causing it to turn on.
All the discussions regarding current flow thru the FG were for nought as the concept of the Q2 source needing to be less negative than batt- was not even understood. Good luck making the circuit oscillate without pulling Q2's source negative wrt the batt-.
Why on earth did you go to all that trouble to bulid the inverting charge pump?
PW
The inverter was so that the oscillations could be produced without using any external bias supply. Using the inverter powered by the lowest battery in the stack, I get that -12 volts wrt the main battery "zero" that is needed for the oscillations. The basic circuit I built can't really supply the current needed to get to 200 mA without heating up the 555 to instability, as you "hinted" some time ago, of course, but it works as a proof of concept, makes the oscillations without a separate supply of any kind, and can even be used to power the "upside down" 555 timer to make pulsating negative bias drive with oscillations. None of the methods I've used so far can make the bipolar pulse needed to produce the oscs on the "off" part and the high current on the "on" part as shown in Fig5 though... that will need a better charge pump and an op-amp offset stage, I think. There is no difficulty whatsoever if a floating external bias supply can be used-- it's only when the bias must be run off the main battery that the issue of "more negative than the negative rail" becomes a difficulty.
TK,
I have enjoyed the technical discussions on this thread with you, MH, .99, GL, Mags and all others who have some technical background or desire to learn. The "circular arguments", not so much.
I have some client work to get busy with for the next ten days or so.
I'll check in when time allows to see how it is all going.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 02:00:36 AM
The inverter was so that the oscillations could be produced without using any external bias supply. Using the inverter powered by the lowest battery in the stack, I get that -12 volts wrt the main battery "zero" that is needed for the oscillations. The basic circuit I built can't really supply the current needed to get to 200 mA without heating up the 555 to instability, as you "hinted" some time ago, of course, but it works as a proof of concept, makes the oscillations without a separate supply of any kind, and can even be used to power the "upside down" 555 timer to make pulsating negative bias drive with oscillations. None of the methods I've used so far can make the bipolar pulse needed to produce the oscs on the "off" part and the high current on the "on" part as shown in Fig5 though... that will need a better charge pump and an op-amp offset stage, I think. There is no difficulty whatsoever if a floating external bias supply can be used-- it's only when the bias must be run off the main battery that the issue of "more negative than the negative rail" comes up.
TK,
Surely you know I intended sarcasm with the "why did you build the inverting charge pump" remark.
Possibly you should just consider an additional battery in the battery string, using the additional battery as a negative voltage source. You could tap the first battery above ground for +12 volts and you would then have plus and minus 12 volts to work with. You could run a 555 off the ground and -12 supply and run the output to an NPN (or another MOSFET) with the emitter (or source) tied to -12volts. A pullup resistor of 10K or so can be connected between the collector (drain) and the +12 volt supply tap. Use either 50R from the collector (drain) to the Q2 source and Q1 gate. You can vary the 50R for your Q2 bias point and Q1 will always be fully on. All bias current will flow thru the NPN (or MOSFET) so heat will be less of an issue wrt the 555. Turn on/off will be a it slow with the 10K or so pullup but at the long cycle times, probably not an issue. A lower value pullup will speed things up but at the expense of increased quiescent current.
You could use a similar supply scheme as above and make an astable out of an opamp. Pick an opamp that can handle the plus/minus 12 volt supply (555 can't). You can use low power duals or quads and use the last opamp stage with a NPN/PNP output buffer to handle the current and keep rise/fall times fast.
You can do the same things with your inverting charge pump for the minus supply, and if your 555 circuit almost makes enough current, you can always parallel a pair. I would stay with individual 555's as opposed to a 556 dual though as heat will be an issue.
Just a few thoughts,
PW
All that 'spin'. LOL.
I've just read through the last 10 posts or so in answer to my one. It seems I must put out 10 times the effort - when - in FACT - I only need the occasional post. Thank you God.
picowatt - Leon - FTC - ALL - you're wasting your time. I'll disprove EVERYTHING that you claim is conclusive. And - to boot - it's EASY to disprove. That last video by TK's is a PRICELESS effort at misdirection. He claims that there is a current flow from the function generator. He therefore replaces the battery supply with a rechargeable CAPACITOR - and lo and behold. The oscillations DIE. And what does he claim? That the the function generator IS supplying energy. IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE. Self-evidently. It's all spin and heavy applications of too much tar. And it relies on the utter stupidity of all the readers here.
He's the only guy that I know who can claim a DISPROOF - through the circuitous route of demonstrating its PROOF. And the joke is this. They all aver that I've 'missed the point'. Just watch the next 10 posts or thereby. LOL. Long may that last. Fortunately our readers are NOT the idiots that they - that gang of vigilantes - hopes.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 02:28:46 AM
All that 'spin'. LOL.
I've just read through the last 10 posts or so in answer to my one. It seems I must put out 10 times the effort - when - in FACT - I only need the occasional post. Thank you God.
picowatt - Leon - FTC - ALL - you're wasting your time. I'll disprove EVERYTHING that you claim is conclusive. And - to boot - it's EASY to disprove. That last video by TK's is a PRICELESS effort at misdirection. He claims that there is a current flow from the function generator. He therefore replaces the battery supply with a rechargeable CAPACITOR - and lo and behold. The oscillations DIE. And what does he claim? That the the function generator IS supplying energy. IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE. Self-evidently. It's all spin and heavy applications of too much tar. And it relies on the utter stupidity of all the readers here.
He's the only guy that I know who can claim a DISPROOF - through the circuitous route of demonstrating its PROOF. And the joke is this. They all aver that I've 'missed the point'. Just watch the next 10 posts or thereby. LOL. Long may that last. Fortunately our readers are NOT the idiots that they - that gang of vigilantes - hopes.
Rosie Pose.
What the hell are you talking about? THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED IN THAT VIDEO.
NOR HAS THERE BEEN IN ANY OF THE TAR BABY TESTS FOR MANY DAYS.
The capacitor REPLACES the energy supplied by a function generator IF IT WERE THERE. Since the capacitor runs down THE CIRCUIT IS DRAWING POWER FROM IT.
Do you have something wrong with your comprehension? You really should learn to pay attention.
THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR to keep the capacitor charged. The capacitor DISCHARGES because it is supplying the BIAS CURRENT that is needed for operation.
SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY or shut up. Your words have no value or credibility. SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT doing something differently than TAR BABY. You cannot.
Once again, Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects INCLUDING THIS CAPACITOR TEST and is ready NOW to prove it, side by side or remotely. Your bluff has been called, Ainslie, it's time to lay your cards on the table and PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
Like our host has asked you to, several times, many pages ago.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 02:28:46 AM
All that 'spin'. LOL.
I've just read through the last 10 posts or so in answer to my one. It seems I must put out 10 times the effort - when - in FACT - I only need the occasional post. Thank you God.
picowatt - Leon - FTC - ALL - you're wasting your time. I'll disprove EVERYTHING that you claim is conclusive. And - to boot - it's EASY to disprove. That last video by TK's is a PRICELESS effort at misdirection. He claims that there is a current flow from the function generator. He therefore replaces the battery supply with a rechargeable CAPACITOR - and lo and behold. The oscillations DIE. And what does he claim? That the the function generator IS supplying energy. IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE. Self-evidently. It's all spin and heavy applications of too much tar. And it relies on the utter stupidity of all the readers here.
He's the only guy that I know who can claim a DISPROOF - through the circuitous route of demonstrating its PROOF. And the joke is this. They all aver that I've 'missed the point'. Just watch the next 10 posts or thereby. LOL. Long may that last. Fortunately our readers are NOT the idiots that they - that gang of vigilantes - hopes.
Rosie Pose.
I do not think the readers are idiots, quite the contrary, I am sure they are all quite smart enough to see the truth and understand the electronics discussed.
I make an effort to ensure that all my technically related posts are clear, concise, and accurate, so that they can be understood by most.
LOL back at ya',
PW
Rosemary:
QuoteThat last video by TK's is a PRICELESS effort at misdirection. He claims that there is a current flow from the function generator. He therefore replaces the battery supply with a rechargeable CAPACITOR - and lo and behold. The oscillations DIE. And what does he claim? That the the function generator IS supplying energy. IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE. Self-evidently.
At this point you are just a hopeless hapless nit-wit. You are talking to very knowledgeable people here and you are simply too stupid to have the good sense to listen to what they are saying and try to learn something.
QuoteIF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE. Self-evidently.
Self-evidently NOT. Another "mind tied to your behind" incorrect ASSUMPTION from you.
The capacitor is emulating the function generator. Therefore if the capacitor discharges it is outputting energy - ergo the function generator outputs energy.
i.e.;
IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would DISCHARGE. Self-evidently.Since the CAP is DISCHARGING - then the function generator IS supplying energy. Self-evidently.You are simply hopeless Rosemary. You don't stand a chance if you run another round of tests by yourself. It's going to be a train wreck.
MileHigh
My dear Leon,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 02:45:41 AM
What the hell are you talking about? THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED IN THAT VIDEO.
NOR HAS THERE BEEN IN ANY OF THE TAR BABY TESTS FOR MANY DAYS.
The capacitor REPLACES the energy supplied by a function generator IF IT WERE THERE. Since the capacitor runs down THE CIRCUIT IS DRAWING POWER FROM IT.
Do you have something wrong with your comprehension? You really should learn to pay attention.
THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR to keep the capacitor charged. The capacitor DISCHARGES because it is supplying the BIAS CURRENT that is needed for operation.
SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY or shut up. Your words have no value or credibility. SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT doing something differently than TAR BABY. You cannot.
Once again, Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects INCLUDING THIS CAPACITOR TEST and is ready NOW to prove it, side by side or remotely. Your bluff has been called, Ainslie, it's time to lay your cards on the table and PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
Like our host has asked you to, several times, many pages ago.
You have a function generator in series with a regulated power supply. You have a capacitor in parallel to the that regulated power supply. You then DISCONNECT the regulated power supply. The only other POSSIBLE source of energy is from the function generator. IF the function generator was supplying energy to the circuit then it would REPLENISH the cap and the cap would NOT discharge. Since the oscillations DESIST then there is self-evidently NO CURRENT FLOW from the function generator.
Rosie Pose.
In FACT - now that I see that blocking diode at the function generator - you've actually disconnected the circuit from ANY supply at all. Which makes the ENTIRE test somewhat absurd.
Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 02:23:09 AM
TK,
Surely you know I intended sarcasm with the "why did you build the inverting charge pump" remark.
Possibly you should just consider an additional battery in the battery string, using the additional battery as a negative voltage source. You could tap the first battery above ground for +12 volts and you would then have plus and minus 12 volts to work with. You could run a 555 off the ground and -12 supply and run the output to an NPN (or another MOSFET) with the emitter (or source) tied to -12volts. A pullup resistor of 10K or so can be connected between the collector (drain) and the +12 volt supply tap. Use either 50R from the collector (drain) to the Q2 source and Q1 gate. You can vary the 50R for your Q2 bias point and Q1 will always be fully on. All bias current will flow thru the NPN (or MOSFET) so heat will be less of an issue wrt the 555. Turn on/off will be a it slow with the 10K or so pullup but at the long cycle times, probably not an issue. A lower value pullup will speed things up but at the expense of increased quiescent current.
You could use a similar supply scheme as above and make an astable out of an opamp. Pick an opamp that can handle the plus/minus 12 volt supply (555 can't). You can use low power duals or quads and use the last opamp stage with a NPN/PNP output buffer to handle the current and keep rise/fall times fast.
You can do the same things with your inverting charge pump for the minus supply, and if your 555 circuit almost makes enough current, you can always parallel a pair. I would stay with individual 555's as opposed to a 556 dual though as heat will be an issue.
Just a few thoughts,
PW
Yes, I got that, and I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to explain again, but clearly the concepts are too abstract for YKW.
Putting another battery in the string is essentially what happens when I use any external bias source. The 9volt battery for example. The Bias source is only separated from being in strict series with the main battery's negative pole by the 0.25 ohm CVR... which is negligible compared to the equivalent series resistance of the battery itself, I should think. So really, any negative bias source acts as if it were another battery in the string, attached with its positive pole to the main battery's negative pole. (Through that quarter-ohm of course.)
But that's too easy and it would seem that the extra bias battery has no way at all of experiencing the "ainslie effect" so that it stays charged up. That's why we would like to run strictly on the main batteries alone, if we are to have any hope of powering our black Buick's inertialess drive with the Ainslie effect. Can't have batteries going dead in the middle of a suppression operation, now can we.
But I'll probably wind up doing it just as you say. I like using 2n2222as in the little metal cans, they are so "transistor" like. Or even 2n7000 mosfets, I have a handful of them, but they don't look as cool as the 2n2222as.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 02:59:00 AM
My dear Leon,
You have a function generator in series with a regulated power supply. You have a capacitor in parallel to the that regulated power supply. You then DISCONNECT the regulated power supply. The only other POSSIBLE source of energy is from the function generator. IF the function generator was supplying energy to the circuit then it would REPLENISH the cap and the cap would NOT discharge. Since the oscillations DESIST then there is self-evidently NO CURRENT FLOW from the function generator.
Rosie Pose.
Look carefully. THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR IN THAT VIDEO.
NONE.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
NO FUNCTION GENERATOR IS HOOKED UP ANYWHERE IN THAT CIRCUIT AT ALL.
Quote
You have a function generator in series with a regulated power supply.
NO I DO NOT. THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED ANYWHERE IN THAT VIDEO.
What is the matter with you?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 03:10:10 AM
Look carefully. THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR IN THAT VIDEO.
NONE.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
NO FUNCTION GENERATOR IS HOOKED UP ANYWHERE IN THAT CIRCUIT AT ALL.NO I DO NOT. THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED ANYWHERE IN THAT VIDEO.
What is the matter with you?
If the schematic you posted is NOT what you have demonstrated then - TYPICALLY - you have omitted a schematic.
You need to give us your schematic. Your circuits are simply a MESS of wires.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 03:01:29 AM
Yes, I got that, and I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to explain again, but clearly the concepts are too abstract for YKW.
Putting another battery in the string is essentially what happens when I use any external bias source. The 9volt battery for example. The Bias source is only separated from being in strict series with the main battery's negative pole by the 0.25 ohm CVR... which is negligible compared to the equivalent series resistance of the battery itself, I should think. So really, any negative bias source acts as if it were another battery in the string, attached with its positive pole to the main battery's negative pole. (Through that quarter-ohm of course.)
But that's too easy and it would seem that the extra bias battery has no way at all of experiencing the "ainslie effect" so that it stays charged up. That's why we would like to run strictly on the main batteries alone, if we are to have any hope of powering our black Buick's inertialess drive with the Ainslie effect. Can't have batteries going dead in the middle of a suppression operation, now can we.
But I'll probably wind up doing it just as you say. I like using 2n2222as in the little metal cans, they are so "transistor" like. Or even 2n7000 mosfets, I have a handful of them, but they don't look as cool as the 2n2222as.
Always loved a pretty TO39 myself. Maybe connect a pair of your inverters with diodes for more current.
PW
Here is the post from PAGES BACK where I first posted the diagram explaining the capacitor test. The points marked FG+ and FG- ARE THE POINTS ON THE CIRCUIT WHERE THE FG NORMALLY CONNECTS. I refer to these points this way... to avoid confusion... and everyone except AINSLIE seems to understand this.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PM
You said it, Fuzzy. She's up to her scraggly braids in contradictions and mendacity.
Let her have her own moderated thread with her as mod. I'd love to see it. It will be a hoot and a half _at least_.
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker...
As you all know I've been using a potentiometer/series resistor to interface whatever negative bias supply I'm using to the Tar Baby's FG+ and FG- connection points. Well... the cheap 1 megohm pot that I have been using is fried anyway and has to be turned all the way to the stop. So I've improved that system and unless otherwise noted I'll be using the pot/resistor scheme shown in the diagram below. It gives good adjustment with a supply of 6-9 volts. The CAPACITOR shown is what I used for my latest test video -- an unscheduled test, but we managed to fit it in anyway --, showing Tar Baby running on the capactor for its bias source... for a few seconds anyway. Clearly, though, the capacitor IS putting energy into the circuit and IS NOT being in any sense recharged or prevented from putting its power into the circuit.
This video is being processed and uploaded now. It should be available in half an hour or so. Meanwhile here's the schematic for the new potentiometer arrangement. The CAP is only there for this demo and whatever power source you like can be substituted for the Elenco precision regulated PS.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 03:14:54 AM
If the schematic you posted is NOT what you have demonstrated then - TYPICALLY - you have omitted a schematic.
You need to give us your schematic. Your circuits are simply a MESS of wires.
Rosie Pose
YOU LIAR. MY SCHEMATICS ARE KNOWN AND POSTED EXACTLY.
YOURS ARE NOT. I can link at least FOUR different schematics from your CURRENT POSTS that at one time or another you have claimed to use. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO READ a schematic, you liar.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 03:14:54 AM
If the schematic you posted is NOT what you have demonstrated then - TYPICALLY - you have omitted a schematic.
You need to give us your schematic. Your circuits are simply a MESS of wires.
Rosie Pose
YOU LIAR.
Anyone who WATCHES THE VIDEO can see that there is NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED.
I have had enough of this crap. Ainslie, you are pathetic. You cannot even see or understand what is put in front of you at a level that a ten-year-old child could grasp. WHAT PART OF NO FUNCTION GENERATOR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
But more importantly... since there is NO FUNCTION GENERATOR and this is clear to everybody but you, you idiot... what does that do to your pathetic argument based on your idiotic assumption that there is a FG even when the narration and the diagram and the video show clearly that there IS NOT ANY FUNCTION GENERATOR USED?
Mess of wires? Lacking color coding? SCHEMATICS???
You are insane. That is the only explanation.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 03:25:27 AM
YOU LIAR.
Anyone who WATCHES THE VIDEO can see that there is NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED.
I have had enough of this crap. Ainslie, you are pathetic. You cannot even see or understand what is put in front of you at a level that a ten-year-old child could grasp. WHAT PART OF NO FUNCTION GENERATOR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
But more importantly... since there is NO FUNCTION GENERATOR and this is clear to everybody but you, you idiot... what does that do to your pathetic argument based on your idiotic assumption that there is a FG even when the narration and the diagram and the video show clearly that there IS NOT ANY FUNCTION GENERATOR USED?
She's just goading you TK, not worth getting riled up. Everyone else knew exactly what the video demonstrated.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 02:59:00 AM
My dear Leon,
You have a function generator in series with a regulated power supply. You have a capacitor in parallel to the that regulated power supply. You then DISCONNECT the regulated power supply. The only other POSSIBLE source of energy is from the function generator. IF the function generator was supplying energy to the circuit then it would REPLENISH the cap and the cap would NOT discharge. Since the oscillations DESIST then there is self-evidently NO CURRENT FLOW from the function generator.
Rosie Pose.
In FACT - now that I see that blocking diode at the function generator - you've actually disconnected the circuit from ANY supply at all. Which makes the ENTIRE test somewhat absurd.
Rosemary ... Geeeeee Wizzzzzz
TK's YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVdzTn4Iya0
@ time 2:19 TK states .... the function generator
+ (pos) point on the
"BOARD"@ time 2:27 TK states .... the
- (neg) function generator input at the
"BOARD"@ time 2:39 TK states and shows .... the function generator input points on the
"BOARD"THE FUNCTION GENERATOR IS NOT BEING USED AT ALL ONLY THE PC "BOARD" CONNECTION POINTS !!!! :P
ALSO .... for your reference YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwrn1KEGXH8 by Mekatronik100 January 15, 2010
This video shows @ 3:58 ..... a standard "pancake" fan operating with voltage and current supplied "ONLY" from the function generator. ???
:P
QuoteRosie Pose.
In FACT - now that I see that blocking diode at the function generator - you've actually disconnected the circuit from ANY supply at all. Which makes the ENTIRE test somewhat absurd.
You are hallucinating.
Where do you see a "blocking diode" OR a function generator? THERE IS NEITHER.
I cannot believe this. Are we referring to the same video, where I use a big grey capacitor and I show a white piece of paper with a diagram on it?
Ainslie, you are making a solid fool of yourself, right out in public. You really should quit while you are ahead; that last little edit didn't do you any good. Blocking diode? You just make stuff up out of your head.
WHICH MAKES YOUR ENTIRE POST EXTREMELY ABSURD.
Come on Ainslie you ignoramus. Justify your idiotic post.
WHERE DO YOU SEE A FUNCTION GENERATOR OR A BLOCKING DIODE? WHEN WILL YOU WITHDRAW AND RETRACT YOUR IGNORANT CLAIMS?
When will you apologise for filling post after post, page after page, with garbage ignorance like that shining example of a post?
THIS is the level of "analysis" that comes out of your sick mind. You blindly ignore what is being presented to you and you TWIST IT COMPLETELY AROUND in your sick mind and then you LIE about it to YOURSELF and to everybody that you come across. This one takes the cake. You are a MENACE, not just an ordinary liar and fraud. You can't reason your way out of a paper sack, and whenever you encounter anything that's contrary to your precious "thesis" garbage you start lying and distorting reality in a pitiful and ignorant attempt to defend your ego. Keep it up, Ainslie. You are making a laughingstock out of yourself, and the reason you won't ever name your "academics" is because there AREN'T ANY. Nobody with an eighth-grade education would ever fall for your CRAP if they could see beyond your sugar-coating. And sooner or later EVERYBODY who has ever encountered you sees through you to the sick perverted mind that writhes inside your pitiful skull.
Look at this crap you wrote, you ignorant idiot. You can't read a diagram, you can't understand spoken descriptions, you have no IDEA what you are talking about. You don't deserve to be allowed to speak to people who have studied and worked with this material all their lives. If I was a teacher and you came up with this crap in a classroom you would be out on your ear. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PREREQUISITES needed to engage here.
YOU ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT and the following quotation from you PROVES IT once again.... because only an EGOTISTICAL ARROGANT IDIOT with BLINDERS on and EARPLUGS in could possibly come up with such an inane comment as this:
QuoteYou have a function generator in series with a regulated power supply. You have a capacitor in parallel to the that regulated power supply. You then DISCONNECT the regulated power supply. The only other POSSIBLE source of energy is from the function generator. IF the function generator was supplying energy to the circuit then it would REPLENISH the cap and the cap would NOT discharge. Since the oscillations DESIST then there is self-evidently NO CURRENT FLOW from the function generator.
Rosie Pose.
In FACT - now that I see that blocking diode at the function generator - you've actually disconnected the circuit from ANY supply at all. Which makes the ENTIRE test somewhat absurd.
IN FACT YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG. ENTIRELY, and you are beyond absurd. You think I've disconnected the circuit from ANY supply at all.... yet it still runs. Idiot.
And at the same time we have your Figures 3 and 5, which you cannot explain coherently, and we have your ridiculous "math", and we have your constantly growing roster of outright lies, like your denial of the doozydont video post. No, you aren't pathetic.... that emotion is reserved for sentient beings. YOU are something that deserves to be scraped off the bottom of a shoe, because you are DELIBERATELY stupid, and for that there is no respect forthcoming at all, not even enough for pathos.
As it is plainly obvious for anyone to see reading this thread Rosemary has got it completely wrong, not even her (alleged) supporters agree with her.
So despite the overwhelming evidence why is she the only one in denial ?
Superiority complex
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Inferiority-and-Superiority-Complexes-84868.shtml
Delusional disorder
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusional-disorder
QuoteDelusional disorder most often occurs in middle to late life and is slightly more common in women than in men.
QuoteA person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.
Quote from: powercat on May 07, 2012, 10:27:29 AM
Superiority complex
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Inferiority-and-Superiority-Complexes-84868.shtml
Delusional disorder
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusional-disorder
QuoteA person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.
yes, that does sound like tinselkoala/alsetalokin and milehigh... interesting, i see where you are going with this.
Ah yes, the grotesque farting puss-oozing smelly Chet-monster Wilby emerges from yet another culvert to find a wireless hot-spot and some Kleenex.
This ain't no party, this ain't no disco!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfggccwQrcY
It's lucky for him he can't grow a moustache. How would he ever get the smell out of it?
To clarify somewhat the issue of the simulation result with 4 Ohms vs. 50 Ohms as the FG output resistance, I ran the two scenarios for comparison, and the difference is the following:
4 Ohms: peak to peak oscillation is from about 10V to 220V.
50 Ohms: peak to peak oscillation is from about 40V to 120V.
Otherwise the wave forms are pretty much the same. The 50 Ohm scenario has a much more gradual burst envelope, as may be expected.
And I imagine the negative mean power product still appears as usual.
Does your sim model mosfet types individually or does it have just a generic mosfet model that you tweak with the exact part parameters? I'm wondering how hard it would be to run other mosfets and see the negative mean power for comparison purposes. The 2n7000 for example might make a mini-Tar Baby that could be built down into an Altoids box, with actual inductors instead of wire length, and thus be a pocket-sized, on demand, negative power demonstrator. Just pop a nine-volt battery in there, hook it to a soundcard scope program in your laptop, and amaze all your friends at Tupperware parties and church ice cream socials.
I'm serious, how hard is it to compare mosfets in the sim, all the way to the power product and determine the tuned inductance values to make it negative?
Also... is it possible to trick the simulation into modelling the FG as having "infinite" output resistance, since that apparently is what the IsoTech "GFG324" has?
What kind of oscillations do you get if the FG somehow only applies a "voltage" with its pulsations or signal but cannot pass measurable current, or provide or source it, or however one puts it?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 03:06:16 PM
And I imagine the negative mean power product still appears as usual.
Yes, but the negative power with the 50 Ohms is about 1/10th the power compared to using the 4 Ohm.
Quote
Does your sim model mosfet types individually or does it have just a generic mosfet model that you tweak with the exact part parameters?
There are specific models for specific type numbers. I believe there is also a generic model.
Quote
I'm wondering how hard it would be to run other mosfets and see the negative mean power for comparison purposes. The 2n7000 for example might make a mini-Tar Baby that could be built down into an Altoids box, with actual inductors instead of wire length, and thus be a pocket-sized, on demand, negative power demonstrator. Just pop a nine-volt battery in there, hook it to a soundcard scope program in your laptop, and amaze all your friends at Tupperware parties and church ice cream socials.
This would be relatively easy to do. I'm sure we could design a circuit that is compact and low power.
Quote
I'm serious, how hard is it to compare mosfets in the sim, all the way to the power product and determine the tuned inductance values to make it negative?
Not all that difficult.
Quote
Also... is it possible to trick the simulation into modelling the FG as having "infinite" output resistance, since that apparently is what the IsoTech "GFG324" has?
I can place any resistance you want, except an infinite resistance. How about 100G Ohm?
Quote
What kind of oscillations do you get if the FG somehow only applies a "voltage" with its pulsations or signal but cannot pass measurable current, or provide or source it, or however one puts it?
I have not tried it, but I suspect either it will take a very long time for the DC bias to kick in, in which case you'd either have to go full osc mode, or use a very long period, or it will not oscillate at all.
Hi Rosemary.
YOui don´t need expensive equipment to show if the the basic principle
works or not.
Just get a few 9 Volts NiMH rechargable batteries
a used scope from EBay and a few cheap digital multimeters and a few caps.
It will probably cost you less than 200 US$ including the scope...
You just need only to adjust the scope heads for calibration, but that you can do on your own
or let it do somebody from your team who has more electronic knowledge than you.
I guess you should take a break now and concentrate on your measurements with your team.
From your last postings I have seen, that you do not understand, what TK has posted in his
videos and I think you miss just the basic electronic knowledge to follow and understand it.
So just leave him alone and better concentrate on your own measurements.
And as I said, it is only important to show the basic principle which you should
be able also to demonstrate with small cheap batteries, if your design is not flawed
due to measurements errors....
As I said, you don´t need expensive equipment and maybe somebody else in your group
can educate you some more on the right measurement stuff.
Or just again watch all the 20 latest TK videos again and again and
see for yourself if you can make it better in your own circuit.
I don´t want to suppress any technology, but if it is just based on measurement errors
and there is no overunity with your circuit, then it also makes no sense to continue this
whole scenario.
Then you just have an unefficient underunity water heater and the batteries discharge
when using it... nothing more....
So show us, that we are wrong, but just quit ranting about TK´s circuit that you don´t seem to understand....
Regards, Stefan.
OK TK,
I took up your challenge; I've come up with a circuit that operates on 9V (7V to 11V) and uses the 2N7000 MOSFET. Not only that, but I've "improved" on the obtained negative mean power that is computed (when using the LED vs. the 100 Ohm), by a factor of about 4x. ;D
Parts list:
1) 2N7000 (1)
2) 1N4007 (1)
3) 3.3uH inductor (4)
4) 1uF film cap (1)
5) 9V battery (1)
6) 1 Ohm CSR (1)
7) LED or 100 Ohm (1)
8] 30k resistor (10k to 50k) (1)
9) 1N5226 3.3V zener (1)
Schematic and scopes coming...
For now, here is the schematic and one scope shot of the indicated points on the schematic. I'm sure a number of improvements can be made with this design. Also, I've not built this, so some tweaking may be necessary to get it to work for real. This is a simulation.
Total battery power is about 200mW. Negative mean is about -5W. The LED (simulated by 2x 1N4007 diodes) should be fully illuminated.
I will do the power scope shots tomorrow.
Again, here are the parts:
1) 2N7000 (1)
2) 1N4007 (1)
3) 3.3uH inductor (4)
4) 1uF film cap (1)
5) 9V battery (1)
6) 1 Ohm CSR (1)
7) LED or 100 Ohm (1)
8] 30k resistor (10k to 50k) (1)
9) 1N5226 3.3V zener (1)
That is totally cool. I have everything except the Zener and can make up the inductors out of odd stuff, I think, or see what's there tomorrow when I go pick up the right Zener. Thanks for working on it... I'll let you know if the LEDs stay on when I remove the battery... !
;)
Hello Steve,
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
You don´t need expensive equipment to show if the the basic principle works or not.
I'm not sure what you mean. We can't prove the principle without accurate measurements. With inaccurate data we would only be able to speculate on the pricniple. Proof - first and foremost - requires accurate measurements. And at the frequencies of that oscillation we also need broad bandwidth scopes. And that required bandwidth, unfortunately, comes at a price.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMJust get a few 9 Volts NiMH rechargable batteries a used scope from EBay and a few cheap digital multimeters and a few caps.
Then our test standards would be as unreliable as TK's and we'd have proved nothing at all.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMIt will probably cost you less than 200 US$ including the scope...
I agree. But that kind of scope would simply not 'cut it'.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMYou just need only to adjust the scope heads for calibration, but that you can do on your own or let it do somebody from your team who has more electronic knowledge than you.
Everyone on our team knows more about electronics than me. And NONE of them want to waste their time on inaccurate measurements.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMI guess you should take a break now and concentrate on your measurements with your team.
I wish I COULD take a break. You see for yourself how I need to cover my back. I have TK - picowatt, MileHigh, FTC and a few others trying to paint it with 'hot tar'.
continued./...
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMFrom your last postings I have seen, that you do not understand, what TK has posted in his videos and I think you miss just the basic electronic knowledge to follow and understand it.
There is NOTHING ambiguous in this statement...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMMeanwhile here's the schematic for the new potentiometer arrangement. The CAP is only there for this demo and whatever power source you like can be substituted for the Elenco precision regulated PS.
I'll concentrate on these multiple misrepresentations in a follow up post.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMSo just leave him alone and better concentrate on your own measurements.
Is this a conditional requirement that you're imposing here Harti? That I may NOT answer these slanderous posts by TK and picowatt and FTC and a few of their acolytes? Are you ACTIVELY encouraging their 'tarring' with that 'tar brush'?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMAnd as I said, it is only important to show the basic principle which you should be able also to demonstrate with small cheap batteries, if your design is not flawed due to measurements errors....
The only way to prove that there are no measurement errors are to subject that apparatus to a detailed battery draw down tests. And to determine the settings for those draw down tests we - at its least - require accurate settings. We cannot even GET those settings without reliable measurements. And if we were to present a series of videos at the standard that TK has submitted in his efforts to 'debunk' then everyone would also then have good reason to dismiss that evidence as readily as they dismiss TK's evidence.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMAs I said, you don´t need expensive equipment and maybe somebody else in your group can educate you some more on the right measurement stuff.
This is simply not the case. It is not only my collaborators who require good measurement - but science itself. Anything less than accurate data would be a waste of everyone's time. And I would thank you to not borrow TK's and Picowatt's assumption that I need any education in the art of measurement. It was I who had to point out to TK that his best efforts were inadequate. He didn't even factor in impedance. And he took his sample measurements across a series of oscillations that were FAR from representative. And he STILL is not applying impedance. He hasn't even given us the inductance values of his potentiometer that he CLAIMS to have used in the video - nor those wire wound resistors that he CLAIMS to use in that calorimeter of his. And your statement that I need an 'education' falls into the same bracket as the 'tarring' which seems to be your preferred editorial bias. I can PROVE my competence at integrated power analysis. Therefore anyone refuting this is guilty of slander. And for either FTC or TK or picowatt to claim that I need education on basic power measurements is a joke. FTC for one - couldn't do this at all - for the entire duration of those 'replicated' tests he did.
coninued/...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMOr just again watch all the 20 latest TK videos again and again and see for yourself if you can make it better in your own circuit.
Not only CAN we make it better ourselves - we have DONE so. And that test in that final video that you refer to has been COMPREHENSIVELY covered in our paper. TK's CONCLUSIONS related to this are simplistic, inappropriate and inaccurate. WHY then are you recommending it? I'll elaborate in my next post.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMI don´t want to suppress any technology, but if it is just based on measurement errors and there is no overunity with your circuit, then it also makes no sense to continue this whole scenario.
Then you just have an unefficient underunity water heater and the batteries discharge when using it... nothing more....
That's a big IF. There are six of us who stand by these measurements. And 4 of those 6 collaborators are qualified engineers. There are a host of engineers OUTSIDE of our collaboration who have witnessed these results and stand by them. There are at least 2 academic institutions devoted to replicating and getting to grips with the evidence in these experiments. And yet you are somehow convinced by TK's evidence? I would have thought that you'd see through his slander and the need for this before you'd be convinced by anything at all. Had he been courteous, fair minded, reasonable, then indeed one could perhaps have been persuaded by an apparent impartiality. But his tests are inadequate, contradictory, ambiguous, confusing, rendered with dreadful photography under excessively poor lighting - and with NO effort made to validate any single filmed reference made. The most of those videos are associated with 'disgusting' innuendos ... 'making out with a dog'? 'boomp' 'boomp'? Or heavy handed sarcasm? The 'the battery voltage has not dropped... but we all know it has'... number? And 'you know who' will object? Or that ABSURD 'calibration' exercise given as some kind of evidence that his data is valid? And you think this is SCIENCE? Then the use of that ridiculously heavily cladded insulated calorimeter of his - which SOMETIMES shows a change in temperature - but NEVER is this related to time - which can be the only valid reference in the face of all that cladding. And the resistor inside is variously a potentiometer or simply wire wound resistors - and we STILL don't know their inductance. We only know that it is NOT the same as our own resistor. Nor are we given one single stat against the actual battery performance related to that wattage dissipated. And you are CONVINCED by this charade? I would have hoped that you'd see through it. Surely?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMSo show us, that we are wrong, but just quit ranting about TK´s circuit that you don´t seem to understand....
Stefan. Ranting implies an emotional outburst that typically is made under conditions of high passion and it is evident as a rant - precisely because it is a protest that has no reason and no logic. It is also usually tainted by some colourful expletives. Just look at every single post made by TK to me - and you will see what a rant is. I trust that my protests are measured, unemotional logical and that they rely on the marshaling of facts that would not be possible under a state of high emotion. Are you saying that TK may rant BUT I may not even protest? TK may slander me - and picowatt for that matter, and MileHigh and anyone at all. But I may not defend myself in order to protect my good name against that slander? Because such argument will be construed to be a RANT? Therefore you allow TK to attack our work in any slanderous manner he pleases - with an entire disregard of forum guidelines? But I may not, under any circumstances defend our work or my name against that attack? Even if I do so within the constraints of your forum guidelines? And NOTA BENE Steve. The ONLY regular contributors to this thread are TK - picowatt - MileHigh and FTC. If they are representative of your forum members then that's rather 'thin' representation. Were FTC and MileHigh still either on moderation or banned as before you invited them free access to this thread topic - then TK's ONLY support would be picowatt. Did you allow MileHigh and FTC 'free reign' for some editorial purposes that we can only guess at? I must concede your obviously 'desired' consequence. There are now 4 against one. Or, if I were to include you and those rather asinine posts by Powercat and PhiChaster - 7 against one. This certainly seems like a representative majority opinion. But we both know that it's not. It's just that the most of your members won't engage when the players are merely bullies - who are certainly NOT dealing with impartial science - judiciously and seriously presented.
Regards,
Rosie
edited some punctuation.
I just hooked my recently aquired FG directly to an LED and guess what?!?
Yeah, it lit up. Hmmm...
Easy test for RA to see that a FG passes current right? Not sure how that could be argued... ???
Sorry to take up valuable space, just wanted to share that. :)
Imagine that, Rosemary is WRONG AGAIN!
PC
EDIT: Added AGAIN and a glow...
2nd EDIT: This is added to make my post asinine Rosemary: WHERE IS YOUR NEW MATH?
My dear PhiChaser
Try and catch up with the facts. I have NEVER claimed that a function generator does not have current flowing through its probes. I have ONLY claimed that the current from the function generator does not move away from those probes. The current that is INDUCED by the function generator is from its applied voltage at the GATES of the those MOSFETS. It is NOT FROM that function generator as YOU, PICOWATT, MILEHIGH and TK erroneously suppose.
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 08, 2012, 10:50:42 AM
I just hooked my recently aquired FG directly to an LED and guess what?!?
Yeah, it lit up. Hmmm...
Easy test for RA to see that a FG passes current right? Not sure how that could be argued... ???
Sorry to take up valuable space, just wanted to share that. :)
Imagine that, Rosemary is WRONG AGAIN!
PC
EDIT: Added AGAIN and a glow...
2nd EDIT: This is added to make my post asinine Rosemary: WHERE IS YOUR NEW MATH?
And WHAT new math do you keep referring to - in your rather weak efforts at joining in this 'tar Rosemary' thread? We all know you're anxious to 'join in' with what you 'assume' is a majority opinion. In FACT you are sharing a minority opinion with 4 heavy weight OU disclaimants. And that STILL makes you nothing but a bully while they're seasoned anti OU campaigners.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:06:17 AM
My dear PhiChaser
Try and catch up with the facts. I have NEVER claimed that a function generator does not have current flowing through its probes. I have ONLY claimed that the current from the function generator does not move away from those probes. The current that is INDUCED by the function generator is from its applied voltage at the GATES of the those MOSFETS. It is NOT FROM that function generator as YOU, PICOWATT, MILEHIGH and TK erroneously suppose.
And WHAT new math do you keep referring to - in your rather weak efforts at joining in this 'tar Rosemary' thread? We all know you're anxious to 'join in' with what you 'assume' is a majority opinion. In FACT you are sharing a minority opinion with 4 heavy weight OU disclaimants. And that STILL makes you nothing but a bully while they're seasoned anti OU campaigners.
Rosie Pose
You have over the past several months given all readers the impression that you believed a FG cannot pass, sink, or source current. From your thousands upon thousands of ohms comments to implicit denial. I am not sure what you mean by "move away from those probes", and likely most others do not as well, but it does seem some progress is being made by you in accepting that an FG can indeed pass, sink, or source current.
As for the rest:
The gate of Q2, the source of Q1, and the FG signal common are all tied together and connected to the battery negative via the CSR. Therefore, the gate of Q2, the source of Q1, and the FG signal common can only be and will always be at the same voltage, which is the voltage observed at the CSR. Look at the schematic, this is both obvious and irrefutable.
When the FG output is a positive voltage, i.e., a voltage above its signal ground, the gate of Q1 is made positive and Q1 turns on. Current flows thru Q1 and the CSR to the battery negative. Q2 remains off.
When the FG output is a negative voltage, i.e., a voltage below its signal ground, the source of Q2 is made negative with respect to the Q2 gate and Q2 is partially turned on, being biased into a region of linear operation. Current flows thru Q2, the FG, and the CSR to the battery negative. Q1 remains off.
The amount of DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is negative is dependent upon the turn on voltage of Q2, the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, and the FG's internal Rgen of 50 ohms.
Print this out and show it to your experts. No "expert" would disagree with any of the above.
PW
PhiChaser
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
You have over the past several months given all readers the impression that you believed a FG cannot pass, sink, or source current. From your thousands upon thousands of ohms comments to implicit denial. I am not sure what you mean by "move away from those probes", and likely most others do not as well, but it does seem some progress is being made by you in accepting that an FG can indeed pas, sink, or source current.
SHOW ME ONE - JUST ONE POST - WHERE I HAVE STATED THIS? I have ALWAYS KNOWN that current flows in the function generator probes. IF it did not then there would be no VOLTAGE applied at the MOSFET gates. BUT current does NOT pass from the function generator probes to the the circuit. TK and picowatt DEPEND on this argument. Their argument is that current from the function generator passes TO THE CIRCUIT. I have DENIED this. THEN. They have then 'spun' the fact that I am CONFUSED and claim that there is no current flow in the function generator. AND. Because you're basically a bully and because you're trying to get onto the 'team' so to speak - and because you're not that perspicacious - you BOUGHT into their argument. You have, effectively, been duped.
As for the rest:
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 11:51:30 AMThe gate of Q2, the source of Q1, and the FG signal common are all tied together and connected to the battery negative via the CSR. Therefore, the gate of Q2, the source of Q1, and the FG signal common can only be and will always be at the same voltage, which is the voltage observed at the CSR. Look at the schematic, this is both obvious and irrefutable.
IF the argument were irrefutable - then we would not be able to refute it. Since we can - then the argument is NOT irrefutable. We can REFUTE it simply by applying the source of Q2 directly to the negative rail of the battery supply and then the voltage across the CSR will be POSITIVE? HOW then would you explain that?
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 11:51:30 AMWhen the FG output is a positive voltage, i.e., a voltage above its signal ground, the gate of Q1 is made positive and Q1 turns on. Current flows thru Q1 and the CSR to the battery negative. Q2 remains off.
THIS is correct.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 11:51:30 AMWhen the FG output is a negative voltage, i.e., a voltage below its signal ground, the source of Q2 is made more negative than its gate and Q2 is partially turned on, being biased into a region of linear operation. Current flows thru Q2, the FG, and the CSR to the battery negative. Q1 remains off.
THIS is not correct.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 11:51:30 AMThe amount of DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is negative is dependent upon the turn on voltage of Q2, the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, and the FG's internal Rgen of 50 ohms.
This is also NOT correct. It is also disprovable - very easily - by applying the source of Q2 directly to the Source of the supply battery.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 11:51:30 AMPrint this out and show it to your experts. No "expert" would disagree with any of the above.
WHY would I bother? It is nonsense. We'll demonstrate this together with a whole lot of little side tests to refute every single one of TK's 'allegations'. LOL.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:06:17 AM
My dear PhiChaser
Try and catch up with the facts. I have NEVER claimed that a function generator does not have current flowing through its probes. I have ONLY claimed that the current from the function generator does not move away from those probes. The current that is INDUCED by the function generator is from its applied voltage at the GATES of the those MOSFETS. It is NOT FROM that function generator as YOU, PICOWATT, MILEHIGH and TK erroneously suppose.
Yeah, okayyyy... (Facts, LMAO!!!) The current does not move away from the probes? So if I hook a really long wire to the LED it won't work? Er... I'm obviously confused then...
Quote
And WHAT new math do you keep referring to - in your rather weak efforts at joining in this 'tar Rosemary' thread? We all know you're anxious to 'join in' with what you 'assume' is a majority opinion. In FACT you are sharing a minority opinion with 4 heavy weight OU disclaimants. And that STILL makes you nothing but a bully while they're seasoned anti OU campaigners.
Rosie Pose
You're kidding right? The (bad) math referred to has been reposted several times. Your 'results' were badly in error. How many watts in a Joule in an hour in the sunshine Little Miss Mosfet? Do you remember doing those calculations? I'm sure someone can dig them up again...
I will admit I am not qualified to engage in their technical discussions, I TRY to learn from them. And yes, I am anxious to join in because they know more than I do about electronics. That is how I learn, by listening to more educated people on the subject I want to learn. If you feel like I'm just getting on the bandwagon to bash Rosie, you would be wrong about that. Reading your posts just annoys me sometimes because I can see that these people know WAY more than you do about electronics. Because they tell you that you are wrong, that makes them the 'enemy of OU' and out to 'tar' you. You're like a broken record, you know that?
They have been patiently TRYING to explain what is happening while the circuit operates (more clearly than ANYTHING I have read from you) and you continue to DENY them because they don't agree with your paper. Either you know what you're talking about or you don't. A good researcher tries to DISPROVE their anomalous results. You haven't done that. Not that I can see anyways... Your scientific methodology involves you pointing at a 'paper', and claiming you have proper and accurate measurements because you used an expensive scope with a math function...
Put up or shut up Rosemary. The Dim Bulb test suggested to you (and done several times in time lapse by TK) PROVES that your batteries will drain. Do the test! Prove him wrong! No special tools required, just some batteries and light bulbs... Still waiting for that BASIC TEST.
Your endless excuses are pathetic. Quit typing, make a video that proves ANYTHING related to your 'claim' that is COP>17 one day, COP=Infinity the next, you never 'claimed' OU, only 'measured' it (improperly) the next. Talk about word salad... Start your own thread, build your circuit from scratch, make videos, do tests, find out for yourself. Hell, build TKs Tar Baby if you want to try and disprove his results. You haven't done that either...
It doesn't seem like anyone can tell you that you are wrong about anything. As long as someone believes your 'claim', you will continue to deny ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. Amazing...
As far as OU goes, why would they waste their time and money if they didn't want OU to be a reality? TK built a better circuit than yours that does the same thing. You keep denying this!
Build something!!! Make a video! TEST something! Re work your math. We're still waiting for those new OU numbers...
One last thing in regards to the Tar Baby comments: At first I thought it was a racist remark until I looked at it as it was intended; A sticky situation that you become more entangled in the more you try to fight it. You are tarring yourself lady, they're just giving you something to stick to. (Funny pun there since you can't answer simple questions without convuluted dissertations leading to nowhere.)
More asinine me: Where is that NEW MATH??
And I'm sorry if you think I'm a bully; I think you're delusional and refuse to accept reality because it is contrary to your (un) 'truth' that you desperately cling to. It's okay, really...
Again, sorry for crapping up your thread TK. I won't post on here again but I will keep reading in case RA ever gets around to doing those new calculations...
PC
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 12:11:25 PM
PhiChaserSHOW ME ONE - JUST ONE POST - WHERE I HAVE STATED THIS? I have ALWAYS KNOWN that current flows in the function generator probes. IF it did not then there would be no VOLTAGE applied at the MOSFET gates. BUT current does NOT pass from the function generator probes to the the circuit. TK and picowatt DEPEND on this argument. Their argument is that current from the function generator passes TO THE CIRCUIT. I have DENIED this. THEN. They have then 'spun' the fact that I am CONFUSED and claim that there is no current flow in the function generator. AND. Because you're basically a bully and because you're trying to get onto the 'team' so to speak - and because you're not that perspicacious - you BOUGHT into their argument. You have, effectively, been duped.
As for the rest:IF the argument were irrefutable - then we would not be able to refute it. Since we can - then the argument is NOT irrefutable. We can REFUTE it simply be applying the source of Q2 directly to the negative rail of the battery supply and then the voltage across the CSR will be POSITIVE? HOW then would you explain that?THIS is correct.THIS is not correct. This is also NOT correct. It is also disprovable - very easily - by applying the source of Q2 directly to the Source of the supply battery. WHY would I bother? It is nonsense. We'll demonstrate this together with a whole lot of little side tests to refute every single one of TK's 'allegations'. LOL.
Rosie Pose
Of course you won't bother. Why indeed would you want to seek out the truth, or learn?
I dare you to print out my post and show it to your experts.
If you are so confident in your assertions, what have you to fear?
PW
My dear PhiChaser,
Just cut through to the chase. Forget spin. Let's get 'technical'. Do you concede that IF we apply Q2 source leg DIRECTLY to the source of battery supply - at its negative rail - that the oscillation will disappear and that there will be a continual positive voltage over the CSR - for the duration of each switching cycle. The only variation being that the voltage will default to zero at each switching period?
IF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument. IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests. And DON'T tell me when to those tests. We STILL don't have our oscilloscope back from the calibration labs - which puts it a cool 1000 k's out of touch. Quite apart from which we need to do our tests PROFESSIONALLY. There's no argument that is likely to be supported with the sad amateurish efforts of TK.
Rosie Pose
Multiple edits. Sorry guys
And may I add - that I would NOT under any circumstances advertise picowatt's sad little hand waving gestures which he uses by way of argument - to anyone at all. It's bad enough and sad enough that the likes of you buy into it. There is NO VALIDITY AT ALL in his claims. Those claims of his are EASILY DISPROVED.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
My dear PhiChaser,
Just cut through to the chase. Forget spin. Let's get 'technical'. Do you concede that IF we apply Q2 DIRECTLY to the source of battery supply - at its negative rail - that the oscillation will disappear and that there will be a continual positive voltage over the CSR - for the duration of each switching cycle. The only variation being that the voltage will default to zero at each switching period?
IF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument. IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests. And DON'T tell me when to those tests. We STILL don't have our oscilloscope back from the calibration labs - which puts it a cool 1000 k's out of touch. Quite apart from which we need to do our tests PROFESSIONALLY. There's no argument that is likely to be supported with the sad amateurish efforts of TK.
Rosie Pose
Multiple edits. Sorry guys
You need to be more clear. If you are using the same schematic, and connecting the source of Q2 directly to the battery negative, than you have removed the FG altogether and nothing will happen. Q1 and Q2 will both remain off.
Now, if what you mean is that you are modifying the schematic so that the FG output remains connected to the Q1 gate and the source of Q2 is now connected only to the battery negative, then this is a different matter.
In this instance, when the FG output is positive, Q1 is turned on. When Q1 turns on, the voltage at the CSR will go positive. Assuming the gate of Q2 remains connected to the CSR, the positive voltage at the CSR can now turn on Q2 as well. This would allow both Q1 and Q2 to be turned on at the same time.
This is comparing apples to oranges. Again, print out what I have to say regarding the real schematic used and have it reviewed by your experts.
PW
Ainslie, you continue to lie, misrepresent, threaten and insult, while YET AGAIN disregarding the expressed wishes of our host. You really are a piece of work.
I have made several demonstrations that you object to. PROVE YOUR CLAIMS. Show ONE SINGLE TEST where NERD performs differently from Tar Baby. You cannot.
You, AINSLIE, have illustrated over the past several days just what kind of person you are. Ignorant, arrogant, mendacious, insulting, threatening, and all the rest... it's all here in black and white.
And your strategy is perfectly clear: You are trying hard to make Stefan ban you, so you won't ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO ANY TESTS.
But several of us have actually asked Stefan NOT to ban you... because we want to see these miraculous tests that you claim you can perform.... but actually cannot. BRING IT ON, AINSLIE.... you cannot prove that a single one of my demonstrations performs differently than your kludge does.
Meanwhile, I CAN PROVE EVERYTHING I ASSERT ABOUT YOU AND YOUR CIRCUIT, on demand, any where any time, you lying mendacious incompetent ignoramus. And I don't need any anonymous "academics" to do it either. Your definition of an expert is someone who agrees with you regardless of the data ..... and who will always remain anonymous. My definition is someone who is impartial and will state the truth publicly in a real document, and I can provide that kind of expert at the drop of a hat. Where are yours? In your sick mind, that's all.
YET AGAIN: I offer Tar Baby for side-by-side testing in comparison to NERD. I claim, as always, that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in ALL SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS.
Note now that Ainslie is claiming to have done tests similar to that in my latest video: running Tar Baby's negative bias from a CAPACITOR. I say that this is YET ANOTHER lie and that she has never done such a test.
Note that in the Naked Scientists posts below, talking about her earlier circuit, she claims to have patented the circuit, and she is told that proper standard measurement protocols would require that she put capacitors across the batteries to smooth the ripples. And that the person telling her this is an EXPERT mosfet circuit designer who actually does possess two granted patents on mosfet circuitry. How many lies of Ainslie's does this single image expose?
She has said that she has never claimed or even implied that she patented the circuit. Yet here she is conversing with people who clearly believe that she has.. because she TOLD THEM SO. And these people are indeed experts in the field... that's why she engaged them in the first place. And they are clearly telling her that she is NOT using "standard measurement protocols" and they are telling her the same things that we have been telling her here.
Ainslie lies and lies, with every post she makes. I'm not even going to dissect her latest one for all the lies....
WHERE IS THE FUNCTION GENERATOR or BLOCKING DIODE IN MY VIDEO, AINSLIE? Since there is neither I expect AINSLIE to withdraw and retract everything she's said about that video based on her hallucinations. But will she? Of course not.... she seeks to blame her hallucination on my schematic... which is PERFECTLY CLEAR to everyone who has bothered to learn to read a schematic.
NO picowatt - NOT ACTUALLY
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 12:46:47 PM
You need to be more clear. If you are using the same schematic, and connecting the source of Q2 directly to the battery negative, than you have removed the FG altogether and nothing will happen. Q1 and Q2 will both remain off.
What we will show is that EITHER Q1 is on OR Q2 is on - which means that - SURPRISINGLY - there is either a positive at Q1 or Q2. Q2 DOES NOT MAGICALLY change to negative while Q1 is NEGATIVE. They are in anti phase to each other and therefore in anti phase with respect to that flow of current.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 12:46:47 PMNow, if what you mean is that you are modifying the schematic so that the FG output remains connected to the Q1 gate and the source of Q2 is now connected only to the battery negative, then this is a different matter.
WE DO NOT MEAN THIS. What we mean is that IF Q1 if OFF - then Q2 is ON. Which means that there's a continual applied positive voltage to allow the flow of current from the battery supply during the ON period which is thereby rendered ON during BOTH halves of that switched cycle.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 12:46:47 PMIn this instance, when the FG output is positive, Q1 is turned on. When Q1 turns on, the voltage at the CSR will go positive. Assuming the gate of Q2 remains connected to the CSR, the positive voltage at the CSR can now turn on Q2 as well. This would allow both Q1 and Q2 to be turned on at the same time.
This is comparing apples to oranges. Again, print out what i have to say regarding the real schematic used and have it reviewed by your experts.
NOT ACTUALLY. What you are doing is trying explain oranges as apples. What we're doing is PROVING that the battery supply source is DISCONNECTED during that period of the duty cycle when the signal applied to the gate at Q1 IS NEGATIVE. For the DURATION.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 12:54:23 PM
NO picowatt - NOT ACTUALLY What we will show is that EITHER Q1 is on OR Q2 is on - which means that - SURPRISINGLY - there is either a positive at Q1 or Q2. Q2 DOES NOT MAGICALLY change to negative while Q1 is NEGATIVE. They are in anti phase to each other and therefore in anti phase with respect to that flow of current.
WE DO NOT MEAN THIS. What we mean is that IF Q1 if OFF - then Q2 is ON. Which means that there's a continual applied positive voltage to allow the flow of current from the battery supply during the ON period which is thereby rendered ON during BOTH halves of that switched cycle.
NOT ACTUALLY. What you are doing is trying explain oranges as apples. What we're doing is PROVING that the battery supply source is DISCONNECTED during that period of the duty cycle when the signal applied to the gate at Q1 IS NEGATIVE. For the DURATION.
Rosie Pose
Frankly, you are terrible at making technical descriptions. A "positive at Q1 or Q2" is a meaningless statement. If you mean a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and a positive voltage at the gate of Q2, you are wrong regarding the latter. In your first paper schematic, Q2 is turned on when the source terminal of Q2 is made more negative than ground (to be precise, more negative than the non-battery end of the CSR).
The FG does not and can not apply a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2 as you claim.
Learn,
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:06:17 AMI have NEVER claimed that a function generator does not have current flowing through its probes. I have ONLY claimed that the current from the function generator does not move away from those probes.
"Maybe the psychic energy does flow through my hands..."
http://youtu.be/qUxWdIQVT_c?t=1m10s
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
My dear PhiChaser,
Just cut through to the chase. Forget spin. Let's get 'technical'. Do you concede that IF we apply Q2 DIRECTLY to the source of battery supply - at its negative rail - that the oscillation will disappear and that there will be a continual positive voltage over the CSR - for the duration of each switching cycle. The only variation being that the voltage will default to zero at each switching period?
IF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument. IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests. And DON'T tell me when to those tests. We STILL don't have our oscilloscope back from the calibration labs - which puts it a cool 1000 k's out of touch. Quite apart from which we need to do our tests PROFESSIONALLY. There's no argument that is likely to be supported with the sad amateurish efforts of TK.
Rosie Pose
Multiple edits. Sorry guys
Okay, let's forget spin. So far so good, except that you won't find Q1 or Q2 or 'negative rail' in my post. Not at all ANYWHERE... So I'm confused... ??? Are you trying to 'spin' me in another direction Rosemary?
I posted that I used my FG to light up an LED because you claimed (at the moment anyways) that the current 'stays' at the FG probes and doesn't go into your circuit. Perhaps you can re-word that so that it makes more sense?
I've said NOTHING about 'switching periods' or
Quotea continual positive voltage over the CSR"
either... ???
QuoteIF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument. IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests.
What are you talking about? Did I miss something?? (Somebody help me out here?)
I lit up an LED with my FG PROVING that it passes current. You said it didn't. Now you say it does?
I'm confused... Where does the current stop exactly?
Or maybe it partly does, like your 'disconneced' battery that is still connected but really isn't...
No doubt you will get those new numbers posted someday... Riiight.
PC
:-X
@PhiChaser: You have no need to apologise for anything. The more real feedback .. hee hee... that AINSLIE gets, the better. I want you to post everything and anything you can that shows how ignorant and mendacious Ainslie is. Call her on her crap every time she leaves another pile of it.
Please CONTINUE TO DEMAND that she correct her calculations. CONTINUE TO DEMAND that she show proof of her claims. CONTINUE TO POINT OUT contradictions and misrepresentations and lies that you find in her posts. She needs the reality, for sure.
And if anyone can SUPPORT Ainslie's claims with data, references and/or video demonstrations.... let's hear from them as well. WHERE ARE ALL THE SUPPORTERS of Ainslie's claims? Where is the person who will repeat my capacitor bias supply test and show that NERD performs differently, as Ainslie has claimed? Where is the academic who will support Ainslie's "math" and conclusions?
There has been nothing but WORDS from Ainslie since the demo video that she posted last year (and lied about). And there will be nothing but WORDS coming from her in the future. She's not going to show any tests comparable to those I've shown at all. If she does show anything, it will simply be a repeat of the negative power demonstration, with a warm resistor hanging in the air, that she did in the demo from last year (that she posted the video of, and then lied about posting it.)
She will never do anything like a Dim Bulb or other proper battery draw-down test or capacity measurement in public.
And most certainly she will never be able to show any test that PROVES ME WRONG in anything I've said about Tar Baby's performance... which is just like NERD's in all significant respects.
And note again, friends and lurking trolls: Ainslie has repeated her usual tactic YET AGAIN.
A significant result is announced: .99 has obtained negative mean power in the simulator using a simple compact circuit with a 75-cent mosfet and a nine-volt battery and a handful of inductors. He's published the circuit and some waveforms that show the reason for the average negative power readings and it is the same reason that Ainslie gets them.
In addition, she's gotten another request from our host, to cease and desist the bloviation and produce some actual tests of her own.
And of course there is her hallucinatory fiasco over my latest video demo, where she sees a Function Generator and a Blocking Diode that nobody else can see, and she rants and raves for post after post about what she concludes from her HALLUCINATION rather than drawing the correct conclusion from what is presented.
So... what does she do? She AINS-LIES yet again, post after post of bloviating, self-serving, insulting, denigrating, mendacity, designed specifically to COVER UP the latest real information that we've generated here.
Well, AINSLIE.... you can't change the truth by trying to cover it up.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 01:05:01 PM
Frankly, you are terrible at making technical descriptions. A "positive at Q1 or Q2" is a meaningless statement. If you mean a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and a positive voltage at the gate of Q2, you are wrong regarding the latter. In your first paper schematic, Q2 is turned on when the source terminal of Q2 is made more negative than ground (to be precise, more negative than the non-battery end of the CSR).
The FG does not and can not apply a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2 as you claim.
Learn,
PW
My dear picowatt
Not only DOES the function generator apply a positive at the Gate of Q2 but we will PROVE THIS. But to prove it we will vary that circuit and apply the SOURCE LEG of Q2 directly to the SOURCE of the battery supply. IF the function generator were NOT able to apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2 while it applies a negative signal to the gate of Q1 - then we will NOT get a continual DC, greater than zero, continual voltage evident across that CSR. Then your argument will be PROVED. We KNOW what happens when we do this. And that oscillation is most assuredly the VICTIM - together with this your argument.
Rosie Pose
Edited out some repetitions.
Ains-lie said, in response to STEFAN telling her to prove her assertions or shut up:
QuoteThis is simply not the case. It is not only my collaborators who require good measurement - but science itself. Anything less than accurate data would be a waste of everyone's time. And I would thank you to not borrow TK's and Picowatt's assumption that I need any education in the art of measurement. It was I who had to point out to TK that his best efforts were inadequate. He didn't even factor in impedance.
That is another baldfaced lie. I have posted my spreadsheet several times, and I calculated using only the DC resistance, as WELL AS using inductive reactance values from HER DATA, my ProsKit meter, as well as inductances found by direct measurement of resonant tank circuits. ALL of these different values were used in the spreadsheet, and ALL result in the negative mean power calculations. And there is no need to do anything that AINSLIE herself has not done--- the TEK scopeshots that I produced make EXACTLY THE SAME "factoring of impedance" that AINSLIE did for her scope shots: none.
QuoteAnd he took his sample measurements across a series of oscillations that were FAR from representative.
This is another AINS-LIE. The Tek sampled the oscillations just as adequately as Ainslie has ever done... more so, since I actually know what that means.
QuoteAnd he STILL is not applying impedance. He hasn't even given us the inductance values of his potentiometer that he CLAIMS to have used in the video - nor those wire wound resistors that he CLAIMS to use in that calorimeter of his.
The potentiometer: that is right, I have not given its "impedance". Should I? Has Ainslie given the impedance of the IsoTech GFG 324 function generator? Why not? And I most certainly have given the reactive impedance of my load. Has Ainslie done so for hers? All I find is the inductance measurement, with no formula for reactive impedance, no computation of what the load's inductive reactance is at 1.5 MHz.... nothing.
QuoteAnd your statement that I need an 'education' falls into the same bracket as the 'tarring' which seems to be your preferred editorial bias. I can PROVE my competence at integrated power analysis.
PROVE IT THEN. CORRECT YOUR MATH in the several posts you've made containing math, like the two I keep quoting, that you NEVER HAVE CORRECTED. You are ignorant of algebra and calculus, therefore you cannot possibly be competent at integrated power analysis. YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WORD 'INTEGRATION' MEANS until I told you. You thought, in your racist mind, that it referred to race relations when I first told you, three years ago, that you were trying to do a numerical integration. Perhaps you THINK you know the mathematical meaning of integration now, but it's clear from other posts you make... like your reference to "VI dt" that you still have no clue about the basic concepts of the calculus, including integration and differentiation.
QuoteTherefore anyone refuting this is guilty of slander.
You do realise that it is slander and libel to accuse someone of slander if they are telling the truth about you and can prove it, I hope.
QuoteAnd for either FTC or TK or picowatt to claim that I need education on basic power measurements is a joke. FTC for one - couldn't do this at all - for the entire duration of those 'replicated' tests he did.
You are the joke, Ainslie, but nobody is laughing any more..... you deserve the pity that any sick person deserves. You are mentally crippled. If you think you understand power measurements, then CORRECT YOUR BLUNDERS BELOW, on your next post, to show that you are really competent as you claim. Don't forget the CONCLUSION..... that needs correcting as well.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
These, from someone who claims to understand "integrated power measurements"... but who cannot even tell the difference between a Watt and a Joule, and who calculates by pushing buttons randomly on a calculator and accepting whatever it spits out.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 01:18:54 PM
My dear picowatt
Not only DOES the function generator apply a positive at the Gate of Q2 but we will PROVE THIS. But to prove it we will vary that circuit and apply the SOURCE LEG of Q2 directly to the SOURCE of the battery supply. IF the function generator were NOT able to apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2 while it applies a negative signal to the gate of Q1 - then we will NOT get a continual DC, greater than zero, continual voltage evident across that CSR. Then your argument will be PROVED. We KNOW what happens when we do this. And that oscillation is most assuredly the VICTIM - together with this your argument.
Rosie Pose
Edited out some repetitions.
You have already disproved that the FG causes the gate of Q2 to go positive. The voltage at the gate of Q2 is always the same voltage as the non-battery end of the CSR to which the gate of Q2 is connected. Therefore, your 'scope shots of the CSR voltage tell us precisely what the gate voltage of Q2 is.
Have fun proving otherwise.
(you do know what "connected" means don't you?)
PW
More Ains-lies:
QuoteThat's a big IF. There are six of us who stand by these measurements. And 4 of those 6 collaborators are qualified engineers. There are a host of engineers OUTSIDE of our collaboration who have witnessed these results and stand by them.
"Stand by them" usually means that they are willing to "stand by them" yet nobody anywhere lately has "stood by you". Your engineers and collaborators are imaginary until proven otherwise.
QuoteThere are at least 2 academic institutions devoted to replicating and getting to grips with the evidence in these experiments.
PROVE IT. I call you on this one altogether, Ainslie. Show any proof at all that there is an "academic institution" other than a nursery school which is "devoted to replicating" anything you have actually done.
QuoteAnd yet you are somehow convinced by TK's evidence? I would have thought that you'd see through his slander and the need for this before you'd be convinced by anything at all.
My demonstrations are repeatable by anyone with simple equipment. All data is given. Ainslie's--- not so much.
QuoteHad he been courteous, fair minded, reasonable, then indeed one could perhaps have been persuaded by an apparent impartiality.
YOU STARTED with the disrespect and all the rest of it, the insults and the veiled threats whenever anyone disagrees with you... bitch. I first got into this with a simple request that you correct your egregious math error. YOU responded with insult after insult and have NEVER YET TO THIS DAY corrected your mistakes and the conclusions based on them.
QuoteBut his tests are inadequate, contradictory, ambiguous, confusing, rendered with dreadful photography under excessively poor lighting - and with NO effort made to validate any single filmed reference made.
All my tests are repeatably by anyone and I give all necessary data to do so. You are the only one who doesn't understand what I'm doing and that is because, primarily, you are willfully ignorant of the topic, your own topic. Secondarily, it is because your "cup is full" and you think you know it all already. Two words: Dunning-Kruger.
QuoteThe most of those videos are associated with 'disgusting' innuendos ... 'making out with a dog'? 'boomp' 'boomp'? Or heavy handed sarcasm?
How many videos have I posted on the topic? "MOST" would then mean over half, right? Yet you only cite two references and they again are to things which you don't understand.
QuoteThe 'the battery voltage has not dropped... but we all know it has'... number? And 'you know who' will object?
Something wrong or incorrect there? As you can see, I was right in all respects on that one.
QuoteOr that ABSURD 'calibration' exercise given as some kind of evidence that his data is valid?
How is it invalid to use Ohm's Law and a known resistance to determine current? Only to someone who does not understand Ohm's Law and the process of calibration.
QuoteAnd you think this is SCIENCE? Then the use of that ridiculously heavily cladded insulated calorimeter of his - which SOMETIMES shows a change in temperature - but NEVER is this related to time - which can be the only valid reference in the face of all that cladding.
Lies again. What is more ridiculous: to measure the heat rise over time with a resistor in an insulated oil bath of known characteristics, or to measure the mere temperature of a naked water heater element hanging in the air? And how many times have I posted time vs. temperature data? Quite a few, actually. Ainslie lies due to her ignorance and idee fixe again.
QuoteAnd the resistor inside is variously a potentiometer or simply wire wound resistors - and we STILL don't know their inductance.
I have NEVER used a potentiometer in there, never claimed or implied I have, therefore ANSLIE lies yet again. I have specified the exact type and manufacturer of the CERAMIC WIREWOUND RESISTORS (which incidentally are just like the ones she specified as NECESSARY for her COP>17 claimed circuit) and I have indeed stated the inductance, measured using my ProsKit Meter but ALSO using the resonant tank method which is more accurate, and this latter measurement IS GIVEN ON MY SCHEMATIC which has been posted, with revisions clearly noted, several times. And I'll even post it again below.
QuoteWe only know that it is NOT the same as our own resistor.
You know more about my resistor than anyone but the manufacturer knows about yours. Now are you claiming that only a custom water heater element from your friends at Specific Heat is necessary to convert the ordinary negative mean power measurements into magic special battery non-discharging performance? You are ridiculous in your flailing about.
QuoteNor are we given one single stat against the actual battery performance related to that wattage dissipated.
That's because I have not yet published that data for this present claim, although I certainly did for your COP>17 claim. When I do it will be clear that your circuit heats the mosfets and isn't as efficient, not nearly, as straight DC current would be at the load.
QuoteAnd you are CONVINCED by this charade? I would have hoped that you'd see through it. Surely?
Insulting our host many times again.
Perhaps my demonstrations are seen as being more convincing than yours because I ACTUALLY SHOW SOMETHING, I twiddle knobs and show circuit responses and I compare things and I give ALL DATA NECESSARY for repetition, including correct schematics AND CORRECT USE OF TERMINOLOGY, and I correct my errors as soon as they are found and pointed out. All of that gives my demonstrations a credibility factor that you, AINSLIE, are completely lacking.
Go on, keep insulting our host and lying, trying to get yourself off the hook by getting yourself banned. I hope Stefan is more tolerant than the Naked Scientists and Energetic Forum.... and keeps the pressure on you, to PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
But I know you cannot. You have had YEARS to do so, you've had the equipment, all of it. What happened to the Fluke 123 and/or 199 ScopeMeters you claimed to own? Those are perfectly capable of dumping their data to spreadsheets and will give you the same result you will get with your freshly calibrated and expensive LeCroy (ask them how they calibrated it). Where are these Fluke oscilloscopes that you claimed to own? Or is referring to a scope as "mine" not count as ownership in Ainslie-ese?
Note the inductances given and the revision date, all clearly marked. These inductances are measured, using the resonant tank circuit method, not the ProsKit meter. Of course Ainslie only believes in numbers in boxes.... but her lies are nevertheless clearly exposed, for I am indeed clear about schematics in use as well as inductance values and how they are obtained. Not only that... but I understand inductive and capacitive reactance, and even still possess my sophomore EE textbook from the course (which required a year of CALCULUS even to get into) where I sat and passed exams on the subject.
Ainslie? Not so much.
(And I'm including some raw time-temperature data just to rattle Ainslie's cage. I'm pretty sure I posted these when they happened, too. These are preliminary, of course, just to show that the load is heating and over a long time period, not just an instant measurement. Now that I have an acknowledgement that Tar Baby is indeed working just like NERD, I'll be doing more serious calorimetry, of that you can be sure. Ainslie... not so much.)
And... by the way.... I have done "cool-down" measurements on that calorimeter, so I know its rough heat leak rate. I also know the heated thermal mass inside: there is 250 mL of mineral oil in there, specific gravity 0.83 grams per mL and specific heat 1.67 Joules per degree C per gram, and I am measuring the OIL not the RESISTORS. Thus..... for a given TEMPERATURE of the oil, and the TIME IT TOOK to get to that temperature, I can CALCULATE... yes, I can actually calculate .... the actual power dissipation at the load, with a fair degree of precision. And I can calculate the total energy that has been delivered to the load. Because I know a Joule from a Watt, and a Watt from a hole in the head.
What is the calorimetric technique of Ainslie and the NERDs? They suspend a water heater element in air, with a thermocouple over it, then when it gets hot they plunge it into some water in a teapot. Then they calculate thusly:
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Yes.... Do the Math, please. I think it is safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.
Ainslie describes that precision calorimetric test in a little more detail in her blog.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html)
Like I said before, I could make measurements with a piece of string and a lump of modelling clay and they would still be better than anything Ainslie has reported. Compare the data precision, the methodology, and the values given in the two blog posts, with what they morphed into for the famous 25.6 million Joules calculation which I have quoted many times and which she STILL has not corrected and retracted.
And I am being accused of "Claiming" to use a potentiometer whose inductance I haven't given.
I am generally reluctant to resort to Scriptural references... but......
Matthew 7:3-5.
(And of course also note that the CVR traces in the scope shots in those blog posts above (click through the link to see them on the blog page) CLEARLY SHOW significant current flowing during the so-called "ON" stage of the signal --ETA The NON oscillation phase -- , and CLEARLY SHOW that a bipolar pulse is being delivered from the FG to the circuit.)
Even in that blog post, before morphing, she misrepresents the data. Observe:
QuoteThis was an exciting test. We took water to boil 0.7 litres. There was absolutely NO evident discharge of energy from the supply. And if you look closely you'll see that during the 'on' time of the duty cycle the voltage across the shunt was only ever 'fractionally' above zero - indicating that the current flow from the battery during the on time was next to nothing.
Well, I do look closely, and this is what I see: A voltage across the "shunt" during the "ON" time... the positive FG pulse --- that looks like about 80 mV positive to me. The zero baseline is offset by 20 mV above the center graticle line and the middle of the fuzz on the CVR trace during the ON period is about 100 mV above the graticle marker, so that looks like about 80 mV or so to me. With a 0.25 Ohm CVR this gives I = V/R == 0.08/0.25 == about 320 milliAmps .... hardly "fractionally above zero" and in fact enough to provide significant load heating indeed. 320 milliAmps at 62 "something" volts is nearly 20 Watts that is going somewhere. Anybody want to guess where?
The scopeshot from the blogpost:
Ainslie prevaricated,
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:06:17 AM
My dear PhiChaser
Try and catch up with the facts. I have NEVER claimed that a function generator does not have current flowing through its probes. I have ONLY claimed that the current from the function generator does not move away from those probes. The current that is INDUCED by the function generator is from its applied voltage at the GATES of the those MOSFETS. It is NOT FROM that function generator as YOU, PICOWATT, MILEHIGH and TK erroneously suppose.
And WHAT new math do you keep referring to - in your rather weak efforts at joining in this 'tar Rosemary' thread? We all know you're anxious to 'join in' with what you 'assume' is a majority opinion. In FACT you are sharing a minority opinion with 4 heavy weight OU disclaimants. And that STILL makes you nothing but a bully while they're seasoned anti OU campaigners.
Rosie Pose
But... here, Rosie Prevaricator says, in a reply to picowatt:
QuoteLet's first deal with some pertinent issues. What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg321034/#msg321034 (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg321034/#msg321034)
Maybe that's why everyone thinks Ainslie doesn't believe that a function generator is able to pass current. It's because she SAYS IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, she knows that it is, and she only began prevaricating around that position AFTER I demonstrated that it is indeed able to do so.
And note again the misuse of the term "INDUCTION". The voltage applied to the gate of a mosfet ... a FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR... does not turn that mosfet on by virtue of electromagnetic induction and the resulting current flow is related to EM induction only because the FEEDBACK OSCILLATIONS are produced by it. It has nothing to do with the way Ainslie is misusing the term above.
Try and catch up with the facts, will you? ;)
(And of course everyone EXCEPT thickheaded stubborn willfully ignorant Rosemary Ainslie knows that the new math PhiChaser wants to see is the SAME NEW MATH that I and everyone else want to see... the corrected calculations in the 2 quotations where AINSLIE claims to have exceeded battery capacity. And she knows that is what is meant too, but she simply cannot do it because she doesn't even understand where and what her mistakes are.)
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 08, 2012, 01:07:53 PM
"Maybe the psychic energy does flow through my hands..."
http://youtu.be/qUxWdIQVT_c?t=1m10s
But grasshopper, you must become one with the function generator...
Welcome to this thread Mrsean2K!
PW
TK,
How is it you were able to build, test, post, make videos, and take requests for measurements all at the same time?
Is there more than one of you? Alien assistance?
PW
(and fix the Cav)
@.99,
With the new "Altoids" circuit, how low were/are you able to get the DC bias current?
You might put a cap between the MOSFET source and gnd and then place various resistor values (1R to 20R) across the cap.
This would allow the AC gain to remain unchanged while adjusting Ibias with the resistor value. May as well make the 9V last for as long as possible. Possibly play with increasing the zener voltage as you vary the added resistor.
At some point, maybe an AD834 or similar should be assembled into an analog circuit to do the multiply and avg so a "fancy scope" is not needed to calculate the neg/pos mean.
PW
Rosemary.... when you get your scope back I do hope you will learn to set the trigger properly. The reason the scope's display is unstable in the shot above (you had to stop it in mid-scan in order to make your screenshot) is because you have your trigger set improperly. Note the purple "T" on the right side of the screen, and the trigger setting in the box below the trace window. You are triggering on the purple trace.... but your trigger voltage level is set far outside that trace's voltage range. Thus the scope cannot trigger stably and the screen will be "jumpy"... JUST AS IT IS IN YOUR DEMO VIDEO as well. Many of your scope shots show a similar improper trigger setting.
In the future, try to use the trigger level knob to get that "T" down into the voltage range of the channel on which you wish to trigger.... usually the DRIVING signal since that is the most stable (blue, FG trace), or the signal with the highest CLEAN voltage level. The purple trace would have been OK if you had lowered the trigger level... the "T" position ... down into the actual voltage range of the signal you are asking the scope to use for its trigger. Then you can move the trigger point horizontally (in time) if you like, so that the displayed traces don't start right at the beginning of a block of oscillations, but have a "lead in" period first. The time where the scope triggers is displayed along the top of the trace window by the little purple triangle and the -62.000 ms figure. So the "place" where you are asking for a trigger is where this triangle, projected down, and the "T" level, projected to the left, intersect. A place outside the envelope of your purple signal, hence the unstable screen display.
And you might find it interesting to RTFM: Read The Fine Manual.... you just might learn something about using oscilloscopes properly. And acronyms, too.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
TK,
How is it you were able to build, test, post, make videos, and take requests for measurements all at the same time?
Is there more than one of you? Alien assistance?
PW
(and fix the Cav)
You forgot mowing the three lawns once every four days, cooking the gourmet linguine dinners and making the Lissajous videos (a new one, using 4 oscillators, is up, if you have 20 minutes to waste). And cleaning up after three dogs and an Ainslie.
I still have a few trained gremlins left over from my A&P days. They help out as long as I give them a few drops of rum in their sugar-water now and then.
But you know... maybe there is more than one of me. Don't you ever wake up feeling tired, with some strange new circuit humming away on your workbench, not knowing how it got there?
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 05:58:17 PM
@.99,
With the new "Altoids" circuit, how low were/are you able to get the DC bias current?
You might put a cap between the MOSFET source and gnd and then place various resistor values (1R to 20R) across the cap.
This would allow the AC gain to remain unchanged while adjusting Ibias with the resistor value. May as well make the 9V last for as long as possible. Possibly play with increasing the zener voltage as you vary the added resistor.
At some point, maybe an AD834 or similar should be assembled into an analog circuit to do the multiply and avg so a "fancy scope" is not needed to calculate the neg/pos mean.
PW
Saaayy... do either of you know anything about microprocessors? I have these Arduino clones with 16 and 32MHz Atmels in them, and some other peripherals here... I'll bet it would be possible to program an Arduino to make the right frequency oscillations and interface its PWM output into an easily tunable little filter or pulseforming network that would light up an LED when OU was attained...... What do you think?
I've got some good opamps on hand but no AD834s.
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 05:58:17 PM
@.99,
With the new "Altoids" circuit, how low were/are you able to get the DC bias current?
It's presently at about 18mA...just about right to drive that LED to full brightness.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 06:23:59 PM
Saaayy... do either of you know anything about microprocessors? I have these Arduino clones with 16 and 32MHz Atmels in them, and some other peripherals here... I'll bet it would be possible to program an Arduino to make the right frequency oscillations and interface its PWM output into an easily tunable little filter or pulseforming network that would light up an LED when OU was attained...... What do you think?
I've got some good opamps on hand but no AD834s.
TK,
The AD834 (and its slightly cheaper cousin AD835, they're pricey in singles) would be a decent multiplier for the analog signals. The AD835 is good to 250MHz (and available in DIP). A pair of fast precision buffers driving the inputs and for level scaling (the 834/5 have pretty high input bias currents) and then a LP at the output for averaging could be a good beginning to a neg/pos mean power measurement circuit.
An analog zero center or a digital multimeter at the output could be used as an indicator.
Possibly a lower cost, lower BW multiplier could be used. National and others makes some multipliers as well, but I'd have to check the BW. I was just "thinking out loud".
And yes, sometimes those gremlins do things while you sleep...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 06:23:59 PM
Saaayy... do either of you know anything about microprocessors? I have these Arduino clones with 16 and 32MHz Atmels in them, and some other peripherals here... I'll bet it would be possible to program an Arduino to make the right frequency oscillations and interface its PWM output into an easily tunable little filter or pulseforming network that would light up an LED when OU was attained...... What do you think?
I've got some good opamps on hand but no AD834s.
TK,
As for the microprocessor approach, if you had fast enough AD converters for inputs, you could perform the math in code. But I don't think the uPC's your discussing have fast enough conversion rates for any AD converters that may be available on chip.
With the NERD, TB, and now "Altoid's" circuit, even though the fundamental of Fosc is fairly low (the highest being .99's new 4.5MHz circuit), there are a lot of harmonics due to the non-sinusoidal waveshape. I would want to AD convert at at least 50MSPS, but would be more comfortable with 100MSPS or better. Most onboard AD's won't do that. External high speed 8bit converters are fairly low cost, but even then, the microconrtroller would have to be able to input at that rate and still have enough machine cycles available to do the math, housekeeping, etc. It would be an excellent way to go, but would require a pretty fast controller.
There are some IC solutions out there that would be suitable.
PW
To be one of the 3 designated readers of this saga I had to sign a contract, and that
contract says I have to contribute occasionally, or face a fairly hefty fine. It doesn't say
anything about following any protocols or that I have to include attachments, just that
it be short and preferably not inflammatory. I figured a quote would satisfy my obligation:
"Ideas not coupled with action never become bigger than the brain cells they occupied."
Arnold H. Glasgow
tak
Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 07:08:38 PM
TK,
As for the microprocessor approach, if you had fast enough AD converters for inputs, you could perform the math in code. But I don't think the uPC's your discussing have fast enough conversion rates for any AD converters that may be available on chip.
With the NERD, TB, and now "Altoid's" circuit, even though the fundamental of Fosc is fairly low (the highest being .99's new 4.5MHz circuit), there are a lot of harmonics due to the non-sinusoidal waveshape. I would want to AD convert at at least 50MSPS, but would be more comfortable with 100MSPS or better. Most onboard AD's won't do that. High speed 8bit converters are fairly low cost, but again, the microconrtroller would have to be able to input at that rate and still have enough machine cycles available to do the math, etc. It would be an excellent way to go, but would require a pretty fast controller.
There are some IC solutions out there that would be suitable.
PW
After a bit more thought, since we would want a long average at the output, it may be possible to undersample the signals as long as both the DUT and the uPC are asynchronous to each other and if very large numbers of cycles were to be averaged.
Additional thought needed.
PW
PW:
Monte Carlo methods, you sly fox. For some reason I always think of James Bond.
All:
In reading through the last 48 hours worth of technical and psychological drama, I think I can distill it down to this:
1. Rosemary is still wrong about the function generator current and exposes herself yet again as being belligerent and grossly technically incompetent.
2. Rosemary is still wrong about the positive polarity at the Q2 array gate input and exposes herself as being belligerent and grossly technically incompetent.
3. Rosemary's claims about having engineers supporting her for the above two points can't be true by definition so she is either seriously deluded about her alleged support system, or the people in her support system are not engineers and they are incompetent, or she is lying.
The bottom line is that we all know that there is a net DC current and net power flowing out of the batteries and into the load. This has been measured and simulated a few different ways. Therefore by definition the batteries will discharge.
Rosemary:
You dug yourself deeper into a hole over the past two days. Just do the dim bulb testing, that's all that you need to do. Regardless of what you believe, you are up against what we know from TK's tests and from our education and our experience. What we know is that the beauty and harmony of Nature dictates that energy gets transformed from one form into another in perfect harmony and balance. We are alive because of the energy pouring down on the planet from the sun. The whole ball of wax is essentially solar powered. And you are certainly not breaking that beauty and harmony and symmetry with a battery, a switch, and a resistor.
Just do the dim bulb testing and see for yourself.
MileHigh
Hi Guys,
Have woken up to another 'slew of misdirections' from TK and some more of that HOT TAR at my back and in my face.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 04:53:29 PM
Even in that blog post, before morphing, she misrepresents the data. Observe:
Well, I do look closely, and this is what I see: A voltage across the "shunt" during the "ON" time... the positive FG pulse --- that looks like about 80 mV positive to me. The zero baseline is offset by 20 mV above the center graticle line and the middle of the fuzz on the CVR trace during the ON period is about 100 mV above the graticle marker, so that looks like about 80 mV or so to me. With a 0.25 Ohm CVR this gives I = V/R == 0.08/0.25 == about 320 milliAmps .... hardly "fractionally above zero" and in fact enough to provide significant load heating indeed. 320 milliAmps at 62 "something" volts is nearly 20 Watts that is going somewhere. Anybody want to guess where?
The scopeshot from the blogpost:
Please take a good long look at our TK 'DOING THE MATH'. He has absolutely NO CLUE how to do power measurements. He never has. And what better evidence does one need.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
p.s. NOTA BENE - picowatt - MileHigh - FTC - PhiChaser - NONE OF THEM - even turned a hair. Clearly they're either as useless at power measurements as our Leon - or they are somewhat catastrophically uncritical of the amount of TAR that he applies. One can't help by 'wonder why'? That 5 against 1 thing. LOL
Rosemary:
QuotePlease take a good long look at our TK 'DOING THE MATH'. He has absolutely NO CLUE how to do power measurements. He never has. And what better evidence does one need.
Your comment about TK's measurements are not going to fly. You can't just quote him and not address what he is saying, that's ridiculous.
So, do you have something specific to say about TK's comments? If yes, state them and let's see what you have to say.
MileHigh
My dear MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 08, 2012, 11:11:30 PM
Rosemary:
Your comment about TK's measurements are not going to fly. You can't just quote him and not address what he is saying, that's ridiculous.
So, do you have something specific to say about TK's comments? If yes, state them and let's see what you have to say.
MileHigh
I prefer to be 'ridiculous' than state the ridiculously OBVIOUS. So. NO. I WILL NOT INDULGE YOU WITH SPECIFICS. It should be up there with the 'bleeding obvious' to quote an inimitable Basil Fawlty.
Rosie Pose
and by the way (btw) WHY DO YOU EVEN ASK? Are you skills as heavily compromised as TK's? Golly. Who would have thought. And all 5 of you posing as EXPERTS. It certainly puts your general combined competence at something considerably less than my own. Yet it is MY competence in power measurements that you seem to find QUESTIONABLE. I suggest you ALL question your own and that you ALL go and LEARN - as picowatt puts it.
Again,
Rosie Pose
added some EMPHASIS. LOL
Unbelievable. She's confronted with her errors over and over and over, and she can't even say what's wrong with my work. Yet she has to post SOMETHING, because her ego is disintegrating before her very eyes.
She has descended to the "stomp her foot and hold her breath till she turns purple" stage of rhetoric.
NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, has she refuted me with facts, checkable references, or calculations of her own. NOT ONCE. Because she cannot.
Ainslie, you have zero credibility, but you do provide considerable amusement. Keep it up, I really am going to enjoy seeing how far down your throat you can stck your own foot.
Ainslie said,
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK replied,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
LOL
And guys, here's more of that SPIN. TK's now trying to teach me the 'art of triggering'. Just go back over some of his early videos and see where and why he had to learn the skill. It's actually hilarious.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 06:06:20 PM
Rosemary.... when you get your scope back I do hope you will learn to set the trigger properly. The reason the scope's display is unstable in the shot above (you had to stop it in mid-scan in order to make your screenshot) is because you have your trigger set improperly. Note the purple "T" on the right side of the screen, and the trigger setting in the box below the trace window. You are triggering on the purple trace.... but your trigger voltage level is set far outside that trace's voltage range. Thus the scope cannot trigger stably and the screen will be "jumpy"... JUST AS IT IS IN YOUR DEMO VIDEO as well. Many of your scope shots show a similar improper trigger setting.
In the future, try to use the trigger level knob to get that "T" down into the voltage range of the channel on which you wish to trigger.... usually the DRIVING signal since that is the most stable (blue, FG trace), or the signal with the highest CLEAN voltage level. The purple trace would have been OK if you had lowered the trigger level... the "T" position ... down into the actual voltage range of the signal you are asking the scope to use for its trigger. Then you can move the trigger point horizontally (in time) if you like, so that the displayed traces don't start right at the beginning of a block of oscillations, but have a "lead in" period first. The time where the scope triggers is displayed along the top of the trace window by the little purple triangle and the -62.000 ms figure. So the "place" where you are asking for a trigger is where this triangle, projected down, and the "T" level, projected to the left, intersect. A place outside the envelope of your purple signal, hence the unstable screen display.
And you might find it interesting to RTFM: Read The Fine Manual.... you just might learn something about using oscilloscopes properly. And acronyms, too.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
MH,
More like "slo fox".
The only problem I see with "007" is that both inputs need to be sampled simultaneously. Most low cost microcontrollers multiplex the AD input to provide multiple AD inputs, which skews their sample time. But, if a dual channel outboard AD was used that did simultaneous sampling with minimal deltaT between converters, just about any reasonable sample rate could be used as long as a sufficient number of samples were taken. I guess we would need to know more about TK's Arduino peripherals and if a pair of simul sample converters are available.
PW
Ainslie, now you are attacking the competence of people who are working in the industry, people with unquestioned competence in the areas you are bitching about.
You have descended past the mere ignorant into the utterly stupid. YOU cannot even correct your huge errors in conception and calculation. EVERY TIME someone has pointed out one of your many errors, you will do and say ANYTHING BUT correct your math or your conclusions.. because you don't even understand why and how they are wrong. It would be pitiful if it weren't so comical.
Do you really think that others reading here can't do that easy math in a few seconds for themselves and see just how wrong you are?
It's no secret, Ainslie, it's just math and YOU CAN'T DO IT, and it's fundamental to the claims you are making, ESPECIALLY the issue of your "competency". Which is sorely lacking, and what of it there might be comes from parroting things somebody has told you that you don't really understand.
What is the difference between a Watt and a Joule, Ainslie? Are they really EQUIVALENT like you claim? This question is fundamental to power analysis and if you don't even know the difference and you think that a Joule is a Watt Per Second... how could you possibly even believe YOURSELF that you are competent?
I can cite reference after reference where Ainslie gets simple power calculations wrong and I can demonstrate how they are wrong and I can provide the correct calculations and results and I can PROVE IT.
All Ainslie can do is whine and stomp her feet and say "All those people don't agree with me so they MUST be wrong." But she can't say how, she can't provide corrections, she can't provide references to support her position and SHE CANNOT PROVE any of it.
Guys,
This is getting funnier by the minute. TK REALLY does NOT know what's wrong with his math. It's DELICIOUS. Here's his quote preserved for 'posterity' as he puts it...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 04:53:29 PM
Even in that blog post, before morphing, she misrepresents the data. Observe:
Well, I do look closely, and this is what I see: A voltage across the "shunt" during the "ON" time... the positive FG pulse --- that looks like about 80 mV positive to me. The zero baseline is offset by 20 mV above the center graticle line and the middle of the fuzz on the CVR trace during the ON period is about 100 mV above the graticle marker, so that looks like about 80 mV or so to me. With a 0.25 Ohm CVR this gives I = V/R == 0.08/0.25 == about 320 milliAmps .... hardly "fractionally above zero" and in fact enough to provide significant load heating indeed. 320 milliAmps at 62 "something" volts is nearly 20 Watts that is going somewhere. Anybody want to guess where?
And here's his riposte...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 11:34:52 PM
Unbelievable. She's confronted with her errors over and over and over, and she can't even say what's wrong with my work. Yet she has to post SOMETHING, because her ego is disintegrating before her very eyes.
She has descended to the "stomp her foot and hold her breath till she turns purple" stage of rhetoric.
NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, has she refuted me with facts, checkable references, or calculations of her own. NOT ONCE. Because she cannot.
Ainslie, you have zero credibility, but you do provide considerable amusement. Keep it up, I really am going to enjoy seeing how far down your throat you can stck your own foot.
If this is me stomping my foot and holding my breath and turning purple when it's only from amusement. And Leon... WHY should I have to explain where you are wrong? You're the guy who can measure with a string and a piece of clay - and can perform huge feats of posting and filming and slandering - simultaneously - with or without the able assistance of HUMBUGGER. Why should I need to tell you where you have 'ERRORED? LOL
Rosie Pose
Rosemary:
QuoteI prefer to be 'ridiculous' than state the ridiculously OBVIOUS. So. NO. I WILL NOT INDULGE YOU WITH SPECIFICS. It should be up there with the 'bleeding obvious' to quote an inimitable Basil Fawlty.
That's pathetic. Aren't you the one that talks about "science?" And you refuse to state anything? The whole point for this thread and this forum is to discuss things like this, and you refuse to even discuss your own data.
You are morally bankrupt when you refuse to discuss TK's analysis of your own data. The "guys" are not with you at all, I can assure you. This is one of many low points for you.
You are sinking deeper and deeper Rosemary. There is nothing good or redeeming happening with you. It's really an awful and unpleasant situation for you now, an unhappy spectacle of your own making.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:35:28 PM
LOL
And guys, here's more of that SPIN. TK's now trying to teach me the 'art of triggering'. Just go back over some of his early videos and see where and why he had to learn the skill. It's actually hilarious.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
Scrawny liar. Cite a definite reference and let's see if I need to "learn" any skill with respect to triggering.
While you are at it, liar, explain why YOUR scope is set to trigger where it is, and also explain why THAT LECROY is not stable in the video, but is hilariously dancing back and forth.
IT IS BECAUSE ITS TRIGGER IS IMPROPERLY SET, you ignorant liar.
I have said what I know ... now YOU TELL ME WHY I AM WRONG. WHY IS THE TRIGGER SET WHERE IT IS IN THAT SCOPE SHOT?
You cannot tell me because you have no coherent reason.
When all else fails, put the witness on trial...
PW
And as for THIS!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 11:48:06 PM
Ainslie, now you are attacking the competence of people who are working in the industry, people with unquestioned competence in the areas you are bitching about.
As you have been doing through over 2000 posts. I've LEARNED the trick from you Leon. And the rule is this. What's sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.
Rosie Pose
Some "power measurements" of the portable negative mean power oscillator:
With the battery probe at the old familiar (but erroneous) measurement point as shown in the schema01, the mean battery power is -4.2W.
We can "improve" this already improved negative mean by moving the "battery" probe to the MOSFET Drain as shown in schema02. At this point the mean battery power is -6.3W.
When the battery probe is moved to measure directly across the battery with a differential probe (not shown), the mean power computation is +0.133W. This is the "actual" battery power being delivered to the circuit. See last scope shot.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:49:11 PM
Guys,
This is getting funnier by the minute. TK REALLY does NOT know what's wrong with his math. It's DELICIOUS. Here's his quote preserved for 'posterity' as he puts it...
And here's his riposte...If this is me stomping my foot and holding my breath and turning purple when it's only from amusement. And Leon... WHY should I have to explain where you are wrong? You're the guy who can measure with a string and a piece of clay - and can perform huge feats of posting and filming and slandering - simultaneously - with or without the able assistance of HUMBUGGER. Why should I need to tell you where you have 'ERRORED? LOL
Rosie Pose
What's wrong with it then, Ainslie? You KNOW I would tell you what's wrong with yours.
Your scope trace shows substantial current flowing in your system. 320 milliamps is flowing THROUGH YOUR CVR and THROUGH YOUR LOAD and that's why it gets hot. You have a problem with my calculations? CORRECT THEM THEN and tell us why that positive deflection ISN'T indicating a current. Are you using SOME OTHER SCHEMATIC? Is the DC current through a 0.25 ohm resistor NOT given by I = V/R ? Are you revising Ohm's Law as well as the definitions of the Joule and the Watt?
CORRECT MY CALCULATIONS or stop complaining about them.
Well - THAT's all taught me something. I actually assumed that they'd see that error that would slap your average power engineer between the eyes. But they DON'T. So. Guys, with or without respect - I think we can now confidently say that TK and his band of vigilantes DO NOT KNOW how to do elementary power analysis. And you can discount any efforts that they expend in this direction.
20 watts indeed. What rubbish.
Regards,
Rosemary
added
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
And as for THIS!
As you have been doing through over 2000 posts. I've LEARNED the trick from you Leon. And the rule is this. What's sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.
Rosie Pose
No, you liar, I am attacking YOUR competency. Nobody else has supported you, especially nobody in the industry, so YOUR COMPETENCY ALONE is being attacked here, and YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE because you are indeed incompetent.
How's this for sauce:
Ainslie said, "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO".
And guys, I LOVE that 'scrawny' reference. An earlier one was 'scrawny wench'. LOL. Where does TK come from? It's so funny. It's not unlike those rather amusing descriptions of democracy that were promoted by the Chinese - in the 70's. Those 'running dog' references. I've just watched a wonderful clip on this by Colbert. He's a genius of commentary. I'd love to hear him let rip on TK's rather heavy handed propaganda.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 11:52:51 PM
Scrawny liar. Cite a definite reference and let's see if I need to "learn" any skill with respect to triggering.
While you are at it, liar, explain why YOUR scope is set to trigger where it is, and also explain why THAT LECROY is not stable in the video, but is hilariously dancing back and forth.
IT IS BECAUSE ITS TRIGGER IS IMPROPERLY SET, you ignorant liar.
I have said what I know ... now YOU TELL ME WHY I AM WRONG. WHY IS THE TRIGGER SET WHERE IT IS IN THAT SCOPE SHOT?
You cannot tell me because you have no coherent reason.
TK. Reason and coherence are tautological. You cannot have the one without the other. You are wrong in that calculation. HOPELESSLY. And I am not scrawny. I have precisely the same shape and size as I had when I was in my early twenties. And I am slim. Not thin. Not scrawny.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: poynt99 on May 08, 2012, 11:56:29 PM
Some "power measurements" of the portable negative mean power oscillator:
With the battery probe at the old familiar (but erroneous) measurement point as shown in the schema01, the mean battery power is -4.2W.
We can "improve" this already improved negative mean by moving the "battery" probe to the MOSFET Drain as shown in schema02. At this point the mean battery power is - 6.3W.
When the battery probe is moved to measure directly across the battery with a differential probe (not shown), the mean power computation is +0.133W. This is the "actual" battery power being delivered to the circuit. See last scope shot.
.99,
I have got to get into some sim software. I really like your work and what you are able to do with the sim.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:58:04 PM
Well - THAT's all taught me something. I actually assumed that they'd see that error that would slap your average power engineer between the eyes. But they DON'T. So. Guys, with or without respect - I think we can now confidently say that TK and his band of vigilantes DO NOT KNOW how to do elementary power analysis. And you can discount any efforts that they expend in this direction.
Regards,
Rosemary
CORRECT IT THEN, you blowhard. What is the channel setting? 500 mV per division. What is the offset above the center graticle marker? 20 mV. What, then, is the voltage indicated during the "on" part of the cycle? It is near 80 mV, isn't it?
ISN'T IT?
And what is the value of the "shunt"? It is 0.25 Ohms , ISN'T IT?
And what is the result of dividing 0.08 volts by 0.25 ohms? Ainslie, what does your calculator say?
IS THIS CURRENT FLOWING, OR NOT?
Do you object to the "20 watts" figure I cited, thinking yourself that your load is only dissipating less than one Watt, by I^2R? Well, good for you. But don't you remember that YOU YOURSELF have often simply multiplied a voltage value by a current value in just the same manner? Do you think that the duty cycle time enters into the calculations somehow? Of course it does... unless YOU are doing the calculations. Go ahead, Ainslie.... show me how to do the math and how to correct what you think are my errors.
The gate drive signal you are providing is turning Q1 partially on. When it is fully on its minimum Rdss is 2.0 Ohms. When it is operated in the linear response region by less than a full gate charge, its internal drain-t0-source resistance is considerably higher... hence the circuit is only passing 320 mW. Since you have a 60 "something" volt supply, the total DC circuit resistance during this partially on linear mode is R=V/I or 60/0.32 or == about 190 Ohms, most of which is in the mosfet. 0.32 x 0.32 x 190 is.... just about 20 Watts. Your circuit is dissipating 20 Watts, most of it in the mosfet, and ALL of it provided by the battery.
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 12:08:57 AM
.99,
I have got to get into some sim software. I really like your work and what you are able to do with the sim.
PW
Thanks PW. :) Very few appreciate simulation work.
My dear Leon,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 12:02:41 AM
No, you liar, I am attacking YOUR competency. Nobody else has supported you, especially nobody in the industry, so YOUR COMPETENCY ALONE is being attacked here, and YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE because you are indeed incompetent.
How's this for sauce:
Ainslie said, "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO".
I've said this before but will say it as often as required. IF I needed support from anyone at all - I'd ASK for it. I don't need it. So. I don't ask for it. I prefer it that people know that it it only takes a really OLD lady (of the opposite sex...lol) with nothing more than your average intellectual competence, to defeat the best efforts of your best dedicated anti over unity campaigners. You, on the other hand, need all the assistance that you can manage. Up to and including MrMean. LOL. And PhiChaser for that matter.
The advantage to all this is that those members who are serious about research - will be heartened when they fully appreciate the level of your spin, the level of your tar brush applications - and the level of your competence related to power engineering and, for that matter - to physics.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:17:46 AM
My dear Leon,
I've said this before but will say it as often as required. IF I needed support from anyone at all - I'd ASK for it. I don't need it. So. I don't ask for it. I prefer it that people know that it it only takes a really OLD lady (of the opposite ...lol) with nothing more than your average intellectual competence, to defeat the best efforts of your best dedicated anti over unity campaigners. You, on the other hand, need all the assistance that you can manage. Up to and including MrMean. LOL. And PhiChaser for that matter.
The advantage to all this is that those members who are serious about research - will be heartened when they fully appreciate the level of your spin, the level of your tar brush applications - and the level of your competence related to power engineering and, for that matter - to physics.
Rosie Pose
Come on Marie Antoinette. Why don't you EVER provide PROOF of your contentions? You don't need support, fine. You certainly aren't getting any.
PROVE YOUR CONTENTIONS with references or even calculations of your own.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 09, 2012, 12:16:38 AM
Thanks PW. :) Very few appreciate simulation work.
.99,
I do, however, have a humorous story about a defense contractor, a circuit built from sim work, and what it took to get it to work in "real life". I appreciate good sim work, but it is sometimes difficult to quantify all strays so that they can be incorporated into the sim.
But don't take me wrong, I fully appreciate simulation work, it is an incredibly powerful tool and I think it would be quite useful for what I do.
Now, if I can only make a client feel the same way and get them to pay for some software...
PW
The Red Queen said,
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK said,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
And the Red Queen went "WEE-EEE-EE-EEE" all the way home.
(Ainslie, you've got your cast of characters wrong. YOU are Leon. I am Deckard. But you can call me Rick.)
Rosemary:
I double-checked TK's reading of the scope capture and it appears to be right. However, I can see a possibility for another interpretation.
What I am thinking is that the Q1 MOSFET is actually fully on, because the gate voltage appears to be at about +5 volts when it is high. If that's true then the current would be about (62/(11 +2)) = 4.8 amps. I am guessing 11 ohms for the load resistor from memory. Perhaps you have a 10X probe on the current sensing channel, so the current would be not 320 milliamps, but instead 3.2 amps. 3.2 amps is close enough to 4.8 amps to suggest that Q1 may be fully on and I am on the right track.
So if that's the case then we get (3.2 amps x 62 volts) = about 200 watts of power being output by the batteries.
So, Rosie Posie, if I am right, then there is no big "victory" by you over TK. Nor does it mean that your statement that TK can't do power analysis holds true either.
All that it means is that you couldn't give TK the courtesy of pointing out some mistakes that he made. That's supposed to be part of the culture on the forums. Your argument that all of us are clueless with respect to power analysis is totally false.
So if I am right, all that you have done here is bring shame upon yourself because you wouldn't offer TK the courtesy of pointing out his error.
Again, the big disclaimer here is that I am not sure myself because I forget the specifics of the NERD setup.
But again, if I am correct, then shame on you Rosemary Ainslie. You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into the abyss.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 09, 2012, 12:47:17 AM
Rosemary:
I double-checked TK's reading of the scope capture and it appears to be right. However, I can see a possibility for another interpretation.
What I am thinking is that the Q1 MOSFET is actually fully on, because the gate voltage appears to be at about +5 volts when it is high. If that's true then the current would be about (62/(11 +2)) = 4.8 amps. I am guessing 11 ohms for the load resistor from memory. Perhaps you have a 10X probe on the current sensing channel, so the current would be not 320 milliamps, but instead 3.2 amps. 3.2 amps is close enough to 4.8 amps to suggest that Q1 may be fully on and I am on the right track.
So if that's the case then we get (3.2 amps x 62 volts) = about 200 watts of power being output by the batteries.
So, Rosie Posie, if I am right, then there is no big "victory" by you over TK. Nor does it mean that your statement that TK can't do power analysis holds true either.
All that it means is that you couldn't give TK the courtesy of pointing out some mistakes that he made. That's supposed to be part of the culture on the forums. Your argument that all of us are clueless with respect to power analysis is totally false.
So if I am right, all that you have done he is bring shame on yourself because you wouldn't offer TK the courtesy of pointing out his error.
Again, the big disclaimer here is that I am not sure myself because I forget the specifics of the NERD setup.
But again, if I am correct, then shame on you Rosemary Ainslie. You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into the abyss.
MileHigh
MH,
I do not know what 'scope shot you guys are discussing, but an IRFPG50 that is at room temp will pass about 1.750 amp with Vgs=5volts. At 150degC, it will pass about 3 amps at that same Vgs=5volts. Due to device to device variabilities, I would assign at least +/- 20% to those estimates.
Those numbers drop to 200ma at room temp and 1amp at 150degC if Vgs is reduced to 4.5volts.
You can see that there is a large difference in the on resistance of the IRFPG50 in just that .5volt variation of Vgs.
Which 'scope shot is being discussed?
PW
(Corrected 750ma to 1.75 amp in first sentence))
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:17:46 AM
My dear Leon,
I've said this before but will say it as often as required. IF I needed support from anyone at all - I'd ASK for it. I don't need it. So. I don't ask for it. I prefer it that people know that it it only takes a really OLD lady (of the opposite ...lol) with nothing more than your average intellectual competence, to defeat the best efforts of your best dedicated anti over unity campaigners. You, on the other hand, need all the assistance that you can manage. Up to and including MrMean. LOL. And PhiChaser for that matter.
The advantage to all this is that those members who are serious about research - will be heartened when they fully appreciate the level of your spin, the level of your tar brush applications - and the level of your competence related to power engineering and, for that matter - to physics.
Rosie Pose
They don't need my help, you can tar yourself just fine Rosemary.
In fact, every time you refuse to engage these guys on a technical level you tar yourself.
Every time you slander TK about his videos you tar yourself.
All anyone has to do is ask you to do a Dim Bulb Test and you slip slide away down Zipon Avenue and mutter about sauce.
And you again tar yourself...
If that doesn't work they can ask you about power calculations but you seem to have found the loophole there by 'putting the witness on trial' as PW put it.
And still you continue to tar yourself...
You really do believe that you are right though, don't you?
After seeing all the evidence and data and discussion amassed here regarding negative power mean circuits that YOU STILL believe you're right and they are wrong?!?
That is some serious denial there.
Like EPIC denial.
Bigger than that river in Africa even... :o
Don't go away though Rosie, we all like your company!
Always good to have a 'free thinker' in the group.
;D
Regards,
PC
This scope shot is being discussed. Full shot and then a blowup of the region in question.
I don't believe the mosfet is fully on.
The LeCroy autodetects probe attenuation if it is used with LeCroy probes, as it is, and is using the correct atten, I believe.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 09, 2012, 12:47:17 AM
But again, if I am correct, then shame on you Rosemary Ainslie. You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into the abyss.
MileHigh
No MileHigh. You are not correct. Not even close. And NO. I have no inclination to explain anything at all. I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone reading here is aware of the error. And frankly this discussion is again getting rather tedious. I've still got to do that ruddy post relating to TK's video - which he laughing calls 'educational'. And RIGHT now I've got chores to finish before I can even get back here.
Rosie Pose.
So I still think about 20 Watts is being dissipated by the circuit, given that 320 mA and the 62 volt battery. (And the 5 volt gate drive from the FG, of course.) The various resistances can be used then to calculate the individual power dissipation levels of the various parts. The 11.1 ohm Load is easy to figure: assume the whole 320 mA goes through it and use I^2R and obtain about 1 Watt. What about the mosfet, biased partially on by the weak positive gate drive? Again, use the whole 320 mA of course, and look at the transfer graph to see what a mosfet at 25 C and 5 v gate drive will conduct at 100 Vds. It looks to me about 1.2 Amps, and so at 100 Volts that gives a resistance of R=V/I == about 83 Ohms. The load is 11.1 Ohms, the CVR ( shunt) is 0.25 Ohms and the internal resistance of the FG is 50 ohms. So we are in the ballpark of the total circuit resistance calculated from the estimate of current, using the eyeballed estimate of mosfet resistance from the transfer graph.
(EDIT I removed the part about the FG being in series when Q1 is on... I'm not sure about that at this point, the situation is not a strict mirror image of when the FG is putting a negative at Q1 gate which does put the FG in series with the battery through the Q2 Rds.)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 01:26:03 AM
No MileHigh. You are not correct. Not even close. And NO. I have no inclination to explain anything at all. I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone reading here is aware of the error. And frankly this discussion is again getting rather tedious. I've still got to do that ruddy post relating to TK's video - which he laughing calls 'educational'. And RIGHT now I've got chores to finish before I can even get back here.
Rosie Pose.
In English, that means SHE CANNOT explain anything at all in coherent speech with standard terminology, and not only that, she can't find any substantial error in my calculations.
It also means that she ONCE AGAIN has completely ignored Stefan's wishes and is STILL trying to get herself banned.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 01:20:34 AM
This scope shot is being discussed. Full shot and then a blowup of the region in question.
I don't believe the mosfet is fully on.
The LeCroy autodetects probe attenuation if it is used with LeCroy probes, as it is, and is using the correct atten, I believe.
TK,
So, now what's the problem?
If channel 1 is the shunt voltage, I agree with your off screen measurements and it looks like about 320ma is flowing when the FG output is positive. 320ma across the 11R load resistor means that the load resistor is dissipating around 1.13 watts. If Vbatt is 60 volts, there is about 56.5 volts across Q1 so Q1 is getting hot as it dissipates approx 18 watts. Total dissipation (ignoring the small dissipation in the csr) is just under 20 watts.
PW
Here, Ainslie, in case you lost the link. I can't wait to see what you come up with to "explain" my ruddy video in light of your claims.
Ainslie said,
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK replied,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
Come on, let's see what kind of laughingstock you can make of yourself now, Ainslie.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 01:45:34 AM
So I still think about 20 Watts is being dissipated by the circuit, given that 320 mA and the 62 volt battery. (And the 5 volt gate drive from the FG, of course.) The various resistances can be used then to calculate the individual power dissipation levels of the various parts. The 11.1 ohm Load is easy to figure: assume the whole 320 mA goes through it and use I^2R and obtain about 1 Watt. What about the mosfet, biased partially on by the weak positive gate drive? Again, use the whole 320 mA of course, and look at the transfer graph to see what a mosfet at 25 C and 5 v gate drive will conduct at 100 Vds. It looks to me about 1.2 Amps, and so at 100 Volts that gives a resistance of R=V/I == about 83 Ohms. The load is 11.1 Ohms, the CVR ( shunt) is 0.25 Ohms and the internal resistance of the FG is 50 ohms. So we are in the ballpark of the total circuit resistance calculated from the estimate of current, using the eyeballed estimate of mosfet resistance from the transfer graph.
(EDIT I removed the part about the FG being in series when Q1 is on... I'm not sure about that at this point, the situation is not a strict mirror image of when the FG is putting a negative at Q1 gate which does put the FG in series with the battery through the Q2 Rds.)
TK,
Just figure the drop across the load resistor (as it is a known value) and subtract that drop from the supply voltage. The remainder is the voltage across Q1 and that voltage times the 320ma gives you the dissipation at Q1. (ignoring small things like the dissipation at the CSR, wiring resistance, etc).
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 02:07:19 AM
TK,
So, now what's the problem?
If channel 1 is the shunt voltage, I agree with your off screen measurements and it looks like about 320ma is flowing when the FG output is positive. 320ma across the 11R load resistor means that the load resistor is dissipating around 1.13 watts. If Vbatt is 60 volts, there is about 56.5 volts across Q1 so Q1 is getting hot as it dissipates approx 18 watts. Total dissipation (ignoring the small dissipation in the csr) is just under 20 watts.
PW
And that agrees with what I said, which is that 20 Watts are being dissipated _somewhere_ in the circuit.
And also there is some dissipation in the FG's internal 50R, I think. No problem as far as I can see... but Ainslie says that we don't know how to calculate the power, that I am wrong, and therefore you are too ... but she won't tell us why or how. Therefore, I conclude that SHE once again is simply wrong.
This is of course the screenshot that goes along with the "boiling water with no power drawn from battery" blog post that I've linked. Not only wasn't the water boiling, but substantial power is in fact being drawn and dissipated, and it ain't coming from superluminal zipons, neither.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Y3mWDkB6o
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 02:12:30 AM
And that agrees with what I said, which is that 20 Watts are being dissipated _somewhere_ in the circuit.
And also there is some dissipation in the FG's internal 50R, I think. No problem as far as I can see... but Ainslie says that we don't know how to calculate the power, that I am wrong, and therefore you are too ... but she won't tell us why or how. Therefore, I conclude that SHE once again is simply wrong.
This is of course the screenshot that goes along with the "boiling water with no power drawn from battery" blog post that I've linked. Not only wasn't the water boiling, but substantial power is in fact being drawn and dissipated, and it ain't coming from superluminal zipons, neither.
TK,
During this part of the cycle the FG need only provide Q1 gate leakage current once it charges the gate capacitance, so current thru the FG in this mode (FG output positive, Q1 turned on) is very minimal (not significant).
PW
TK,
Are you going to try .99's "Altoids" oscillator?
PW
@PW: Yes, I see that now, or again, thanks. I've been concentrating on the other mode, negative only, for so long I forgot about how the positive mode worked. The FG is only in the series circuit during the negative gate drive portion and then the overall current is low due to the mosfets only being biased partially on and oscillating. And of course in the positive mode it just needs to charge the gate capacitance and then it's basically done, as you say. So maybe Rosemary is confusing the positive gate drive mode FG role with what we've been discussing lately, the negative case, where the role seems very different.
So really we seem to have a third mode of operation now: a partially on mosfet Q1 due to the low level positive "ON" drive, combined with the negative "OFF" drive giving the oscillations and passing some current through the Q2s. This is distinct from the case of the +10 or +12 volt drive that produces a fully on Q1 and a current of 3 or 4 amps, with a negative going portion for oscs, and of course it's different from the strictly negative drive that leaves Q1 out of the picture entirely. So we have 1) mosfet Q1 fully on with high current during "on" time and Q2s in linear region with oscillations during "off" time (but really negative drive), and lots of power dissipating in the load and mosfets; 2) mosfet Q1 partly on with low positive gate drive "ON" and Q2s partly on due to oscillations "off" really negative drive, with most of the power dissipating in the Q1 mosfet and a little in the load; and 3) strictly negative drive, ignoring Q1, oscillating and biasing Q2s to conduct some current, with small load heat and Q2 mosfets warming.
Have I left anything out?
Sure, I'll build the Altoids box. I intended to do it today but I got lazy and didn't feel like driving to the store in the thunderstorms. I need to get the right Zener and some misc. inductors, so I'll probably do it tomorrow. I like the idea of having the math done on-board but developing the circuit to do it is above my pay grade. If you or .99 can sketch a schematic using a comparator or opamp or the AD834 or similar I'll be happy to build it, if my source has them in stock. Or maybe I'll place a DigiKey order. I need some other stuff too and they usually deliver in two days, from placing the order, to my mailbox.
TK, PW:
Thanks for that discussion. I thought that I read a month or so ago that when Vgs was +5 volts or higher that the MOSFET was fully on. Hence my attempt to put the pieces of the puzzle together based on Rosemary's comments. I stand corrected.
Rosemary:
What an abysmal smug attitude you displayed for this episode. I will have to assume that you are wrong just like TK said. And at the same time, to your shame, you saw what this forum is all about - the exchange of ideas.
Your feeble attempt to portray us as people that don't understand power analysis was just that, a feeble attempt. Your inability to understand how your own simple circuit works and your continued belligerence and your refusal to engage like we just saw paints a very sorry picture.
Just do the dim bulb test, that's all that you've got.
MileHigh
Thanks for this picowatt. I was hoping we'd also get your endorsement. Delighted to see that your expertise is indeed as lacking in credential as I expected.
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 02:07:19 AM
TK,
So, now what's the problem?
If channel 1 is the shunt voltage, I agree with your off screen measurements and it looks like about 320ma is flowing when the FG output is positive. 320ma across the 11R load resistor means that the load resistor is dissipating around 1.13 watts. If Vbatt is 60 volts, there is about 56.5 volts across Q1 so Q1 is getting hot as it dissipates approx 18 watts. Total dissipation (ignoring the small dissipation in the csr) is just under 20 watts.
PW
Rosie Posie
Now - picowatt... 'LEARN' - as you put it. And TK - 'listen up'. And PhiChaser - and for that matter MileHigh - 'pay attention' - if you're to benefit from my rather elementary lesson in the fundamentals of power analysis. A duty cycle typically includes two parts. The one part is while a switch is 'on' or and the circuit thereby closed. The other part is while the switch is 'off' and the circuit thereby open. The length of 'on' and the level of 'on' is infinitely variable - as is the length of 'off' and the level of 'off'. As it applies to the use of a MOSFET - the 'gate' leg of that transistor has an APPLIED SIGNAL. NOTA BENE. The gate affords a path for the flow of current from the circuit supply source from the drain leg to the source leg. This flow of current from the function generator only induces a voltage across that gate. In our example the current flow is from the function generator. This then induces a voltage or signal across that gate. It is that induced VOLTAGE that allows a flow of current from the circuit's supply source OR NOT. When the induced voltage is positive then our IRFPG50 enables the flow of current from the circuit's battery supply source. And correspondingly - when that induced voltage is negative then it does NOT allow the flow of current from the circuit's battery supply source.
Now - also typically and in our referenced test example - when the switch is 'OFF' - which corresponds to the period where that distinctive oscillation is apparent during the period where the negative signal is applied to Q1 - then there is some reason to 'question' the source of that current flow that induces the oscillation. For now we will 'ignore' that part of the question and just concentrate on how TK did 'THE MATH' which you and MileHigh and PhiChaser went to some considerable lengths to endorse.
In calculating watts the object is to determine what the 'average' energy is - applied or dissipated - during any single switched cycle. Since a cycle incorporates two periods which typically comprises an 'off' period together with an 'on' period - then the time over which that energy is applied in each cycle - needs must be 'factored in'. Therefore correctly one computes that on period OVER TIME. If the ON period is only ON for a fraction of the time then to compute the energy delivered or dissipated one must factor in that TIME. Therefore, correctly - and as in that example that you and TK referenced, the ON time is for a period - of roughly 1/6th of each switching cycle. Therefore WHEN you compute the energy delivered or dissipated - you also have to factor in that TIME period. Therefore TAKE that plus/minus 20 WATTS that you and Leon calculated - and DIVIDE it by 6. AND then you will see that the energy delivered by the battery is actually ONLY and at the MOST 3.33 (recurring) WATTS.
NOW. Leon and picowatt and MileHigh and PhiChaser. Tell me how 3.33 watts applied to our element resistor can take the temperature over that resistor element to greater than 200 degrees centigrade - over the space of about an hour - with the temperature measured directly ON that element resistor - and OPEN TO AIR. That it is then plunged into about half a liter of cold water - when it then rapidly raises that water temperature from ambient to upwards of 80 degrees centigrade - before it stabilises. Then tell us how that SAME amount of energy - but at a higher applied frequency - can then take that water to boil in the space of 10 more minutes - with such a continual and rapid rise in temperature that it was considered advisable to bring that test to a conclusion. 3.33 watts would simply NOT cut it.
And guys, back to that argument where its force is applied with a cudgel dipped in tar... In order to compute the amount of energy ACTUALLY dissipated from the wattage gauged during ONLY 1/6th of the duty cycle - is GROSSLY FLAWED. But even allowing for this - as picowatt et al are trying to promote the argument that this is the ONLY period of each duty cycle that energy is applied to the element resistor - then one needs to MULTIPLY those watts. Effectively the watt measurement is the 'average' determined over each duty cycle period per second. The Joules dissipated or delivered is determined as product over the entire test period. BUT. They are BOTH based on units PER SECOND. But the watts measured is always qualified by the time of each duty cycle. Therefore 20 watts needs must be DIVIDED by 6 to allow for the time during which the duty cycle is ON.
Golly. :o And I'm meant to be the amateur here.
Rosie Pose
Guys, I take it that you've all seen the error. You may recall that occasional reference that Leon aka TinselKoala, Eric, and on and on... makes regarding my claim that a watt is the measure of 1 Joule per second - and likewise a Joule is the measure of 1 watt per second? That 'thing' that he's brought to our attention with the monotony of a hammer blow and with an identical level of mind numbing repetition? You may recall it? LOL. Admittedly it was not included in EVERY post. But probably on every PAGE of this thread. Pretty much. More or less... Well. As ever - it seems that our Little Leon has been overreached himself. He presumes to apply his own rather quixotic power analysis to just about everything within reach. And then he parades an ENTIRELY incorrect interpretation of power related to joules or watts - whichever you please - while his entourage of vigilantes - including MilesEverSo, picowat and PhiChaser go that extra mile with him to ENDORSE that utterly erroneous example of our Little Leon doing 'THE MATH' :o Well. That makes it a 'CLEAN SWEEP'. All that TAR that is busily being smeared by all those vigilantes? They were wielding that tar brush with so much abandon that it's now slipped. Right off target. And now they've managed to blackened their own faces. To a man. And with it they've also blackened any hope of authority to comment on any power measurements EVER again. If it weren't quite so sad it could even have been amusing. In any event. Let's hope that's made it clear for them. The comfort is that I have a functional intelligence at my disposal - which albeit rather mundane and rather prosaic and certainly rather average - it is, nonetheless, MORE than enough. It's not as if I'm up against the combined force of a combined high IQ. I am only up against a combined force of 4 or 5 or 6 of them with nothing more than a gross average intelligence. And I really mean gross. And I really mean AVERAGE. And I'm not sure that I mean 'intelligence' unless it's a misnomer. LOL.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:00:20 AM
Now - picowatt... 'LEARN' - as you put it. And TK - 'listen up'. And PhiChaser - and for that matter MileHigh - 'pay attention' - if you're to benefit from my rather elementary lesson in the fundamentals of power analysis. A duty cycle typically includes two parts. The one part is while a switch is 'on' or and the circuit thereby closed. The other part is while the switch is 'off' and the circuit thereby open. The length of 'on' and the level of 'on' is infinitely variable - as is the length of 'off' and the level of 'off'. As it applies to the use of a MOSFET - the 'gate' leg of that transistor has an APPLIED SIGNAL. NOTA BENE. The gate affords a path for the flow of current. This flow of current then induces a voltage across that gate. In our example the current flow is from the function generator. This then induces a voltage across that gate. It is that induced VOLTAGE that allows a flow of current from the circuit's supply source OR NOT. When the induced voltage is positive then our IRFPG50 enables the flow of current from the circuit's supply source. And correspondingly - when that induced voltage is negative then it does NOT allow the flow of current from the circuit supply source.
Now - also typically and in our referenced test example - when the switch is 'OFF' - which corresponds to the period where that distinctive oscillation is apparent during the period where the negative signal is applied to Q1 - then there is some reason to 'question' the source of that current flow that induces the oscillation. For now we will 'ignore' that part of the question and just concentrate on how TK did 'THE MATH' which you and MileHigh and PhiChaser went to some considerable lengths to endorse.
In calculating watts the object is to determine what the 'average' energy is applied or dissipated during any single switched cycle. Since a cycle incorporates two periods which typically comprises an 'off' period together with an 'on' period - then the time over which that energy is applied in each cycle - needs must be 'factored in'. Therefore correctly one computes that on period OVER TIME. If the ON period is only ON for a fraction of the time then to compute the energy delivered or dissipated one must factor in that TIME. Therefore, correctly - and as in that example that you and TK referenced, the ON time is for a period - of roughly 1/6th of each switching cycle. Therefore WHEN you compute the energy delivered or dissipated - you also have to factor in that TIME period. Therefore TAKE that plus/minus 20 WATTS and divide it by 6. AND then you will see that the energy delivered by the battery is actually ONLY and at the MOST 3.33 (recurring) WATTS.
NOW. Leon and picowatt and MileHigh and PhiChaser. Tell me how 3.33 watts applied to our element resistor can take the temperature over that resistor element to greater than 200 degrees centigrade - over the space of about an hour - with the temperature measured directly ON that element resistor - and OPEN TO AIR. That it is then plunged into about half a liter of cold water - when it then rapidly raises that water temperature from ambient to upwards of 80 degrees centigrade - before it stabilises. Then tell us how that SAME amount of energy - but at a higher applied frequency - can then take that water to boil in the space of 10 more minutes - with such a continual and rapid rise in temperature that it was considered advisable to bring that test to a conclusion. 3.33 watts would simply NOT cut it.
And guys, back to that argument where the force is applied with a cudgel dipped in tar... In order to compute the amount of energy ACTUALLY dissipated from the wattage gauged during ONLY 1/6th of the duty cycle - is GROSSLY FLAWED. But even allowing for this - as picowatt et al are trying to promote the argument that this is the ONLY period of each duty cycle that energy is applied to the element resistor - then one needs to MULTIPLY those watts. Effectively the watt measurement is the 'average' determined over each duty cycle period. The Joules dissipated or delivered is determined as product over the entire test period. They are BOTH based on units PER SECOND. But the watts measured is always qualified by the time of each duty cycle. Therefore 20 watts needs must be DIVIDED by 6 to allow for the time during which the duty cycle is ON.
Golly. :o And I'm meant to be the amateur here.
Rosie Pose
Good one Rosemary. So your only problem was with the instantaneous measurements? Cool.
Looks like everyone was correct, so what's the beef?
During the portion of the cycle discussed, 20 watts or so is indeed flowing. Now, if you want the average draw, you are indeed correct as well. Nice to see so much agreement for a change. I thought the reading of the 'scope was in question, you know, like the FIG 3 discussion.
So, what's the beef? What is this 'scope shot supposed to be showing anyway? I didn't see the discussion.
Rather lengthy post for stating the obvious, don't you thiink?
PW
Ainslie, you are indeed an idiot. Far from having a "functional intelligence" you are thick headed, uncooperative and ignorant. All that would be excusable.....but you are also WRONG.
Everybody EXCEPT YOU understands that we have been talking NOT ABOUT THE DUTY CYCLE but only that time period when the gate signal to Q1 is positive 5 volts AS SHOWN IN YOUR SCOPE SHOT. We have not, for the past few pages, been concerned with the oscillating "OFF" portion at all. OF COURSE the duty cycle is important when discussing the AVERAGE POWER over a longer time period. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We are only referring to the "on" portion at this time.
And if that's what you are crowing about, your argument is completely invalid, AS USUAL, because you either aren't paying attention or your ignorance is truly so abysmal that you cannot follow a simple technical discussion that even INCLUDES VISUAL AIDS.
Correct your errors, AINSLIE, and stop compounding them with more errors.
And this is the most fundamental conceptual error of all, and YOU KEEP MAKING IT because you are too arrogant to admit that you are full of baloney.
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
CORRECT YOUR ERRORS, Ainslie, FIRST, before you start criticising others with your ridiculous insults.
And you really ought to think a little about honoring the wishes of your host. CLEAN UP THE MESS YOU HAVE LEFT LYING ABOUT. Wrong circuit diagrams, bogus calculations, false claims, insults, lies.... you are a veritable disaster area.
Even your description of the same event changes. Compare that last quote above with how you described the SAME EVENT in your blog. YOU ARE A LIAR and you distort and misrepresent facts all the time. You aren't even CONSISTENT with your lies and misinterpretations and ridiculous assertions.
YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG on every page of this thread. And in every post you make, you misrepresent something or other usually by outright lying about it. And you've been doing it FOR YEARS in just the same way. And as a result you've driven everybody away from you. Not even the trolls are defending you any more, have you noticed?
No picowatt...
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 10:19:40 AM
Good one Rosemary. So your only problem was with the instantaneous measurements? Cool.
Looks like everyone was correct, so what's the beef?
During the portion of the cycle discussed, 20 watts or so is indeed flowing. Now, if you want the average draw, you are indeed correct as well. Nice to see so much agreement for a change. I thought the reading of the 'scope was in question, you know, like the FIG 3 discussion.
So, what's the beef? What is this 'scope shot supposed to be showing anyway? I didn't see the discussion.
Rather lengthy post for stating the obvious, don't you thiink?
NOT ACTUALLY. Not even CLOSE. 3.33 watts is NOT 20 watts. 20 watts MAY explain the rate of temperature rise. 3.33 recurring CERTAINLY WOULD NOT.
Rosie Pose.
My dear Leon
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 10:28:02 AM
Ainslie, you are indeed an idiot. Far from having a "functional intelligence" you are thick headed, uncooperative and ignorant. All that would be excusable.....but you are also WRONG.
Everybody EXCEPT YOU understands that we have been talking NOT ABOUT THE DUTY CYCLE but only that time period when the gate signal to Q1 is positive 5 volts AS SHOWN IN YOUR SCOPE SHOT. We have not, for the past few pages, been concerned with the oscillating "OFF" portion at all. OF COURSE the duty cycle is important when discussing the AVERAGE POWER over a longer time period. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We are only referring to the "on" portion at this time.
And if that's what you are crowing about, your argument is completely invalid, AS USUAL, because you either aren't paying attention or your ignorance is truly so abysmal that you cannot follow a simple technical discussion that even INCLUDES VISUAL AIDS.
Correct your errors, AINSLIE, and stop compounding them with more errors.
And this is the most fundamental conceptual error of all, and YOU KEEP MAKING IT because you are too arrogant to admit that you are full of baloney.
CORRECT YOUR ERRORS, Ainslie, FIRST, before you start criticising others with your ridiculous insults.
And you really ought to think a little about honoring the wishes of your host. CLEAN UP THE MESS YOU HAVE LEFT LYING ABOUT. Wrong circuit diagrams, bogus calculations, false claims, insults, lies.... you are a veritable disaster area.
Even your description of the same event changes. Compare that last quote above with how you described the SAME EVENT in your blog. YOU ARE A LIAR and you distort and misrepresent facts all the time. You aren't even CONSISTENT with your lies and misinterpretations and ridiculous assertions.
YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG on every page of this thread. And in every post you make, you misrepresent something or other usually by outright lying about it. And you've been doing it FOR YEARS in just the same way. And as a result you've driven everybody away from you. Not even the trolls are defending you any more, have you noticed?
This is yet more examples of a RANT. I have JUST SHOWN YOU that I have NOTHING to correct. You on the other hand are WRONG. ENTIRELY SO.
Rosie Pose.
Sorry. I addressed the wrong person. It's confusing. And I'm getting way too old. LOL
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:01:03 AM
Guys, I take it that you've all seen the error. You may recall that occasional reference that Leon aka TinselKoala, Eric, and on and on... makes regarding my claim that a watt is the measure of 1 Joule per second - and likewise a Joule is the measure of 1 watt per second? That 'thing' that he's brought to our attention with the monotony of a hammer blow and with an identical level of mind numbing repetition? You may recall it? LOL. Admittedly it was not included in EVERY post. But probably on every PAGE of this thread. Pretty much. More or less... Well. As ever - it seems that our Little Leon has been overreached himself. He presumes to apply his own rather quixotic power analysis to just about everything within reach. And then he parades an ENTIRELY incorrect interpretation of power related to joules or watts - whichever you please - while his entourage of vigilantes - including MilesEverSo, picowat and PhiChaser go that extra mile with him to ENDORSE that utterly erroneous example of our Little Leon doing 'THE MATH' :o Well. That makes it a 'CLEAN SWEEP'. All that TAR that is busily being smeared by all those vigilantes? They were wielding that tar brush with so much abandon that it's now slipped. Right off target. And now they've managed to blackened their own faces. To a man. And with it they've also blackened any hope of authority to comment on any power measurements EVER again. If it weren't quite so sad it could even have been amusing. In any event. Let's hope that's made it clear for them. The comfort is that I have a functional intelligence at my disposal - which albeit rather mundane and rather prosaic and certainly rather average - it is, nonetheless, MORE than enough. It's not as if I'm up against the combined force of a combined high IQ. I am only up against a combined force of 4 or 5 or 6 of them with nothing more than a gross average intelligence. And I really mean gross. And I really mean AVERAGE. And I'm not sure that I mean 'intelligence' unless it's a misnomer. LOL.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Seems to me, that if you were actually interested in discussing your technology, this post would have had some math results in it. Why don't you just show TK et al that they are wrong and show your math?
I see you feel the need to remind us of your intelligence once again.
It's getting old,
PW
@PW:
Nobody but Ainslie could have missed the fact that we have been talking only about the time periods during which the gate signal to Q1 is positive, as indicated in my blowup of the scopeshot. She is crowing, AGAIN, about a hallucination of hers and therefore ALL THAT GARBAGE she has spouted is, as usual, invalid.
The scope shot is important because it goes with the description of the "25.6 million Joule" bogus result that she obtained, and it is at the heart of her claim. The shot is from her blog, posts 117 and 118, reproduced below. Note the claims made, and also compare the description of the events given in the blog posts, made in real time, with how she has described the same events later on.... as in the quotation I've reproduced above. Yes, they are describing the exact same events !!
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html and also number 118.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
No picowatt...
NOT ACTUALLY. Not even CLOSE. 3.33 watts is NOT 20 watts. 20 watts MAY explain the rate of temperature rise. 3.33 recurring CERTAINLY WOULD NOT.
Rosie Pose.
So are you saying that during the positive portion of the FG cycle that 20 watts is not being dissipated?
To arrive at your 3.33watts, I assume you multiplied the 20 watts flowing during the "on time" by the percentage of the cycle that the FG is "on". That gives you an average dissipation, but that does not mean that 20 watts isn't flowing during the "on" time.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 10:42:22 AM
So are you saying that during the positive portion of the FG cycle that 20 watts is not being dissipated?
To arrive at your 3.33watts, I assume you multiplied the 20 watts flowing during the "on time" by the percentage of the cycle that the FG is "on". That gives you an average dissipation, but that does not mean that 20 watts isn't flowing during the "on" time.
PW
picowatt. IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated. That means that there are NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time. EVER. And no amount of hand waving is going to change that. Watts is watts. No way around that definition. Sorry.
Rosie Pose
Watts are caculated over time. That's IT. Always it's represented as an average over time. NO OTHER WAY TO CUT IT.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:30:31 AM
My dear Leon
This is yet more examples of a RANT. I have JUST SHOWN YOU that I have NOTHING to correct. You on the other hand are WRONG. ENTIRELY SO.
Rosie Pose.
Sorry. I addressed the wrong person. It's confusing. And I'm getting way too old. LOL
You have SHOWN nothing at all. You have only repeated your same old WRONG argument yet again. Therefore YOU LIE AGAIN by saying that you've "shown" anything at all with respect to our calculations. All you have shown is another illustration of your abysmal ignorance and your overweening arrogance.
SHOWING means performing calculations, giving links to supporting information, giving a demonstration, etc. IT DOES NOT MEAN MORE BLOWHARD BLOVIATING.
If you think that the power DURING THE ON TIME is only 3.33 Watts when the gate of Q1 is receiving the 5 volts positive, SHOW HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER.
That is what "SHOW" means in this context: produce the calculation and JUSTIFY YOUR RESULTS.... as I HAVE ALWAYS DONE and as anyone who claims any knowledge of power calculations should be able to do.
BUT YOU CANNOT because you simply still do not understand the issues at all. Somebody whispered "duty cycle" and you, like a mindless parrot, parrot it back just like a tape recorder, and with just as much understanding as a tape recorder has of the issue.
OK guys,
This is the entire PROOF required that we are no longer talking science. And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model - nor established measurement protocols - nor anything at all that is even half way relevant to power analysis. And this post can be dismissed in its entirety. And for those of you who KNOW power analysis - then this is really as far as any of you need go to see that TK is on a MISSION. And that mission has NOTHING to do with science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 10:45:47 AM
You have SHOWN nothing at all. You have only repeated your same old WRONG argument yet again. Therefore YOU LIE AGAIN by saying that you've "shown" anything at all with respect to our calculations. All you have shown is another illustration of your abysmal ignorance and your overweening arrogance.
SHOWING means performing calculations, giving links to supporting information, giving a demonstration, etc. IT DOES NOT MEAN MORE BLOWHARD BLOVIATING.
If you think that the power DURING THE ON TIME is only 3.33 Watts when the gate of Q1 is receiving the 5 volts positive, SHOW HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER.
That is what "SHOW" means in this context: produce the calculation and JUSTIFY YOUR RESULTS.... as I HAVE ALWAYS DONE and as anyone who claims any knowledge of power calculations should be able to do.
BUT YOU CANNOT because you simply still do not understand the issues at all. Somebody whispered "duty cycle" and you, like a mindless parrot, parrot it back just like a tape recorder, and with just as much understanding as a tape recorder has of the issue.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:45:36 AM
picowatt. IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated. That means that there iare NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time. EVER. And no amount of hand waving is going to change that. Watts is watts. No way around that definition. Sorry.
Rosie Pose
20 watts flows during the "on" time in that 'scope shot. Only need to factor in the duty cycle for average dissipation.
Watts is watts...
Sorry,
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:45:36 AM
picowatt. IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated. That means that there iare NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time. EVER. And no amount of hand waving is going to change that. Watts is watts. No way around that definition. Sorry.
Rosie Pose
Keep digging, Ainslie, you are getting down to the bedrock. You are way over your head here and you are even beginning to see yourself that you are totally wrong. It's useless for me to suggest that you CHECK YOUR DEFINITIONS. But go on... what you have just posted reveals that what I have said all along is true: you do not understand integration over time, and you do not understand how an average power is computed from a pulsating signal with a duty cycle.
THE FULL 20 WATTS that is undeniably flowing during the ON time is multiplied by the percentage of the Total Time that the ON time extends, to arrive at the total AVERAGE over that time. So if you have, say, 20 Watts for 1/2 the total time, then your average power is 10 Watts over that time period.
(THIS is "SHOWING". Note that there are some numbers, some operations, and some results given. NOT JUST WORDS.)
To arrive at your 3.33 Watt figure you have to calculate from the 20 Watts that we have calculated, along with the duty cycle percentage. So, since your duty cycle in the scopeshot is about 1/8 or 12.5 percent ON.... we arrive at something like your 3.33 Watt figure BY USING THE 20 WATTS that we have calculated, MULTIPLIED BY THE DUTY CYCLE PERCENTAGE. Like this:
20 Watts instantaneous power X 0.125 cycle ON == 2.5 Watts AVERAGE POWER.
Your citation of the 3.33 Watts figure PROVES THAT WE ARE RIGHT, not wrong, you dimwit.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:50:33 AM
OK guys,
This is the entire PROOF required that we are no longer talking science. And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model - nor established measurement protocols - nor anything at all that is even half way relevant to power analysis. And this post can be dismissed in its entirety. And for those of you who KNOW power analysis - then this is really as far as any of you need go to see that TK is on a MISSION. And that mission has NOTHING to do with science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
You are just wrong. I am advancing nothing more than correct calculations. And that's really as far as anyone needs to go to see that Ainslie is a lying idiot.
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 10:35:45 AM
Seems to me, that if you were actually interested in discussing your technology, this post would have had some math results in it. Why don't you just show TK et al that they are wrong and show your math?
I see you feel the need to remind us of your intelligence once again.
It's getting old,
I am very interested in discussing our technology. The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper. There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model. And IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence. It is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity. Me. I'm Mrs Average. And good science NEVER needs more than that. I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us. We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 10:59:39 AM
You are just wrong. I am advancing nothing more than correct calculations. And that's really as far as anyone needs to go to see that Ainslie is a lying idiot.
LOL. For 'correct' read 'incorrect'. For calculations read 'adventure'. And as for me being a lying idiot - I forgive you. I see why you need to claim this. You're out of your depth. And you've run out of invective.
As ever.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:45:36 AM
picowatt. IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated. That means that there are NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time. EVER. And no amount of hand waving is going to change that. Watts is watts. No way around that definition. Sorry.
Rosie Pose
Watts are caculated over time. That's IT. Always it's represented as an average over time. NO OTHER WAY TO CUT IT.
YOU IDIOT. A Watt is an INSTANTANEOUS MEASUREMENT. It is a RATE of energy dissipation. A WATT IS A JOULE PER SECOND.
AVERAGE POWER is the instantaneous power averaged over time. THAT is it. Instantaneous power is what you get when you multiply all those points by all those other points. YOU DON'T GET AVERAGE POWER until you factor in the time.
AGAIN, this is at the heart of your fundamental confusion about the meaning of the Watt and the Joule.
Is a MILE the same thing as a MILE PER HOUR? No, of course it isn't. One is a QUANTITY and the other is a RATE. You are confusing your quantities with your rates and as long as you do you will continue to make these hopeless blunders.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 11:05:03 AM
LOL. For 'correct' read 'incorrect'. For calculations read 'adventure'. And as for me being a lying idiot - I forgive you. I see why you need to claim this. You're out of your depth. And you've run out of invective.
As ever.
Rosie Pose
As ever is right. As ever blowhard arrogant egotistical and WRONG you are, and you clearly intend to remain wrong.
FIND A SINGLE PERSON WHO WILL AGREE WITH YOUR POSTS OF TODAY. Just one. YOU CANNOT. Yet there are plenty who will agree with PW and with me.
NOT EVEN YOUR TROLLS can justify your present set of egregious misstatements and insults.
You accuse me of being unscientific when all I am demanding is that you SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS and CORRECT YOUR ERRORS. How is that unscientific? Only in the twisted lexicon of Ains-lies.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
I am very interested in discussing our technology. The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper. There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model. And IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence. It is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity. Me. I'm Mrs Average. And good science NEVER needs more than that. I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us. We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak.
Rosie Pose
So how do you explain the neg mean pwr measurements that TK and .99's sims are able to produce when using your measurement methods?
Do you believe any circuit from which a neg mean pwr measurement can be made is operating non-conventionally?
Does your neg mean pwr measurement mean something different when measured in your circuit than it does when measured in TK's circuit or .99's sims?
And again, a watt is a watt. Please show me where the formula for watts has a "time" component in it. Last I checked, it was just VxI.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
I am very interested in discussing our technology. The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper. There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model.
You have been shown for YEARS just how your results DO fit into "the standard model" : they are errors caused by your improper test procedures, which has also been explained to you over and over. There are posts on the NS threads that are nearly word-for-word clones of posts here where these topics are explained to you.
QuoteAnd IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence.
YOU have not got the prerequisite education to understand the concepts you are trying to discuss, this is evident DAILY in something or other that you say, and reading popular books like "Dancing Wu Li Masters" does not a physics education make.
QuoteIt is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity.
What is this supposed to mean? Early promiscuity? Whaat? Personally, I have sat through many many hours of classroom instruction in the topics we are discussing, sat exams, passed them with honors, and I have degrees that call me a scientist, and my job title includes "scientist" in it. In other words, I am credentialed, and these credentials are from MAJOR research universities in the USA. Ainslie--- a highschool dropout with not even algebra and geometry education. Nobody except Ainslie has "claimed" to be a genius. We are just educated, and we know how to use what we've learned, and we know how to CONTINUE learning.
QuoteI'm Mrs Average. And good science NEVER needs more than that. I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us. We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak.
Rosie Pose
You are far from average, Ainslie. You are a Dunning-Kruger Effect textbook example.
No Leon. And instantaneous power measurement is an instantaneous power measurement. A watt is ALWAYS factored over time. IF this is a science forum - which one assumes - then you are advancing something that is ABSOLUTELY NOT science.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
YOU IDIOT. A Watt is an INSTANTANEOUS MEASUREMENT. It is a RATE of energy dissipation. A WATT IS A JOULE PER SECOND.
And THIS is the proof that you really have no clue. AGAIN. A WATT is the amount of energy factored OVER TIME. No amount of disclaiming by you will alter this simple fact. And the longer you persist in this denial the more utterly discreditable you become. Which makes your earlier and repeated criticisms of my definitions - laughably inappropriate. JUST LOOK UP WIKI - if you're not going to refer to that VENERABLE authority that you published earlier - MR RALPH J SMITH. Instantaneous power is MEANINGLESS. Power measurements always need reference to time. And the very first qualification is the duty cycle which is applied in any switched circuit. You seem to forget that there are those readers here who KNOW how wrong you are. And IF picowatt takes the trouble to confirm this your definition of a watt - then he is equally WRONG. 20 watts are 'roughly' equal to instantaneous power. But instantaneous power - as mentioned - is MEANINGLESS. We are - first and foremost - actually obliged to determine the RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated - if we're to do power analysis. And that requires an analysis over TIME. So WATTS is, in that sense a RATE.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:05:59 AMAVERAGE POWER is the instantaneous power averaged over time. THAT is it. Instantaneous power is what you get when you multiply all those points by all those other points. YOU DON'T GET AVERAGE POWER until you factor in the time.
Which makes this just a whole lot of nonsense.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:05:59 AMAGAIN, this is at the heart of your fundamental confusion about the meaning of the Watt and the Joule.
Which actually means that you're PERFECTLY explaining your own confusions.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:05:59 AMIs a MILE the same thing as a MILE PER HOUR? No, of course it isn't. One is a QUANTITY and the other is a RATE. You are confusing your quantities with your rates and as long as you do you will continue to make these hopeless blunders.
Actually this is ridiculous. You are the one who is UTTERLY confused and UTTERLY wrong. And my saying this is NOT likely to convince you. But at least we ALL now KNOW where your own confusions lie.
Rosie Posie.
Rosemary,
It's a shame. For a moment there you demonstrated a bit of knowledge with respect to calculating average power. I for one was impressed.
Then you have to go and say something like a watt always has a time component figured into it and totally negate that moment of brilliance. What is "(V)x(A)" the formula for?
Some people just don't know to quit while they are ahead.
PW
Guys, picowatt and TK included,
Here's the thing. IF one determines the wattage delivered or dissipated - one takes the sum of a fair sample range - and then one divides that sum by the number of samples in that range. That gives you a 'fair' average - which represents the WATTS delivered - with that number being 'representative'. In effect it IS an average of a sample range of voltage measurements that DO, in fact, represent an INSTANTANEOUS power measurement. But the qualification is that it includes a full and representative sample range before one can arrive at that the required number. Then. That AVERAGE value is the ACTUAL rate of wattage. And that's then a product represented as a second - over the TIME that the energy has been delivered or dissipated - to give the Joules or POWER. Which ALWAYS incorporates TIME. One small representative sample in one small section of one part of the duty cycle is NEVER, EVER, a WATT. Nor can it be called a WATT. Then. The product of this number is applied to the value over time to represent the WORK that has been performed related to Joules. The instantaneous power calculated in 1/6 of a duty cycle is NOT representative of WATTS. It is merely representative of instantaneous power within a small fraction of the applied duty cycle.
Those them are the facts guys. And no amount of invective or protest is likely to alter those them facts.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 11:55:11 AM
No Leon. And instantaneous power measurement is an instantaneous power measurement. A watt is ALWAYS factored over time. IF this is a science forum - which one assumes - then you are advancing something that is ABSOLUTELY NOT science.
And THIS is the proof that you really have no clue. AGAIN. A WATT is the amount of energy factored OVER TIME. No amount of disclaiming by you will alter this simple fact. And the longer you persist in this denial the more utterly discreditable you become. Which makes your earlier and repeated criticisms of my definitions - laughably inappropriate. JUST LOOK UP WIKI - if you're not going to refer to that VENERABLE authority that you published earlier - MR RALPH J SMITH. Instantaneous power is MEANINGLESS. Power measurements always need reference to time. And the very first qualification is the duty cycle which is applied in any switched circuit. You seem to forget that there are those readers here who KNOW how wrong you are. And IF picowatt takes the trouble to confirm this your definition of a watt - then he is equally WRONG. 20 watts are 'roughly' equal to instantaneous power. But instantaneous power - as mentioned - is MEANINGLESS. We are - first and foremost - actually obliged to determine the RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated - if we're to do power analysis. And that requires an analysis over TIME. So WATTS is, in that sense a RATE.
Which makes this just a whole lot of nonsense.
Which actually means that you're PERFECTLY explaining your own confusions.
Actually this is ridiculous. You are the one who is UTTERLY confused and UTTERLY wrong. And my saying this is NOT likely to convince you. But at least we ALL now KNOW where your own confusions lie.
Rosie Posie.
You are simply wrong. A Watt is a rate of energy dissipation, it is a JOULE PER SECOND. It is an INSTANTANEOUS measurement. When you see a 100 Watt light bulb..... the energy used by that bulb is determined by multiplying its INSTANTANEOUS POWER USAGE, 100 Watts, by the TIME IT IS ON, and the answer is in JOULES, not watts.
Go ahead, find ANYONE who will agree with your characterization. You aren't going to be able to, because this is so fundamental that EVERYONE who reads this site understands it except you.
Try it. Ask around. ASK YOUR ACADEMICS if they've woken up from their naps yet. LOOK IT UP IN WIKI for goodness sake. The Watt is an instantaneous measurement. The JOULE is a Watt PER SECOND. Your "averaging" idea is correct but you are doing it wrong because you are blindly applying what you THINK are the correct definitions of Watt and Joule, but they are not.
FIND ANYONE ANYWHERE who will agree with you.
SHOW how you arrived at your 3.33 Watt figure. You cannot: somebody probably TOLD it to you and you, in your ignorance, can't figure out how to arrive at it with numbers and arithmetic operations. Or you are relying on some bogus temperature measurement that "relates to" some power in the load, in other words more garbage measurements that you don't understand.
The electrical calculations are as PW and I have said, and the Watt is an instantaneous measurement. Why else do you think people talk about "average power" at all? It is because AVERAGE POWER and instantaneous power are different things. A 100 Watt light bulb is a 100 Watt light bulb whether you turn it on for one second or for one hour or for a duty cycle of 5 percent or 95 percent: it is still a 100 WATT BULB. The ENERGY used is the AVERAGE POWER multiplied by the time. The INSTANTANEOUS POWER that the bulb draws will always be 100 Watts. The average power must factor in the on-time and the average power is always given as over a time period, or is assumed to be some constant value, as when you leave a bulb on and the supply voltage doesn't vary. The AVERAGE POWER considering ONLY the brief ON period of your pulse is 20 Watts FOR THAT FRACTION OF A CYCLE, and that's what PW and I have been TRYING to discuss, between your inanities and misrepresentations and misunderstandings and insults. Considering the WHOLE cycle, the AVERAGE POWER must also consider the oscillations and that is NOT what we are talking about.
PERHAPS, considering the oscillations during the OFF time AND the 320mA current during the ON time would add up to 3.33 Watts AVERAGE over an entire cycle. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, and the fact that you don't get it indicates... that you don't get it. You can parrot back words but you don't really understand the concepts of average versus instantaneous power.
WHY DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO DO ALL THAT SPREADSHEET STUFF? It's because you are taking INSTANTANEOUS power values and computing an average over time, then you are attempting to integrate that average power data over that time to get a TOTAL ENERGY FLOW in Joules. And you don't even realize it.
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 10:55:00 AM
20 watts flows during the "on" time in that 'scope shot. Only need to factor in the duty cycle for average dissipation.
Watts is watts...
Sorry,
PW
Again. Not actually. 20 watts is ONLY a small fraction of an ENTIRE DUTY CYCLE. Unless you factor in the entire duty cycle you CANNOT referto WATTS. Watts is the average over a wide sample in order to represent the ACTUAL rate of power delivered or dissipated. It is a RATE. It cannot be representative of anything at all if it is taken over an INCOMPLETE sample range. The least requirement is a FULL DUTY CYCLE. And that will change that 20 watts to 3.33 watts.. AT BEST.
How many ways must I explain this?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
Guys, picowatt and TK included,
Here's the thing. IF one determines the wattage delivered or dissipated - one takes the sum of a fair sample range - and then one divides that sum by the number of samples in that range. That gives you a 'fair' average - which represents the WATTS delivered - with that number being 'representative'. In effect it IS an average of a sample range of voltage measurements that DO, in fact, represent an INSTANTANEOUS power measurement. But the qualification is that it includes a full and representative sample range before one can arrive at that the required number. Then. That AVERAGE value is the ACTUAL rate of wattage. And that's then a product represented as a second - over the TIME that the energy has been delivered or dissipated - to give the Joules or POWER. Which ALWAYS incorporates TIME. One small representative sample in one small section of one part of the duty cycle is NEVER, EVER, a WATT. Nor can it be called a WATT. Then. The product of this number is applied to the value over time to represent the WORK that has been performed related to Joules. The instantaneous power calculated in 1/6 of a duty cycle is NOT representative of WATTS. It is merely representative of instantaneous power within a small fraction of the applied duty cycle.
Those them are the facts guys. And no amount of invective or protest is likely to alter those them facts.
Regards,
Rosie
Here's the thing.
The JOULE is a quantity of ENERGY, not power. The Joule is one WattSecond, NOT "one Watt per second".
The WATT is a RATE of ENERGY DISSIPATION. It, like ALL RATES, is an instantaneous measurement, just like MILES PER HOUR. A watt is a JOULE PER SECOND. Time does not enter the picture until you wish to get an AVERAGE over a time period.
When you do the averaging and integrating process you are attempting to describe--- and that ALL OF US FULLY UNDERSTAND EXCEPT YOU -- you are taking instantaneous POWER measurements in Watts and making what is called an INSTANTANEOUS POWER curve.
This is what is displayed on your scope's MATH trace: it is an instantaneous power curve.
THEN, you are taking those small timeslices and computing their AREAS: the horizontal duration of the slice times the height of the slice (the power at that "instant".)
Then you are SUMMING all those AREAS to arrive at a value that is in the units WATTS x TIME which is JOULES.
This is the process of INTEGRATION, a calculus concept that you do not grasp.
If you then simply take the total JOULES during the time of integration and divide that by the TOTAL TIME, you arrive at the AVERAGE POWER IN WATTS during that time interval, and this process takes into account all the duty cycle and wiggly bits of the original voltage and current data. And it is ENERGY that is the conserved quantity, not POWER.
That is what you are trying to understand and explain, but since you have your unit definitions muddled you ERR CONSTANTLY.
Take this to anyone you trust and have them explain it to you. Don't come back until you REALLY understand it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:24:16 PM
Again. Not actually. 20 watts is ONLY a small fraction of an ENTIRE DUTY CYCLE. Unless you factor in the entire duty cycle you CANNOT referto WATTS. Watts is the average over a wide sample in order to represent the ACTUAL rate of power delivered or dissipated. It is a RATE. It cannot be representative of anything at all if it is taken over an INCOMPLETE sample range. The least requirement is a FULL DUTY CYCLE. And that will change that 20 watts to 3.33 watts.. AT BEST.
How many ways must I explain this?
Rosie Pose
How many ways must WE explain that we are talking about the 20 Watts during the ON time of the duty cycle only. You are arguing against a phantom of your own creation and in the process you continue to reveal your ignorance of the basic concepts of power and energy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 12:16:22 PM
WHY DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO DO ALL THAT SPREADSHEET STUFF? It's because you are taking INSTANTANEOUS power values and computing an average over time, then you are attempting to integrate that average power data over that time to get a TOTAL ENERGY FLOW in Joules. And you don't even realize it.
IF by that 'spread sheet stuff' you're referring to integrated power analysis - then INDEED. We use multiple representative samples to calculate the amount of energy delivered over a period of time. When we've established a fair sample and when we've computed the power from EACH of those samples then we DIVIDE THAT SUM by the NUMBER OF SAMPLES. Then - and ONLY then - and INDEED THEN - we have the ACTUAL WATTAGE.
What you're trying to argue is that 1/6th of the ON time is a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. It is NOT. It is only representative of 1/6th of a duty cycle. IF you DO NOT factor in that 1/6th PERIOD then you are also NOT giving an accurate representation of WATTAGE. You are giving us something that is not comparable to anything at all.
Again and this is getting tedious in the extreme
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:29:31 PM
IF by that 'spread sheet stuff' you're referring to integrated power analysis - then INDEED. We use multiple representative samples to calculate the amount of energy delivered over a period of time. When we've established a fair sample and when we've computed the power from EACH of those samples then we DIVIDE THAT SUM by the NUMBER OF SAMPLES. Then - and ONLY then - and INDEED THEN - we have the ACTUAL WATTAGE.
What you're trying to argue is that 1/6th of the ON time is a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. It is NOT. It is only representative of 1/6th of a duty cycle. IF you DO NOT factor in that 1/6th PERIOD then you are also NOT giving an accurate representation of WATTAGE. You are giving us something that is not comparable to anything at all.
Again and this is getting tedious in the extreme
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, do you accept that during the ON time of the duty cycle only, the current is 320 mA and the voltage of the batteries is 62 volts?
YES, or NO.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 12:33:38 PM
Ainslie, do you accept that during the ON time of the duty cycle only, the current is 320 mA and the voltage of the batteries is 62 volts?
YES, or NO.
YES. UNEQUIVOCALLY
added
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:29:31 PM
IF by that 'spread sheet stuff' you're referring to integrated power analysis - then INDEED. We use multiple representative samples to calculate the amount of energy delivered over a period of time. When we've established a fair sample and when we've computed the power from EACH of those samples then we DIVIDE THAT SUM by the NUMBER OF SAMPLES. Then - and ONLY then - and INDEED THEN - we have the ACTUAL WATTAGE.
What you're trying to argue is that 1/6th of the ON time is a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. It is NOT. It is only representative of 1/6th of a duty cycle. IF you DO NOT factor in that 1/6th PERIOD then you are also NOT giving an accurate representation of WATTAGE. You are giving us something that is not comparable to anything at all.
Again and this is getting tedious in the extreme
Rosie Pose
No, Ainslie, that is NOT AT ALL what I am arguing. NOBODY said anything about "representative sample." WE ARE TRYING TO DISCUSS THE ON TIME ONLY because you made a specific claim related to that ON time only.
YOU CLAIMED that the current during the on time was minuscule, and we have shown that it is NOT, and in fact accounts for considerable power. YOU have complicated and obfuscated the issue by your hallucinations and misrepresentations like the above, because you desperately need to cover up the fact that you are WRONG in your contentions. Note the claim about the ON time current in your blog posts below. YOU ARE WRONG, by your own data.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
Guys, picowatt and TK included,
Here's the thing. IF one determines the wattage delivered or dissipated - one takes the sum of a fair sample range - and then one divides that sum by the number of samples in that range. That gives you a 'fair' average - which represents the WATTS delivered - with that number being 'representative'. In effect it IS an average of a sample range of voltage measurements that DO, in fact, represent an INSTANTANEOUS power measurement. But the qualification is that it includes a full and representative sample range before one can arrive at that the required number. Then. That AVERAGE value is the ACTUAL rate of wattage. And that's then a product represented as a second - over the TIME that the energy has been delivered or dissipated - to give the Joules or POWER. Which ALWAYS incorporates TIME. One small representative sample in one small section of one part of the duty cycle is NEVER, EVER, a WATT. Nor can it be called a WATT. Then. The product of this number is applied to the value over time to represent the WORK that has been performed related to Joules. The instantaneous power calculated in 1/6 of a duty cycle is NOT representative of WATTS. It is merely representative of instantaneous power within a small fraction of the applied duty cycle.
Those them are the facts guys. And no amount of invective or protest is likely to alter those them facts.
Regards,
Rosie
And again, what is this the formula for? (V)x(A) =??
Quoting you,
"it is merely representative of instantaneous power within a small fraction of the applied duty cycle"
Correct, but what is the unit of measurement used for that instantaneous power??
I agree with your statement regarding average power dissipation, however, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG is positive in that 'scope shot, 20watts is being dissipated.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:35:55 PM
YES. UNEQUIVOCALLY
added
What, then, is the power during that time, unequivocally?
What are you arguing about? PW and I are talking, and have been talking, about the ON time exclusively. And that is because we are examining the veracity of a claim YOU MADE ABOUT THE ON TIME CURRENT in those blog posts above.
A claim that you have just now admitted is wrong.
Quote...indicating that the current flow from the battery DURING THE ON TIME was next to nothing.
320 mA at 62 volts is NOT "next to nothing".
Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 12:38:26 PM
And again, what is this the formula for? (V)x(A) =??
Quoting you,
"it is merely representative of instantaneous power within a small fraction of the applied duty cycle"
Correct, but what is the unit of measurement used for that instantaneous power??
I agree with your statement regarding average power dissipation, however, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG is positive in that 'scope shot, 20watts is being dissipated.
PW
Actually TK you are STILL wrong. You are talking about the POWER that is being dissipated at the element resistor. You CANNOT separate that POWER from its context. You CLAIM that there is an instantaneous power dissipation based on 20 watts determined by the current flow and the voltage - V x I.
NOW. Any determination of the ACTUAL wattage delivered or dissipated is a determinant of the POWER. And POWER IS DEFINED AS DETAILED IN THE DOWNLOAD FROM WIKI. THAT sum requires that average over time - and THAT'S the ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE WATTAGE.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 09, 2012, 01:10:26 AM
They don't need my help, you can tar yourself just fine Rosemary.
In fact, every time you refuse to engage these guys on a technical level you tar yourself.
Every time you slander TK about his videos you tar yourself.
All anyone has to do is ask you to do a Dim Bulb Test and you slip slide away down Zipon Avenue and mutter about sauce.
And you again tar yourself...
If that doesn't work they can ask you about power calculations but you seem to have found the loophole there by 'putting the witness on trial' as PW put it.
And still you continue to tar yourself...
You really do believe that you are right though, don't you?
After seeing all the evidence and data and discussion amassed here regarding negative power mean circuits that YOU STILL believe you're right and they are wrong?!?
That is some serious denial there.
Like EPIC denial.
Bigger than that river in Africa even... :o
Don't go away though Rosie, we all like your company!
Always good to have a 'free thinker' in the group.
;D
Regards,
PC
Yes this is ridiculous she is completely nuts, their are no "Guys" their haven't been any since the beginning of the thread, NO supporters
So despite the overwhelming evidence why is she the only one in denial ?
Delusional disorder
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusional-disorder)
QuoteDelusional disorder most often occurs in middle to late life and is slightly more common in women than in men.
A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:45:04 PM
Actually TK you are STILL wrong. You are talking about the POWER that is being dissipated at the element resistor. You CANNOT separate that POWER from its context. You CLAIM that there is an instantaneous power dissipation based on 20 watts determined by the current flow and the voltage - V x I.
NOW. Any determination of the ACTUAL wattage delivered or dissipated is a determinant of the POWER. And POWER IS DEFINED AS
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/6/f/c6f4fcdcefb75e1417669dfbc912d208.png)THAT sum requires that average over time - and THAT'S the ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE WATTAGE.
Rosie Pose
YOU LIE AGAIN AINSLIE. I have said that that power is dissipated IN THE CIRCUIT ELEMENTS, not the load resistor. When will you learn to stop putting words in people's mouths that they did not say?
And you really should stop digging yourself in deeper. You still have no concept and you don't even understand the WIKI that you are parroting.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
What, then, is the power during that time, unequivocally?
What are you arguing about? PW and I are talking, and have been talking, about the ON time exclusively. And that is because we are examining the veracity of a claim YOU MADE ABOUT THE ON TIME CURRENT in those blog posts above.
A claim that you have just now admitted is wrong.
320 mA at 62 volts is NOT "next to nothing".
AGAIN. You are trying to IMPLY that watts can be separated from POWER. IF you are trying to determine the amount of energy dissipated at the load resistor then you are REFERENCING A POWER MEASUREMENT. This is ALWAYS BASED ON WATTS and those WATTS NEED TO BE DETERMINED OVER TIME. AGAIN. Here's that equation.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:45:04 PM
Actually TK you are STILL wrong. You are talking about the POWER that is being dissipated at the element resistor. You CANNOT separate that POWER from its context. You CLAIM that there is an instantaneous power dissipation based on 20 watts determined by the current flow and the voltage - V x I.
NOW. Any determination of the ACTUAL wattage delivered or dissipated is a determinant of the POWER. And POWER IS DEFINED AS DETAILED IN THE DOWNLOAD FROM WIKI. THAT sum requires that average over time - and THAT'S the ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE WATTAGE.
Rosie Pose
YOU FOOL. You don't even know what that equation means. What do those little triangles mean, Ainslie? You have no clue.
What does the plain symbol "W" mean and what does it mean with the subscript "avg"?
Instantaneous power and average power: two different things sharing the same unit, the Watt.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
What, then, is the power during that time, unequivocally?
What are you arguing about? PW and I are talking, and have been talking, about the ON time exclusively. And that is because we are examining the veracity of a claim YOU MADE ABOUT THE ON TIME CURRENT in those blog posts above.
A claim that you have just now admitted is wrong.
320 mA at 62 volts is NOT "next to nothing".
It is certainly NOT indicative of the power delivered by the battery EITHER. It is only indicative of the amount of power that is delivered during 1/6th of a duty cycle.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:50:14 PM
AGAIN. You are trying to IMPLY that watts can be separated from POWER. IF you are trying to determine the amount of energy dissipated at the load resistor then you are REFERENCING A POWER MEASUREMENT. This is ALWAYS BASED ON WATTS and those WATTS NEED TO BE DETERMINED OVER TIME. AGAIN. Here's that equation.
Rosie Pose
NO AINSLIE YOU LIE AND MISREPRESENT YET AGAIN. The Watt is a measure of INSTANTANEOUS POWER. How am I trying to "separate watts from power"? Like many things you say, this makes no sense and is a gross mischaracterisation of what I AM trying to do. In other words you LIE again.
You are confounding Joules, instantaneous power in Watts, and average power in Watts.
You don't understand this stuff, you can't provide anybody or any reference that actually supports your position and you do not understand even the simple equation from WIKI that you keep parroting.
But all that is moot, since you have AGREED that 320 mA flows
during the ON time, and this ALONE refutes your entire claims in 117 and 118, where you say that there is only a tiny current. 320 mA at 62 volts is not tiny and represents significant power.
Look.
I travel at 10 miles per hour for half an hour.
Then I speed up and travel at 20 miles per hour for another half an hour.
How far did I go in that hour? What was my AVERAGE SPEED? What was my speed at the 15 minute mark?
I went (10 miles/hour) x ( 1/2 hour) = 5 miles. Note that the units cancel and are correct.
I also went (20 miles/hour) x (1/2 hour) = 10 miles. Note that the units cancel and are correct.
Adding these, I get 15 miles travelled, in one hour. Taking one hour as the interval and 15 miles travelled, I AVERAGED 15 miles PER hour. But my speed at the 15 minute mark was 10 miles per hour.
This is the difference between an INSTANTANEOUS RATE and an AVERAGE RATE, Ainslie.
A Watt is like a Mile Per Hour. A Joule is like a Mile. A mile is NOT the same thing as a mile per hour, and is NOT the same thing as an hour per mile.
And this, by the way, is what is meant by "SHOWING" a computational result. I SHOW the numbers, the units, the operations, the results and the interpretation. All you do is waggle your gums.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 12:59:49 PM
NO AINSLIE YOU LIE AND MISREPRESENT YET AGAIN. The Watt is a measure of INSTANTANEOUS POWER. How am I trying to "separate watts from power"? Like many things you say, this makes no sense and is a gross mischaracterisation of what I AM trying to do. In other words you LIE again.
You are confounding Joules, instantaneous power in Watts, and average power in Watts.
You don't understand this stuff, you can't provide anybody or any reference that actually supports your position and you do not understand even the simple equation from WIKI that you keep parroting.
But all that is moot, since you have AGREED that 320 mA flows during the ON time, and this ALONE refutes your entire claims in 117 and 118, where you say that there is only a tiny current. 320 mA at 62 volts is not tiny and represents significant power.
I'm actually heartily sick of this. You are now AGAIN trying to infer that there is POWER delivered by the battery based on a figure that is NOT representative of WATTAGE. The wattage delivered by the battery is 3.33 watts. The power delivered by the battery CAN ONLY BE BASED ON THAT FIGURE. And for you to state that I don't know what those 'little triangles' represent? I keep telling you. I have a functional intelligence. Why would I NOT know?
You can try and argue otherwise TK. But you are UTTERLY WRONG. And I'm rather shocked that picowatt is endorsing this value. He at least KNOWS who reads these threads. Your analysis is QUITE SIMPLY and COMPLETELY WRONG. AT NO POINT IS THERE the delivery of 20 watts. There is only the measure of 20 watts over 1/6th of each duty cycle - making it a total of 3.33 watts - AT BEST.
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 01:05:04 PM
Look.
I travel at 10 miles per hour for half an hour.
Then I speed up and travel at 20 miles per hour for another half an hour.
How far did I go in that hour? What was my AVERAGE SPEED? What was my speed at the 15 minute mark?
I went (10 miles/hour) x ( 1/2 hour) = 5 miles. Note that the units cancel and are correct.
I also went (20 miles/hour) x (1/2 hour) = 10 miles. Note that the units cancel and are correct.
Adding these, I get 15 miles travelled, in one hour. Taking one hour as the interval and 15 miles travelled, I AVERAGED 15 miles PER hour. But my speed at the 15 minute mark was 10 miles per hour.
This is the difference between an INSTANTANEOUS RATE and an AVERAGE RATE, Ainslie.
A Watt is like a Mile Per Hour. A Joule is like a Mile. A mile is NOT the same thing as a mile per hour, and is NOT the same thing as an hour per mile.
And this, by the way, is what is meant by "SHOWING" a computational result. I SHOW the numbers, the units, the operations, the results and the interpretation. All you do is waggle your gums.
I don't give a tuppeny damn if you traveled at the speed of light for 1 second and then stayed static for 20 years thereafter. Your ACTUAL speed - the actual energy that you expended would be factored over 20 years. Any attempt to claim a velocity at the speed of light would be erroneous.
R
So what. Define it however screwy way you like, you are still wrong, and you have AGREED that you are wrong in your blog statement, since 320 mA is not negligible at all.
Therefore the conclusion that you came to is also wrong, just like your bogus attempt at redefining power measurements.
And yes, I will continue to point out your lies and errors whenever they occur, WITH REFERENCES, as long as you maintain them.
Read the first paragraph in your blog post and then reconcile that with your admission that 320 mA is flowing during the ON time.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:50:14 PM
AGAIN. You are trying to IMPLY that watts can be separated from POWER. IF you are trying to determine the amount of energy dissipated at the load resistor then you are REFERENCING A POWER MEASUREMENT. This is ALWAYS BASED ON WATTS and those WATTS NEED TO BE DETERMINED OVER TIME. AGAIN. Here's that equation.
Rosie Pose
Again, what's the beef?
Pavg is as you are stating, but the number you need to plug in for that "W" is 20 watts.
Heck, I thought it was a win win. But now that I see that you consider this amount of power draw from the battery (instantaneous or average) insignificant or miniscule, that would be somewhat subjective.
Keep in ming that this is only the dissipation during the positive portion of the FG cycle. When the FG output swings negative, applying a negative voltage to the source of Q2, Q2 is biased on and bias current flows thru the FG. The Q2 bias current must therefore also be factored in to arrive at the total dissipation over the full cycle. The amount of bias current flowing in Q2 need either be measured directly or estimated from the FG open circuit voltage, Rgen, and the Q2 threshold characteristics.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 01:11:41 PM
I don't give a tuppeny damn if you traveled at the speed of light for 1 second and then stayed static for 20 years thereafter. Your ACTUAL speed - the actual energy that you expended would be factored over 20 years. Any attempt to claim a velocity at the speed of light would be erroneous.
R
You really don't get it. You are sad, sad sad.
Let's do it again. If I travel NOT AT LIGHT SPEED but at 10 miles per hour, and NOT FOR ONE SECOND, but for half an hour, HOW FAR (not how fast) HAVE I GONE?
And if I then travel at 20 miles per hour (NOT STANDING STILL) for half an hour (NOT 20 years) HOW FAR HAVE I TRAVELLED? (Not how fast.)
How far have I gone in total? How long did it take? What is my average speed, and finally.... WHAT WAS MY SPEED AT THE 15 minute mark?
@PW:
The duty cycle, as far as I can tell from measuring the traces, is about 12.8 percent ON. The only way to get to the 3.33 Watt average figure from the electrical parameters is to use some estimate of the current during the OFF time as well as the roughly 2.5 Watts average computed from the ON time duty cycle alone.
But who knows where that 3.33 figure came from. She won't tell us, or rather, she refuses to SHOW us how it was obtained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
Data sharing
"Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."
In the spirit of open source I am convinced Rosemary would be willing to release the hundreds and hundreds of scope shots that she has stored in her private collection, never made available for public review.
RM :)
OK - here's the thing.
IF the battery was delivering 20 watts and that was to be taken as a representative sample of the energy delivered by the battery then it would need to be delivering that amount of energy continuously - for the duration of each duty cycle. Then - without interruption - there would be 20 watts delivered by the battery during the ENTIRE duty cycle.
HOWEVER. It does not. I delivers 20 watts during 1 sixth of the cycle. Then it delivers NOTHING during another 5/6ths of each cycle. Assume then that in that brief 1/6th of that specific period of time it was heating the element to the full extent of all of those 20 watts. Then during 5/6ths of that same cycle when NO ENERGY was being delivered then it would, self-evidently be COOLING DOWN - because there was and is no further application of heat. Then it again delivers 20 watts and then cools down - and so on. In order to determine the ACTUAL energy INCLUDING the period when that energy transfer was interrupted - it would need to be determined over the time period when it was both ON and OFF. Which is closer to 3.33 watts.
That's it folks. That's the whole of TK's argument which is PATENTLY and BLANTANTLY wrong. And if you've bought into this EvolvingApe - then you too have been duped. And this is YET another example of TK's misdirections. Sadly - I think he's convinced himself that he's even got an argument. More's the pity. But it's certainly in keeping with this thread standard.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:50:33 AM
OK guys,
This is the entire PROOF required that we are no longer talking science. And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model - nor established measurement protocols - nor anything at all that is even half way relevant to power analysis. And this post can be dismissed in its entirety. And for those of you who KNOW power analysis - then this is really as far as any of you need go to see that TK is on a MISSION. And that mission has NOTHING to do with science.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model
What "standard" Model ??
:P
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
I am very interested in discussing our technology. The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper. There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model. And IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence. It is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity. Me. I'm Mrs Average. And good science NEVER needs more than that. I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us. We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak.
Rosie Pose
There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model.
What "standard" model ??
:P
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 01:48:53 PM
OK - here's the thing.
IF the battery was delivering 20 watts and that was to be taken as a representative sample of the energy delivered by the battery then it would need to be delivering that amount of energy continuously - for the duration of each duty cycle. Then - without interruption - there would be 20 watts delivered by the battery during the ENTIRE duty cycle.
HOWEVER. It does not. I delivers 20 watts during 1 sixth of the cycle. Then it delivers NOTHING during another 5/6ths of each cycle. Assume then that in that brief 1/6th of that specific period of time it was heating the element to the full extent of all of those 20 watts. Then during 5/6ths of that same cycle when NO ENERGY was being delivered then it would, self-evidently be COOLING DOWN - because there was and is no further application of heat. Then it again delivers 20 watts and then cools down - and so on. In order to determine the ACTUAL energy INCLUDING the period when that energy transfer was interrupted - it would need to be determined over the time period when it was both ON and OFF. Which is closer to 3.33 watts.
That's it folks. That's the whole of TK's argument which is PATENTLY and BLANTANTLY wrong. And if you've bought into this EvolvingApe - then you too have been duped. And this is YET another example of TK's misdirections. Sadly - I think he's convinced himself that he's even got an argument. More's the pity. But it's certainly in keeping with this thread standard.
Rosie Posie
Nobody said that 20 watts was being dissipated during the entire cycle.
20 watts is being dissipated during the portion of the cycle that the FG output is a positive voltage in the 'scope shot being discussed. That is an obvious FACT.
It is also an obvious FACT that this contributes approx 3.3 watts to the total dissipation when averaged over the entire cycle.
The power drawn during the other 84% of the cycle must also be added to the 3.3W for the total average dissipation.
Seems like arguing is now just for the sake of arguing.
PW
ADDED: And most of that 20 watts is beng wasted/dissipated as heat by Q1.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 01:48:53 PM
OK - here's the thing.
IF the battery was delivering 20 watts and that was to be taken as a representative sample of the energy delivered by the battery then it would need to be delivering that amount of energy continuously - for the duration of each duty cycle. Then - without interruption - there would be 20 watts delivered by the battery during the ENTIRE duty cycle.
HOWEVER. It does not. I delivers 20 watts during 1 sixth of the cycle. Then it delivers NOTHING during another 5/6ths of each cycle. Assume then that in that brief 1/6th of that specific period of time it was heating the element to the full extent of all of those 20 watts. Then during 5/6ths of that same cycle when NO ENERGY was being delivered then it would, self-evidently be COOLING DOWN - because there was and is no further application of heat. Then it again delivers 20 watts and then cools down - and so on. In order to determine the ACTUAL energy INCLUDING the period when that energy transfer was interrupted - it would need to be determined over the time period when it was both ON and OFF. Which is closer to 3.33 watts.
That's it folks. That's the whole of TK's argument which is PATENTLY and BLANTANTLY wrong. And if you've bought into this EvolvingApe - then you too have been duped. And this is YET another example of TK's misdirections. Sadly - I think he's convinced himself that he's even got an argument. More's the pity. But it's certainly in keeping with this thread standard.
Rosie Posie
OK, HERE'S THE THING.
NOBODY BUT YOU is talking about AVERAGE POWER AT ALL.
The point is that YOU CLAIMED that there was negligible tiny current flowing during the ON PHASE. THE ON PHASE. THE ON PHASE.
And I have demonstrated that YOUR CLAIM IS WRONG and the CONCLUSION BASED ON IT IS FALSE.
DURING THE ON PHASE. DURING THE ON PHASE. Can you not understand English?
There is 320 mA, AT LEAST, flowing during the ON phase. AND THERE IS ALSO CURRENT FLOWING DURING THE OFF PHASE. Your load is heating because it is dissipating some power during BOTH THE PHASES in that scope shot. BOTH ON AND OFF PHASES are giving you current.
However, I am content for the moment to have PROVEN YOU WRONG, by your own admission, about the current flowing DURING THE ON PHASE. DURING THE ON PHASE.
Which is what we were discussing prior to your MISINFORMATION, MISDIRECTION, MISUNDERSTANDING, and MENDACITY. Not to mention your profound disrespect for your betters and their education and experience, which you do not even come close to fathoming, much less sharing.
And here's where her 3.33 figure comes from. Look at the period. Take the "on" portion and look at it relative to the OFF portion. The On portion is about 1/6 the Off portion. So Ainslie thinks the duty cycle is... what?
What is the duty cycle, Ainslie? Is it 1/6 ON?
20 Watts times 1/6 is indeed an average of 3.33 Watts. Isn't it.
QuoteI (sic) delivers 20 watts during 1 sixth of the cycle. Then it delivers NOTHING during another 5/6ths of each cycle.
See what happens when you just punch numbers into a calculator without understanding their meanings or units?
Quote from: evolvingape on May 09, 2012, 01:30:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct)
Data sharing
"Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."
In the spirit of open source I am convinced Rosemary would be willing to release the hundreds and hundreds of scope shots that she has stored in her private collection, never made available for public review.
RM :)
Rosemary,
I have been following this discussion since this thread was started. The quality has been astounding, we are clearly dealing with professional analysis here from time served experts who have learned their craft over many years of study and practical application. (Not including you in that overview). The only person who seems to not grasp the basic's of the content under discussion is you. TK's argument is clear and concise, and also correct. I do not need you to advise me of potential duping, and rest assured, should I require advice on such a matter you are most definately not on the list of knowledgeable people to approach for a qualified opinion.
Please advise me how I can access your full and complete raw data, for analysis, I wish to study it. As you are 100% committed to open source this should not be a problem, and I expect you can fulfill this simple request promptly.
Thankyou,
RM :)
Quote from: evolvingape on May 09, 2012, 01:30:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct)
Data sharing
"Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."
In the spirit of open source I am convinced Rosemary would be willing to release the hundreds and hundreds of scope shots that she has stored in her private collection, never made available for public review.
RM :)
Now you can understand why Ainslie refuses to do math on demand. EVERY POST of hers that I can find that includes any calculation with more than two variables and one operation is almost CERTAIN to contain one or more egregious errors, and SHE KNOWS IT.
So she dares not engage in any mathematical discussions. Just as in the present example, she always reveals her incompetence and ignorance.
The duty cycle is closer to 1/8 than to 1/6, Ainslie, because it is the RATIO of the ON time to the TOTAL PERIOD TIME. But you would need to understand ratios and proportions to be able to grasp that.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 02:10:29 PM
And here's where her 3.33 figure comes from. Look at the period. Take the "on" portion and look at it relative to the OFF portion. The On portion is about 1/6 the Off portion. So Ainslie thinks the duty cycle is... what?
What is the duty cycle, Ainslie? Is it 1/6 ON?
20 Watts times 1/6 is indeed an average of 3.33 Watts. Isn't it.
See what happens when you just punch numbers into a calculator without understanding their meanings or units?
I agree with you that the ON period of the duty cycle is - in fact - closer to 12.5% ON. In which case that 20 watts dissipated that you calculated needs to be revised downwards to 2.5 watts - is the first point. NOW. IF that 20 watts is then NOT applied for the remaining 87.5% of an ensuing period of each duty cycle - HOW THEN DOES THAT ELEMENT RESISTOR CONTINUE TO DISSIPATE 20 watts? IF our STANDARD PROTOCOLS are even half way correct the assumption is that it does NOT dissipate energy if there is no energy applied. THEREFORE? THAT 20 Watts becomes considerably less than 20 watts. In fact it's reduced by 87.5% less than 20 watts - IN FACT. Therefore, 20 watts IS NOT dissipated at the element resistor EVER. ONLY 2.5 watts is dissipated. That's based YOUR argument. And I AGREE. WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
IF, however, you are arguing that 20 watts is CONTINUALLY BEING DISSIPATED despite the removal of energy during 87.5% of each period of each duty cycle - then I DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. OR ANY PART OF IT. And nor would any self-respecting power engineer. Therefore - IN FACT - at no stage is there the dissipation of 20 watts of energy at that element resistor. OR - if there is - THEN it is NOT coming from the ON period of the duty cycle.
Quite apart from which Leon, we've measured 20 watts of energy applied to the that load - in detailed schedules. And the temperature at 20 watts is NOWHERE NEAR to the 200 degrees centigrade that we measure as heat on that resistor in our water to boil test.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
Hello Professor,
I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm. I was beginning to think that you were deliberately ignoring our claim as you do poor Itseung's. Anyway. Let me see if I can put this as clearly as possible - mainly because I think clarity's important. Wouldn't you agree?
Now. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is. It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso. On other tests we only manage to take the temperature of the element resistor to something that's mildly uncomfortable to the touch. Not the kind of precision that I suspect you're looking for. But that's not the thrust of our question. As mentioned, I'm anxious to find out how you actually calculate the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery. Here's our problem. We are applying standard measurement protocols. And for the life of us we cannot find any evidence of any energy at all - being delivered by those batteries. Which leaves us with that rather puzzling anomaly of INFINITE COP. Not easily explained in terms of the standard model - unless, of course, there are measurement errors.
WELL. Here's the thing. Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis. If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here. He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'? Which is extraordinary. I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker. But what do I know. So. What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG. Convention requires that the wattage would be positive. Would you concur?
Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak. Actually that's possibly tautological. :o In any event. You know what I mean. Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number. And our claim will be defeated at the get go. Actually, come to think of it. ANYONE AT ALL - who ever tries to prove over unity in the future - and under these unconventional measurement conventions - will ALSO, inevitably, be left with something CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN UNITY.
Please do clarify this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is. It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso.
Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number. And our claim will be defeated at the get go.
:P
QuoteAT NO POINT IS THERE the delivery of 20 watts. There is only the measure of 20 watts over 1/6th of each duty cycle - making it a total of 3.33 watts - AT BEST.
What is the duty cycle, Ainslie? What is the average power over an entire cycle?
And what does your oscilloscope plot, when it plots voltage times current on your math trace? Are you saying that all those points do NOT represent a delivery of whatever that product is, at that instant, as power in Watts? Then you once again are simply, irrefutably WRONG, yet again, and you can ask ANYONE YOU LIKE to explain it to you. How about Peter Lindemann? Or Donovan Martin? Show them the last three pages of this thread and see what THEY tell you.
But you won't. Because you "know" you are right and your ego won't permit you to examine carefully your assumptions.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 01:48:53 PM
HOWEVER. It does not. I delivers 20 watts during 1 sixth of the cycle. Then it delivers NOTHING during another 5/6ths of each cycle. Assume then that in that brief 1/6th of that specific period of time it was heating the element to the full extent of all of those 20 watts. Then during 5/6ths of that same cycle when NO ENERGY was being delivered then it would, self-evidently be COOLING DOWN - because there was and is no further application of heat. Then it again delivers 20 watts and then cools down - and so on. In order to determine the ACTUAL energy INCLUDING the period when that energy transfer was interrupted - it would need to be determined over the time period when it was both ON and OFF. Which is closer to 3.33 watts.
Rosemary,
You are correct, but TK is correct also. The problem is that you are both talking about slightly different power measurements.
Clearly Rosemary, you are referring to AVERAGE POWER. Clearly, TK is referring to INSTANTANEOUS POWER.
Let's look at two scenarios:
1) 20W for 1 second out of 6, then 0W for 5 seconds out of this 6.
2) 3.33W for 6 seconds out of 6.
The AVERAGE POWER over the same 6 second period in both scenarios is 3.33W.However, in scenario 1), the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second is 20W, while the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second in scenario 2) is 3.33W.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:31:12 PM
I agree with you that the ON period of the duty cycle is - in fact - closer to 12.5% ON. In which case that 20 watts dissipated that you calculated needs to be revised downwards to 2.5 watts - is the first point. NOW. IF that 20 watts is then NOT applied for the remaining 87.5% of an ensuing period of each duty cycle - HOW THEN DOES THAT ELEMENT RESISTOR CONTINUE TO DISSIPATE 20 watts? IF our STANDARD PROTOCOLS are even half way correct the assumption is that it does NOT dissipate energy if there is no energy applied. THEREFORE? THAT 20 Watts becomes considerably less than 20 watts. In fact it's reduced by 87.5% less than 20 watts - IN FACT. Therefore, 20 watts IS NOT dissipated at the element resistor EVER. ONLY 2.5 watts is dissipated. That's based YOUR argument. And I AGREE. WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
IF, however, you are arguing that 20 watts is CONTINUALLY BEING DISSIPATED despite the removal of energy during 87.5% of each period of each duty cycle - then I DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. OR ANY PART OF IT.
I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT, AINSLIE, you once again are responding to your delusions rather than to what I said.
QuoteAnd nor would any self-respecting power engineer. Therefore - IN FACT - at no stage is there the dissipation of 20 watts of energy at that element resistor.
Who ever said that there was? Not me, not PW, nobody. The 20 Watts is dissipated IN THE CIRCUIT ELEMENTS, mostly the mosfet, WHENEVER AND FOR HOWEVER LONG the mosfet Q1 is receiving the +5 volt gate signal.
QuoteOR - if there is - THEN it is NOT coming from the ON period of the duty cycle.
Quite apart from which Leon, we've measured 20 watts of energy applied to the that load - in detailed schedules. And the temperature at 20 watts is NOWHERE NEAR to the 200 degrees centigrade that we measure as heat on that resistor in our water to boil test.
Rosie Posie
You are arguing with your own hallucinations again, and you aren't making sense. Your temperature measurements are a completely different issue and contain their OWN set of errors.
But I am glad you acknowledge your stupid "3.33" and "1/6" duty cycle error. It's hard to wriggle out of your mistakes when your nose is rubbed into it in public, isn't it. Well, there's a lot more of that coming.
So... we have the concession from AINSLIE that there IS IN FACT 320 mA flowing during the ON phase on that shot, a not insignificant amount at 62 volts potential, contradicting the claim in the blog post and invalidating the conclusion based on it.
AND we have the admission that she calculated the duty cycle incorrectly and used that incorrect figure to come up with the earlier "3.33" Watts average during her mendacious criticism of my CORRECT, entirely correct, power calculations as presented.
Keep it up, Ainslie, you are doing fine.
And the only person who has revealed incompetence and ignorance is YOURSELF.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 02:26:27 PM
Now you can understand why Ainslie refuses to do math on demand. EVERY POST of hers that I can find that includes any calculation with more than two variables and one operation is almost CERTAIN to contain one or more egregious errors, and SHE KNOWS IT.
So she dares not engage in any mathematical discussions. Just as in the present example, she always reveals her incompetence and ignorance.
The duty cycle is closer to 1/8 than to 1/6, Ainslie, because it is the RATIO of the ON time to the TOTAL PERIOD TIME. But you would need to understand ratios and proportions to be able to grasp that.
And this little exercise in power analysis that you've persisted in - has certainly enabled that revelation. And that difference between 1/8 and 1/6th - yes - that was my oversight. I was out by a small fraction. You're out by a HUGE FACTOR. In fact you're out by a factor of a little over 12. I'd say that's CATASTROPHIC.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: poynt99 on May 09, 2012, 02:39:46 PM
Rosemary,
You are correct, but TK is correct also. The problem is that you are both talking about slightly different power measurements.
Clearly Rosemary, you are referring to AVERAGE POWER. Clearly, TK is referring to INSTANTANEOUS POWER.
Let's look at two scenarios:
1) 20W for 1 second out of 6, then 0W for 5 seconds out of this 6.
2) 3.33W for 6 seconds out of 6.
The AVERAGE POWER over the same 6 second period in both scenarios is 3.33W.
However, in scenario 1), the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second is 20W, while the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second in scenario 2) is 3.33W.
She's not correct. Look at the duty cycle, which she NOW acknowledges is more like 1/8, giving an average power of about 2.5 Watts.
All this is just to distract from the fact that she made a claim, another one, that is unsupported by her own data: the claim that no or tiny current flowed during the ON portion of the cycle. In what part of the world is 320 mA considered TINY or negligible, when examining a claim of overunity performance?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 02:43:59 PM
I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT, AINSLIE, you once again are responding to your delusions rather than to what I said. Who ever said that there was? Not me, not PW, nobody. The 20 Watts is dissipated IN THE CIRCUIT ELEMENTS, mostly the mosfet, WHENEVER AND FOR HOWEVER LONG the mosfet Q1 is receiving the +5 volt gate signal.
You are arguing with your own hallucinations again, and you aren't making sense. Your temperature measurements are a completely different issue and contain their OWN set of errors.
But I am glad you acknowledge your stupid "3.33" and "1/6" duty cycle error. It's hard to wriggle out of your mistakes when your nose is rubbed into it in public, isn't it. Well, there's a lot more of that coming.
So... we have the concession from AINSLIE that there IS IN FACT 320 mA flowing during the ON phase on that shot, a not insignificant amount at 62 volts potential, contradicting the claim in the blog post and invalidating the conclusion based on it.
AND we have the admission that she calculated the duty cycle incorrectly and used that incorrect figure to come up with the earlier "3.33" Watts average during her mendacious criticism of my CORRECT, entirely correct, power calculations as presented.
Keep it up, Ainslie, you are doing fine.
My dear Leon. I will keep it up. I know I'm doing just 'fine'. You've made a GLARING ERROR in power analysis and then you've rather absurdly persisted in claiming that it's correct. You are UTTERLY WRONG. Couldn't be more so. As I said - CATASTROPHICALLY so. You've shown a complete inability to understand the concept of wattage which you're trying to promote can be equated any single sample of instantaneous wattage. Wattage is ALWAYS related to POWER and POWER always factors in time. Here's that equation again.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
And the only person who has revealed incompetence and ignorance is YOURSELF.
And this little exercise in power analysis that you've persisted in - has certainly enabled that revelation. And that difference between 1/8 and 1/6th - yes - that was my oversight. I was out by a small fraction. You're out by a HUGE FACTOR. In fact you're out by a factor of a little over 12. I'd say that's CATASTROPHIC.
Rosie Pose
Where is this factor of 12 you are talking about? Huh?
Show me where I ever said that the LOAD was dissipating 20 Watts. Look back in the thread Ainslie, you will find that I calculated the load's dissipation using I^2R as a little over 1 Watt during the ON time, way back at the beginning of your hallucinatory rant.
Again, you lie and misrepresent. Where is the factor of 12?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 02:46:44 PM
She's not correct. Look at the duty cycle, which she NOW acknowledges is more like 1/8, giving an average power of about 2.5 Watts.
All this is just to distract from the fact that she made a claim, another one, that is unsupported by her own data: the claim that no or tiny current flowed during the ON portion of the cycle. In what part of the world is 320 mA considered TINY or negligible, when examining a claim of overunity performance?
I was referring more to her conceptual understanding of the computation of average power in general using the duty cycle percentages. If the duty cycle estimation was off, then it can (and apparently has been) corrected.
and Guys this argument is no longer even dealing with science.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 02:46:44 PM
She's not correct. Look at the duty cycle, which she NOW acknowledges is more like 1/8, giving an average power of about 2.5 Watts.
All this is just to distract from the fact that she made a claim, another one, that is unsupported by her own data: the claim that no or tiny current flowed during the ON portion of the cycle. In what part of the world is 320 mA considered TINY or negligible, when examining a claim of overunity performance?
The duty cycle is most assuredly 12.5% ON - 87.5% OFF. I am NOT claiming that that 320 mA is TINY or negligible. I'm claiming that it is a rate of current flow applicable to 12.5% of each duty cycle. Which means that the 20 watts that TK measured is NOT correct. it is 20 watts x 12.5% which is 2.5 watts. DO THE MATH... LEON
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
My dear Leon. I will keep it up. I know I'm doing just 'fine'. You've made a GLARING ERROR in power analysis and then you've rather absurdly persisted in claiming that it's correct. You are UTTERLY WRONG. Couldn't be more so. As I said - CATASTROPHICALLY so. You've shown a complete inability to understand the concept of wattage which you're trying to promote can be equated any single sample of instantaneous wattage. Wattage is ALWAYS related to POWER and POWER always factors in time. Here's that equation again.
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, YOU are continuing to make the same error. The WATT is a RATE. POWER IS A RATE OF DISSIPATION OF ENERGY. The JOULE is the quantity of energy that is being dissipated. The WATT is a JOULE PER SECOND. The average power is the TOTAL JOULES DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL SECONDS. And that is what that equation is trying to tell you.
YOU make a basic math error concerning the duty cycle and you make a MAJOR conceptual error, pointed out to you many times by many people, that invalidates your criticisms of my work.
GO AHEAD, take this information to a THIRD PARTY and see what they say. Take it to your "academics". TEST YOURSELF.
But we know you won't. YOU CANNOT.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
You're out by a HUGE FACTOR. In fact you're out by a factor of a little over 12. I'd say that's CATASTROPHIC.
Rosie Pose
So being out by a factor of 12 is a catastrophic error. By what factor were you out in your battery calculations Rosemary ? It was something like a factor of 70 was it not ?
Hilarious!
;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:53:29 PM
and Guys this argument is no longer even dealing with science.
The duty cycle is most assuredly 12.5% ON - 87.5% OFF. I am NOT claiming that that 320 mA is TINY or negligible. I'm claiming that it is a rate of current flow applicable to 12.5% of each duty cycle. Which means that the 20 watts that TK measured is NOT correct. it is 20 watts x 12.5% which is 2.5 watts. DO THE MATH... LEON
Regards,
Rosemary
What does it say in the first paragraph of this blog post? Are you now publicly retracting that claim? Fine.
Hi Poynty - I've only just seen this post.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 09, 2012, 02:39:46 PM
Rosemary,
You are correct, but TK is correct also. The problem is that you are both talking about slightly different power measurements.
Clearly Rosemary, you are referring to AVERAGE POWER. Clearly, TK is referring to INSTANTANEOUS POWER.
Let's look at two scenarios:
1) 20W for 1 second out of 6, then 0W for 5 seconds out of this 6.
2) 3.33W for 6 seconds out of 6.
The AVERAGE POWER over the same 6 second period in both scenarios is 3.33W.
However, in scenario 1), the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second is 20W, while the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second in scenario 2) is 3.33W.
I KNOW what TK's referring to. He's trying to say that the instantaneous wattage during the 'on' period is 20 watts. He then goes on to conclude that 20 watts would be sufficient to result in the energies evident in our water to boil test. I am saying - CATEGORICALLY that 20 watts is QUITE SIMPLY AN ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION of WATTAGE. If it is 20 watts for 12.5% of each duty cycle - then it's also resulting in a COOLING down of that same resistor during 87.5% of that same duty cycle. Therefore it does not ever enjoy the uninterrupted delivery of 20 watts but only 2.5 watts. SO. His wattage calculation is inadequate. And his conclusions are SPURIOUS. Quite apart from which - NOTA BENE - 20 watts does NOT take our element resistor to the giddy heights of upwards of 200 degrees centigrade. So even 20 watts would not explain our water to boil test. He is attempting to trivialise our results. And he is doing it with the typical barrage of expletive and invective - because he has NO sense of professionalism.
What a sorry little man he is.
Rosie
Quote from: evolvingape on May 09, 2012, 02:55:33 PM
So being out by a factor of 12 is a catastrophic error. By what factor were you out in your battery calculations Rosemary ? It was something like a factor of 70 was it not ?
Hilarious!
;D
Wait a minute... it still has not been demonstrated that I am "out by a factor of 12". I think she's hallucinating again.
Show me, please, where I am out by a factor of 12, SO THAT I MIGHT CORRECT MY ERROR, if it is one.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 26, 2012, 02:22:53 AM
Thank you for this Bob. It is truly the most courageous statement that has EVER been made on these forums. There is a propagandising technique applied to the JEWS in Nazi Germany - where all and sundry were encouraged to report on allegations of their sub human habits, which, among other things progressed from killing Jesus Christ to - at its zenith....killing their own children. It was found to be a technique that polarised opinion AGAINST those Jews that then warranted their extermination. It required nothing more demanding than the repeated and unsupported allegation where the moral ascendancy could remain with the victimisers who were then permitted to do anything that they required up to and including the outright theft of their property and the intended extermination of that entire People. In the same way I have variously been accused of supreme ignorance, mendacity, false test representations about our claim, stupidity, mental instability and sundry social eccentricities related to my looks and even to an alleged preference to wearing pygamas in public. Harti and Poynty et al - have taught you all to disregard my postings and to treat me with the kind of disrespect that would not even be appropriate applied to a criminal - through the simple expediency of denying anything that I write and addressing me in the most abusive of manners. I am of the opinion that Harti ONLY ever invites me back to the forum to again 'scoff' at the claims - that he ignores or he rejects on grounds that we have comprehensively addressed in every paper that we have ever written. And while he does not personally engage - ON ANY LEVEL AT ALL - he permits the likes of TK and Fuzzy and a host of willing 'trolls' to do his dirty work.
This flaunted disrespect includes but is in no way limited by nor confined to a denial of the significance of an oscillation that defies any known explanation within the standard model. I won't here go into the history of this related to that replication fiasco. It would take too long. I have worked TIRELESSLY and at my OWN EXPENSE to promote this knowledge related to switching circuits that were PREDICTED in terms of a modest thesis based on a revision of Faraday's Lines of Force. I am widely accused on doing NOTHING but furthering a THEORY where I REPEATEDLY advise that I have none. Nor do any of us. We have ONLY referred to the standard model. YET I am accused of 'self promotion'.
All of which has inclined the most of our members to IGNORE my comments outside of my own thread - and to apply a level of scorn and contempt in their address of me in my own thread that - at its KINDEST can be construed as a BREACH of forum guidelines. And instead of applying the required checks Harti positively encourages input that will DETRACT from the claim and DIMINISH the results. And his ONLY excuse to do this is IF he can claim that there are measurement errors. Which is WHY he REPEATEDLY advises you all that there ARE measurement errors. The final and insufferable evidence is here again - where he asks LUC to check our results off a 555 timer where we ALREADY HAVE THESE RESULTS which we have done and MADE PUBLIC. Meanwhile the ABUSE continues off forum and I do not have the option of starting a new thread to address this abuse.
And FINALLY. We have engaged Poynt.99 AND Professor Steven E Jones in our rights to do a test that would represent conclusive proof of our over unity claim - where we would otherwise qualify for their prize. And that challenge is IGNORED. And the joke of it is this. I didn't DARE include Harti in that challenge because then I KNEW that he'd have locked my thread much sooner than he did. But frankly - RIGHT NOW - I propose that this post can be a challenge to him as well. For some reason - that I cannot understand - it seems critically important that OUR CLAIM - more than any other - IS DENIED. AND I PUT IT TO YOU ALL IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE THESIS THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM. Once that is understood - then you guys will KNOW how to do your own fishing. AND that will FINALLY put paid to any CHANCE of EXPLOITATION by ANY MONOPOLIST EVER AGAIN. Frankly, I'm not sure that this sits comfortably with the intentions of these forums. Which is the ONLY possible explanation for this inappropriate response to our claim. For some reason the 'lead out lead in theory' - the radiant energy theories - all those ill defined and inexplicable explanations are preferred OVER our simple evidence that uses nothing more exotic than INDUCTIVE LAWS.
All of which is ONLY my considered opinion. But - unhappily - it's also the only way to make sense of this EXTRAORDINARY attack that our technology warrants. I'm not at all sure how long this post will be allowed to stay here. I'm copying it and also putting it on my blog. I'll post a link hereafter. If you lose it then just google Rosemary Ainslie. It's there. Together with that HATE BLOG against me which is heavily subscribed to not only by Poynty and Laurel among others - but by someone called MOOKIE who works for ESKOM - our local utility suppliers who are also proposing to EXPAND their nuclear facilities. Go figger.
Regards,
Rosemary
I have worked TIRELESSLY and at my OWN EXPENSE to promote this knowledge related to switching circuits that were PREDICTED in terms of a modest thesis based on a revision of Faraday's Lines of Force. I am widely accused on doing NOTHING but furthering a THEORY where I REPEATEDLY advise that I have none.
AND I PUT IT TO YOU ALL IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE THESIS THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM.
:P
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 03:02:20 PM
Hi Poynty - I've only just seen this post.
I KNOW what TK's referring to. He's trying to say that the instantaneous wattage during the 'on' period is 20 watts. He then goes on to conclude that 20 watts would be sufficient to result in the energies evident in our water to boil test. I am saying - CATEGORICALLY that 20 watts is QUITE SIMPLY AN ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION of WATTAGE. If it is 20 watts for 12.5% of each duty cycle - then it's also resulting in a COOLING down of that same resistor during 87.5% of that same duty cycle. Therefore it does not ever enjoy the uninterrupted delivery of 20 watts but only 2.5 watts. SO. His wattage calculation is inadequate. And his conclusions are SPURIOUS. Quite apart from which - NOTA BENE - 20 watts does NOT take our element resistor to the giddy heights of upwards of 200 degrees centigrade. So even 20 watts would not explain our water to boil test. He is attempting to trivialise our results. And he is doing it with the typical barrage of expletive and invective - because he has NO sense of professionalism.
What a sorry little man he is.
Rosie
You once again lie and misrepresent, hallucinating words that have not been said and responding to those and not to the facts.
YOU CLAIMED that there was no power drawn from the battery during the ON portion of the cycle. I refuted you using your own data and you admitted that there was indeed 320 mA drawn FROM SOMEWHERE during that ON portion. Your entire "watts" argument from then on is a red herring, in addition to being wrongheaded and wrong. YOU MADE A CLAIM THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY YOUR DATA, there it is in black and white or rather brown and white, and you NEED TO CORRECT IT AND RETRACT THE CONCLUSION BASED ON IT.
We have not even BEGUN to discuss the heat results... which, as you note, is described a bit differently in your blog than you have been describing it lately.
Here, I thought this would help Rosemary a bit with her math:
From wikipedia regarding joules, watts, et. al.
Joule = Watt * Second
Watt = Joule / Second
This is THE MATH.
Let's be more specific shall we?
A Watt is often written as a Joule PER Second. PER MEANS DIVIDE.
I know this can be confusing but...
This is NOT the same as a WattSecond, which is a Watt MULTIPLIED by a Second.
Perhaps this is why you are confused on a watt and a joule being 'interchangeable'?
If you look closely, a Watt and a Joule are NOT interchangeable (directly), there is an equal sign there which means that you need to do the same mathematical process to BOTH sides of the equal sign in order for the equation to be remain TRUE.
Put another way: (W=V*A) One Watt equals one Volt multiplied by one Amp. (i.e. Instantaneous)
A Joule is: (J=V*A*s) One Volt multiplied by one Amp multiplied by one Second. (i.e. Over TIME)
Also known as a WattSecond. (A watt is NOT a JouleSecond.)
Please feel free to correct any errors...
Perhaps this will help Rosemary 'DO THE MATH'?
Regards to the regular readers of this rubbish heh heh,
PC
Edited to switch the words 'volt' and 'amp' to represent equation
BTW, can't wait to see the 'Altiods' rig.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 03:04:25 PM
Wait a minute... it still has not been demonstrated that I am "out by a factor of 12". I think she's hallucinating again.
Show me, please, where I am out by a factor of 12, SO THAT I MIGHT CORRECT MY ERROR, if it is one.
I have no idea where the "factor of 12" comes from either, Rosemary please enlighten us with the answer.
Guys, I'm playing catchup here. Just seen this post of TK's.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AM
Early promiscuity? Whaat? Personally, I have sat through many many hours of classroom instruction in the topics we are discussing, sat exams, passed them with honors, and I have degrees that call me a scientist, and my job title includes "scientist" in it. In other words, I am credentialed, and these credentials are from MAJOR research universities in the USA.
If it helps you at all TK I'll pretend to believe this nonsense.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMAinslie--- a highschool dropout with not even algebra and geometry education.
I am NOT a high school drop out. We've covered this before. I attended 2 years of university which I would never have managed if I were a high school drop out. And I've never failed any exam that I've sat. EVER.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMNobody except Ainslie has "claimed" to be a genius.
I am CERTAINLY NOT A GENIUS. Good Lord. If I were a genius I wouldn't be here on this sad little thread.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMWe are just educated, and we know how to use what we've learned, and we know how to CONTINUE learning. You are far from average, Ainslie. You are a Dunning-Kruger Effect textbook example.
The essential feature of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that the poor sufferers are deluded into ideas of their superiority. I have no such delusions. Which is PRECISELY why we are asking questions in our papers - and modestly proposing answers that have already been determined by our esteemed ASTROPHYSICISTS and carefully argued by our greats. That we're somewhat disinclined to believe your own 'claims' is that they diametrically oppose ours. And I would remind you that you would also need to propose that all six of us poor collaborators are also suffering from this 'cognitive' distortion - as I am not alone in these our 'claims'.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: evolvingape on May 09, 2012, 03:20:02 PM
I have no idea where the "factor of 12" comes from either, Rosemary please enlighten us with the answer.
LOL. I think my math may have been out a tad. I think that number should be 8.
Rosie Pose
LOL Guys,
I'm FINALLY beginning to enjoy all this. It's just a question of perspective. Regarding this post of TK's...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 03:02:16 PM
What does it say in the first paragraph of this blog post? Are you now publicly retracting that claim? Fine.
What it says in that paragraph is what it says. Nowhere do I claim anything differently. Our integrated power analysis PROVES that there's zero energy discharged by the battery supply. And where you calculate 320 mA we only measure 0.04 - which is certainly NEGLIGIBLE.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 09, 2012, 03:12:34 PM
Here, I thought this would help Rosemary a bit with her math:
From wikipedia regarding joules, watts, et. al.
Joule = Watt * Second
Watt = Joule / Second
This is THE MATH.
Let's be more specific shall we?
A Watt is often written as a Joule PER Second. PER MEANS DIVIDE.
I know this can be confusing but...
This is NOT the same as a WattSecond, which is a Watt MULTIPLIED by a Second.
Perhaps this is why you are confused on a watt and a joule being 'interchangeable'?
If you look closely, a Watt and a Joule are NOT interchangeable (directly), there is an equal sign there which means that you need to do the same mathematical process to BOTH sides of the equal sign in order for the equation to be remain TRUE.
Put another way: (W=V*A) One Watt equals one Volt multiplied by one Amp. (i.e. Instantaneous)
A Joule is: (J=V*A*s) One Volt multiplied by one Amp multiplied by one Second. (i.e. Over TIME)
Also known as a WattSecond. (A watt is NOT a JouleSecond.)
Please feel free to correct any errors...
Perhaps this will help Rosemary 'DO THE MATH'?
Regards to the regular readers of this rubbish heh heh,
PC
Edited to switch the words 'volt' and 'amp' to represent equation
BTW, can't wait to see the 'Altiods' rig.
No PhiChaser - you're STILL wrong.
Wattage cannot be divorced from the concept of power - either delivered or dissipated. And it must always factor in time. Here's the CORRECT equation which is also - inter alia - it's DEFINITION.
And guys, as for this post by FTC...
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 09, 2012, 03:08:13 PM
I have worked TIRELESSLY and at my OWN EXPENSE to promote this knowledge related to switching circuits that were PREDICTED in terms of a modest thesis based on a revision of Faraday's Lines of Force. I am widely accused on doing NOTHING but furthering a THEORY where I REPEATEDLY advise that I have none.
AND I PUT IT TO YOU ALL IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE THESIS THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM.
:P
I think he's drawing the distinction that there a difference between a theory and thesis. A theory must first be proved correct. We have no theories about anything. The 'thesis' that we promote has NOTHING to do with anything outside standard physics. We would NOT presume to innovate either. That would indicate that we're suffering from that Dunning Kruger syndrome.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 04:23:33 PM
And guys, as for this post by FTC...
I think he's drawing the distinction that there a difference between a theory and thesis. A theory must first be proved correct. We have no theories about anything. The 'thesis' that we promote has NOTHING to do with anything outside standard physics. We would NOT presume to innovate either. That would indicate that we're suffering from that Dunning Kruger syndrome.
Regards,
Rosemary
A theory must first be proved correct.
There has been numerous statements made that a NERD device with claim of a COP>INFINITY has been proven correct by Rosemary based on her predicted theory and the published testing and evaluation of this device at her blog site and here at Over Unity. This THEORY now with her claimed proof of a THESIS is also known as her "standard model" which is not a main stream belief or taught in any electronic college, university or trade school on the long standing excepted theory of electricity.
It should also be noted that any "ERRORS" at all submitted to academics in testing and/or evaluation of a device for a proposed theory leading to a thesis is doomed a short life and a long death.
FTC
???
Here is the rest of the paragraph where AINSLIE is copying that little equation which she doesn't understand.
Ainslie is like a parrot. She parrots back words and equations and occasionally seems correct in context, but when you probe more deeply you come up against the fundamental conceptual error that she does not even acknowledge: the distinction between a quantity (conserved) and a rate (not necessarily conserved). And just like a parrot she shrieks and chatters when she is disturbed, but her shriekings, just like the parrot's, consist of words whose meanings she does not grasp in the slightest.
@PhiChaser (and EA too of course)
Your efforts are appreciated, by me anyway, but you know that the person who needs to grasp what you are saying cannot do so. She is handicapped by her ignorance and crippled by her gigantic ego, both of which conspire to cause her to ignore anything that conflicts with her "thesis"... which is really only a hand-waving bunch of word-salad conjectures with no connection to reality. She simply cannot absorb it; it runs off her like water off a duck's back, only with less effect, since the duck, at least, has sense enough to get out of the rain.
Look at what is on the WIKI page IMMEDIATELY ABOVE the paragraph -- on mechanical power -- where she lifted that equation averaging WORK over TIME.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 03:51:01 PM
LOL. I think my math may have been out a tad. I think that number should be 8.
Rosie Pose
So that number comes from punching the calculator keys for "20" and "division" and "2.5". That makes 8 all right, now that you have actually CORRECTED ONE OF YOUR MANY and CONTINUAL MISTAKES.
Now... show me how our calculations of 20 Watts instantaneous power during the ON stage is an error. I suggest you review the WIKI pages you keep parroting and try to grasp the definition of instantaneous power... also called POWER... and its unit the WATT. I have made no errors, and you have made at least THREE while criticising my work.
Your equation, by the way, does NOT mean "watts" with that "W", but rather WORK, which is in the electrical case... the JOULE.
Total Joules ( or the Change ..the DELTA ... in the number of Joules) divided by the TIME (or the Change ..the DELTA... in the Time) results in the AVERAGE POWER during that time duration. The energy is in JOULES and the time is in SECONDS... and the answer is in Joules per second.... that is, in WATTS. The W in your equation means WORK, Polly, not WATTS.
And that's what that equation means, Polly Parrot.
But what a masterful RED HERRING this has all been.
Isn't it wonderful how attention has been skillfully deflected away from YET ANOTHER refutation of an AINSLIE ridiculous claim? This has been buried under the Ainslie-piles yet again.
Ainslie asserted, in her overweeningly arrogant and disrespectful manner:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'. "
And TK replied, refuting her exactly and soundly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
Polly Parrot is the QUEEN of disinformation. She's attempted to have this thread suppressed, she's obfuscated and prevaricated and distorted and bloviated and ranted, but what she has NEVER done is to honestly and openly try to DISPROVE her own interpretations of her data. Nor has she made the slightest effort to fill in the yawning chasms in her education by studying a little basic algebra and electronics.
But she is really good at burying anything that conflicts with her delusions.
Woo! My brain is hurting!
That was a lot of mental energy and keystrokes expended to review the concepts of instantaneous and average power.
Joit! Joit! Where are you!!?? We need your help! ;D
Oh my God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U104DXEYHbA
It looks like a up hill battle .... there's to much evidence to hide !!!
I think Rosemary is fighting a loosing game .... and things are going to speed up and not in her favor. ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGF5R9i53A :o
:-*
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 04:19:03 PM
No PhiChaser - you're STILL wrong.
Wattage cannot be divorced from the concept of power - either delivered or dissipated. And it must always factor in time. Here's the CORRECT equation which is also - inter alia - it's DEFINITION.
???
How am I wrong? Because you say I am??
Um... I never said wattage was divorced of anything? Where did I say these things?
How else would you describe power besides in watts?
Show me where I was wrong, don't just say "you're STILL wrong". Exactly what part of what I said is incorrect? What a prat...
I was trying to get you to understand the difference between watts and joules and (more importantly) WHY they aren't 'interchangeable'. I was NOT talking about the power equation. But since you brought it up and posted it let's take a look at that...
Do you understand the 'magic' pyramids?
Is something inside them or are they merely decoration? Hmm...
DELTA means change Rosemary. Like: 'delta vee' is a change in velocity, make sense?
The TIME that you're trying to divorce, or make me divorce, or whatever the hell you were trying to say, is trapped inside those little triangles Rosemary. All those seconds are stuck in there! ;D
Kind of like you being 'stuck' to the Tar Baby. That still cracks me up...
So are watts and joules still interchangeable Rosemary? Where am I wrong?
Done that Dim Bulb Test yet? Mmmph... Keep typing...
Still waiting for that new math,
PC
Let's see.... cycles per second is called Hertz, or Hz.
And Joules per second is called Watts, or W.
But Miles Per Hour is clumsy and hasn't had a clever name assigned to it. Let's call this RATE (distance travelled per unit time) of a mile per hour a Twatt. For Twohig Cranston, of course, the inventor of the modern speedometer.
So when you are driving down the highway you are going 60 Twatts. That means in one hour you'll travel 60 miles, because a mile PER HOUR is a TWATT, by definition.
The Mile is the fundamental unit, the "thing" that doesn't change, that is conserved. A mile is a mile.
The Twatt is a DERIVED UNIT, a RATE OF CHANGE OF MILES... those delta pyramids in the Twatt Equation T = delta Miles/delta Hours.
One TWATT is one mile per hour. One Mile... is not one TWATT per hour. The speedometer measures TWATTS, the odometer (an INTEGRATING speedometer) measures MILES. There is a difference and the terms are not interchangeable.
Energy, measured in JOULES, is the conserved quantity, the FUNDAMENTAL UNIT. Power, measured in WATTS, A RATE, a derived quantity, is the INSTANTANEOUS RATE OF CHANGE of JOULES. The average power measured in Watts is the total number of JOULES dissipated divided by the TIME over which it is dissipated. One Watt is one Joule per second. One Joule is NOT one watt per second, it is one wattsecond. There is a difference and the terms are not interchangeable.
A Wattmeter measures power. That is the big horizontal rotating disc in your home utility meter. The faster you use energy.. the more Joules per second... the more WATTS ... and the faster that wheel spins. Its spin speed is proportional to the WATTS value: the instantaneous rate of energy usage. A WATTSECOND meter, which INTEGRATES or adds up all the Joules per second and multiplies by seconds.... is the ENERGY meter which determines your electric bill, and this corresponds to the numbered little dials with arrows on the face of the utility meter.
You are charged for KiloWatt Hours, which is a big number of watt seconds -- JOULES -- all lumped together: the units are power times time. A watt TIMES a second, meaning a Watt of power dissipated during one second, means that ONE JOULE has been dissipated in that one second.
That same one JOULE could be dissipated in 0.0001 second as well. What is the average power, the Joules Per Second, during that brief pulse? It is 1 Joule / 0.0001 second, or TEN KILOWATTS. Have we suddenly created overunity, just by discharging our one Joule in a tenth of a millisecond?
No, of course not. We have simply illustrated that the JOULE is a conserved QUANTITY and a Watt is a rate, and that one Joule can be dissipated at just about any rate, hence just about any AVERAGE POWER.
A mile is a mile, a mile per hour is not a mile. You can go just about any speed at any time...your instantaneous MILES PER HOUR, but a mile is still a mile and won't change no matter how fast or slowly you go.
TK,
Please consider going back to the FG with the TB and set the pos portion so that you have similar 320ma flowing as in that 'scope shot. Set your neg portion for least bias current with similar oscillations(you might try -14V open circuit as well) . Try to set conditions as close to the discussed 'scope shot as possible.
Check your DC current draw and amount of heat at load. Also, watch the Q's, they could get a bit warm.
Probe across the load as close to the load as possible to see if you can determine AC drop/current thru the load.
I believe some time ago you surmised that possibly the load R was heated during pre/post-test tweaking and set to these levels only for a time. It would be interesting to see how much load heating you can attain at these settings.
Reading indicates that possibly settings were adjusted variously so that 'scope shot may be but one capture representative of but one of several different adjustments/settings.
FedEx arrived today, gonna' be real busy for while...
PW
Rosemary:
Those four-plus full pages of postings on this thread about instantaneous power vs. average power were an exercise in irrational and nonsensical idiocy on your part. It was ridiculous in the extreme and your accusations that none of us knew what we were talking about with respect to power analysis were ridiculous.
That whole episode was just a baffling Tar Baby entanglement for nothing. It's like it served as a temporary platform for you to bash us in the most illogical and irrational way. Somewhere inside you you had to know that this was all just a ridiculous exercise. You have observed technical discussions and analyses from some of us for years, and you are well aware of our competencies. So had to know that your comments about us being incompetent with respect to power analysis were all nonsense from the beginning.
Some kind of very strange psychological processes are going in your head. You need to calm down and take a breath and come back to your normal emotional center of gravity. Your crazy irrational combative comments have to stop.
Look at this comment from you:
QuoteAnd with it they've also blackened any hope of authority to comment on any power measurements EVER again
That comment is complete nonsense, and it was at the start of the lunacy.
You have to get your batteries and run your dim bulb tests. That is your best course of action. If you can share your test procedure with us we can comment and hopefully agree on how to go about it. There is no reason for that discussion to degenerate into the surreal irrational idiocy that just took place on this thread over the past 48 hours.
You need to pull yourself together and work cooperatively with us to do your tests. If you say that we can't help you because we are incompetent and you need to get "endorsement from academics" then you will be starting the whole ugly irrational bitter struggle one more time - for nothing.
So do you want to do the dim bulb test or not? If yes, when do you want to do it?
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 09, 2012, 08:09:48 PM
Woo! My brain is hurting!
That was a lot of mental energy and keystrokes expended to review the concepts of instantaneous and average power.
Delighted to see that you've been following the argument. Sorry to see that your brain hurts. There is NO argument. TK had FINALLY got around to our 'water to boil' test and he CAN'T replicate our numbers. OBVIOUSLY Therefore he and picowatt are preparing the ground to deny it on any basis that they can manage. Right NOW they're relying on that SPURIOUS measurement of 20 watts being enough to manage that extraordinary HEAT signature with the application of nothing more than a product of 0.04mA and the applied voltage from our battery supply source. BUT. They need to argue that it's a CONTINUALLY applied wattage at 20 watts or their argument falls on it's face. AND INTO THAT TAR. Quite apart from which 20 watts - APPLIED CONTINUALLY FROM A VARIABLE DC SUPPLY SOURCE - gives us a heat signature of plus/minus 90 degrees centigrade above ambient. And our resistor was measuring 200 degrees centigrade above ambient. SO. That little 20 watts as the 'alleged' or 'implied' or 'inferred' SOLUTION - has buckled to it's knees and baptised itself in a bucket of tar. LOL
But the actual argument - if such it is - is based on TK's spurious assumption that instantaneous wattage is ever applicable on a 'switched circuit'. The unit measurement of Watts is ONLY representative of any viable and dependable value when it is applied from a steady state supply source. Plug distribution points and battery supplies do - under normal applications - supply this. It is a unit measurement that is based on a fair assumption of the continual and average rate of current supplied. Therefore under those conditions one can CERTAINLY apply the product of the measured amps to the applied voltage to get a reliable WATT value. The minute one deals with a switched circuit then that rather simplistic SOLUTION becomes UTTERLY inappropriate. IF one were to apply 20 watts for a brief 12.5% of any switched cycle - and then STOP supplying it for the balance of 87.5% of each cycle - then one can confidently predict that the full force and effect of 20 watts will REDUCE that level of heat during that LONG interval where no further energy is applied. Power or Energy measurements are based on an accurate and CONTINUAL measure of the applied wattage. Time is therefore EXPLICITLY a required factor. Therefore there is only one correct way to factor in any 'interrupted' power supply which is to incorporate the time. And that time is fully defined in each duty cycle. For reasons best understood by TK, picowatt, PhiChaser, FTC and evolvingape - it seem that it is LESS THAN CONVENIENT to acknowledge 2.5 watts as the ACTUAL number. They need to spin that I am THAT STUPID and THAT UNSCHOOLED - that I do NOT realise that 20 watts is CORRECT. Sadly. They're wrong. And sadly - they seem to think that it's enough that there are 5 of them claiming this - for it to be 'carried by majority opinion'. LOL. I've said this before. Science cannot be determined by popular opinion. If it were then we'd still be in the dark ages - assuming that the universe itself revolves around us poor mortals.
Rosie Pose
@PW: Are you reading ahead? There's always one.....
;)
I've had some things come up so I won't be able to get to it right away. But yes, I think I can duplicate the drive conditions in that scopeshot and record some time-temp data on TB's load. If I don't fall asleep. Maybe I should time-lapse video the time/temps. For more exciting viewing.... next we'll do grass growing, and paint drying.
And unfortunately I wasn't able to make a parts run or work on the Altoid edition today, but I'll get to it asap. I think it will make a great party favor. Maybe it should even include a little resistor that you can touch and feel that it is heating a load, along with the LEDs. A 1/8 Watt metal film resistor can get pretty warm, dissipating all that power in such a tiny volume.... ::)
After all.... "ordinary" battery lifetime isn't really much of a concern as long as a stout negative mean power can be obtained... right?
Naturally, before I waste any time doing really comprehensive time-temperature load heating data collection, I have wanted to be sure that there was agreement that Tar Baby performed just like NERD as far as the negative mean power product and all other known parameters are concerned. Personally, I think I'm "close enough for government work" but I think I'll still try to add some more inductance here and there to get the oscillation frequency down into the 1.5 mHz range for the definitive load heating trials. I also want to put a thermocouple or two on the mosfets, so that means I'll have to dig through some boxes to find the equipment.
Operating the Q1 mosfet in this tricky region on a small heatsink without fan cooling.... I can see that it would be easy for the mosfet to start heating, carrying more current, heating up more, and pretty soon it's carrying a lot of current and getting quite warm.... If I can find the TCs maybe I'll set up an overtemp alarm using an Arduino.
So the slow boat finally arrived? Well.... good.
@MH: She's decompensating. (technical term alert.)
I've been reading over her old forum threads and it's easy to see the deterioration in her thinking over the past three years.
There have been so many of her lies and errors and distortions and episodes of sheer ignorance exposed, like this latter one, that her ego integrity is severely threatened and all her defense mechanisms are in full deployment. I really hope that she's got people nearby who understand her and can take care of her properly.
It's cruel in a way to be torturing and taunting her the way I do, I suppose. But it's just so easy, when she keeps sticking her nose out for another whacking. I'm looking at it lately as the same kind of thing that an owner of three dogs has to do daily, to keep the back yard safe for foot traffic. An odious chore, done with a certain chagrin and wrinkled nose perhaps, but absolutely necessary if one is to walk freely without making a misstep.
Reading those old posts one can almost see a childlike innocence and enthusiasm, something that's not evident any more. Now there's just this bitterness and desperation in her tone, and she clutches at whatever straws she can, but sadly, without her advisors to help her, she's slipping further and further away down the rabbit hole.
I mean, look. She's been standing up arguing with her own hallucinations for the past two days, completely missing the point and contradicting herself multiple times, and making really basic math errors while misrepresenting and misquoting everybody on this forum and WIKI too... and yet she still has the temerity to show up day after day, bringing even more irrelevant and ignorant argument INSTEAD OF TESTING.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 06:49:54 PM
But what a masterful RED HERRING this has all been.
Isn't it wonderful how attention has been skillfully deflected away from YET ANOTHER refutation of an AINSLIE ridiculous claim? This has been buried under the Ainslie-piles yet again.
Ainslie asserted, in her overweeningly arrogant and disrespectful manner:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK replied, refuting her exactly and soundly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
Polly Parrot is the QUEEN of disinformation. She's attempted to have this thread suppressed, she's obfuscated and prevaricated and distorted and bloviated and ranted, but what she has NEVER done is to honestly and openly try to DISPROVE her own interpretations of her data. Nor has she made the slightest effort to fill in the yawning chasms in her education by studying a little basic algebra and electronics.
But she is really good at burying anything that conflicts with her delusions.
See what I mean?
LOL MileHigh. I MISSED this. What a gem of a post. It's brightened my dawn. LOL
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AM
Those four-plus full pages of postings on this thread about instantaneous power vs. average power were an exercise in irrational and nonsensical idiocy on your part. It was ridiculous in the extreme and your accusations that none of us knew what we were talking about with respect to power analysis were ridiculous.
Not actually. The idiocy is on TK's part. He's trying to apply and instantaneous power analysis to a switched circuit. JUST CAN'T BE DONE. And those pages - I actually think more than 4 - were NOT my contribution. I only addressed their nonsense.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMThat whole episode was just a baffling Tar Baby entanglement for nothing.
I think that's a fair description of the Tar Baby tests. They're certainly 'baffling'. And 'entangled'. And 'illogical'.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMIt's like it served as a temporary platform for you to bash us in the most illogical and irrational way.
That's the Tar Baby calling the 'kettle black'. LOL. I'm entirely satisfied that the invective and 'bashing' was entirely from TK and picowatt and evolvingape and FTC and PhiChaser. Me? I merely argued their SPURIOUS assumption and their SPURIOUS allegation that 20 watts was representative of the energy applied to our element resistor.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMSomewhere inside you you had to know that this was all just a ridiculous exercise.
LOL. It was indeed a ridiculous proposal. Clearly 20 watts was NEVER applied on ANY continual basis at all. Therfore, correctly the wattage should have read 2.5 watts.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMYou have observed technical discussions and analyses from some of us for years, and you are well aware of our competencies.
I am INDEED. Very well aware of them. You are all of you seasoned anti overunity campaigners. It is a sad truth that our poor science must fall victim in that campaign. And the flaunted credentials in support of that claimed 'competence' is lacking in EVIDENCE. TK must be the only student that has graduated with a degree in electrical engineering - with HONOURS - that STILL does not know that a MOSFET is not a mosfet - that a CSR is NOT a CVR - and who then further supposes that any part of any single voltage value from a switched cycle can represent the ACTUAL level of WATTAGE. He is also the ONLY such honours graduate who applies Ohm's Law without factoring in impedance. And notwithstanding the BURDEN of of all this professed professionalism - indulges in level of invective that would - outside of the freedoms that Harti is allowing him - make him criminally accountable.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMAnd So had to know that your comments about us being incompetent with respect to power analysis were all nonsense from the beginning.
Not actually MileHigh. That's what you're 'spinning'. It is FAR, FAR, FAR from the 'real truth'. LOL
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMSome kind of very strange psychological processes are going in your head. You need to calm down and take a breath and come back to your normal emotional center of gravity. Your crazy irrational combative comments have to stop.
Not actually... AGAIN. I think the ONLY combative comment I may have made was that it is my opinion that TK is a 'sad little man'. And that's hardly combative. IF you are looking for evidence of 'combat' then study the expletives and invectives in TK's posts. That would CERTAINLY be appropriate. My psychological 'processes' seem of inordinate interest to you. I have ALWAYS enjoyed a good argument. So. It's true that I'm deprived of that opportunity as their arguments have been far from good. But I have never cared less if I stand for a minority opinion. Its comfort is always that it's my own. And my emotional center of gravity is VERY sound. If it were NOT then I would not be here - competently contesting all these really 'thin' arguments. And rather enjoying the challenge - IF such it is. LOL.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMLook at this comment from you:
>>And with it they've also blackened any hope of authority to comment on any power measurements EVER again
That comment is complete nonsense, and it was at the start of the lunacy.
Not actually. I would caution anyone to take a good look at any of their allegations related to power measurements if they are SERIOUSLY proposing that wattage from a switched cycle can be represented by any value that is NOT qualified over time. Otherwise they are not talking power. They're talking 'fiction'.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMYou have to get your batteries and run your dim bulb tests. That is your best course of action. If you can share your test procedure with us we can comment and hopefully agree on how to go about it. There is no reason for that discussion to degenerate into the surreal irrational idiocy that just took place on this thread over the past 48 hours.
The surreal idiocy was NOT my idiocy. The degeneration of this thread is hardly capable of further degeneration. And I most certainly WILL NOT apply to your or your 'teams' VAUNTED knowledge about the test parameters - ever. I need those protocols to be established FAIRLY - JUDICIOUSLY - and PROFESSIONALLY.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 10, 2012, 12:22:40 AMYou need to pull yourself together and work cooperatively with us to do your tests. If you say that we can't help you because we are incompetent and you need to get "endorsement from academics" then you will be starting the whole ugly irrational bitter struggle one more time - for nothing.
My dear MileHigh. If you think - for one moment - that I or any of our team will engage with this thread on any serious basis at all - then it is you who are somewhat overly hopeful. We need that much required 'professional impartiality'. And that is SORELY lacking - depending as it does on the 'spin' that is 'spun' with all that hand waving and with it - all that tar brush painting. Way too obvious an objective.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Rosemary,
Attached is Ohm's law (Drawing use U for Volt but you can also use V for Volt).
U = Volt, I = Ampere, R = Resistance and P = Watt.
Now take your battery voltage and find current through your Load + RdsOn (for your mosfet it is 2 Ohm).
In case you battery voltage is 62 Volt and your load is 10 Ohm and your mosfet RdsOn is 2 Ohm.
I = U / R = 62 Volt / 12 Ohm = 5,17 Ampere. So when the mosfet is on there is 5,17 Ampere flowing.
This gives P = U * I = 62 * 5,17 = 320,3 Watt at the Load + RdsOn. Now the ON period is only 12.2% of one second.
So the wattage for one second is: 39,08 Watt per Second to your LOAD + RdsOn.
Now how much is going to the LOAD and how much is burned as heat in the RdsOn?
62 Volt over both resistances. This mean 10,3 Volt over RdsOn and 51,67 Volt over 10 Ohm LOAD.
So, P = U * I = 51,67 * 5,17 = 267,12 Watt, now 12.2% over load and for one second = 21,89 Watt per Second to 10 Ohm LOAD.
39,08 total - 21,89 = 17,19 Watt per Second to RdsOn as heat.
You can use the Ohm's Law for other numbers if you wish and I hope I got the math right. :-)
GL.
And FINALLY I've seen this post. It's a DOOZY.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 01:19:30 AM
I've been reading over her old forum threads and it's easy to see the deterioration in her thinking over the past three years. There have been so many of her lies and errors and distortions and episodes of sheer ignorance exposed, like this latter one, that her ego integrity is severely threatened and all her defense mechanisms are in full deployment. I really hope that she's got people nearby who understand her and can take care of her properly.
More of that projection? Leon. I am entirely satisfied that these last three years have GREATLY increased my understanding. Especially about the role that you and picowatt play. Do you realise that if you did not have picowatt to converse with you'd have NO argument. FTC and PhiChaser contribute NOTHING but a rather infantile 'crush' on you - based on your 'bully tactics'.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 01:19:30 AMIt's cruel in a way to be torturing and taunting her the way I do, I suppose. But it's just so easy, when she keeps sticking her nose out for another whacking. I'm looking at it lately as the same kind of thing that an owner of three dogs has to do daily, to keep the back yard safe for foot traffic. An odious chore, done with a certain chagrin and wrinkled nose perhaps, but absolutely necessary if one is to walk freely without making a misstep.
LOL. I really enjoy this little paragraph. It would pre-suppose that you are 'effective' before you can claim 'cruelty'. This is hysterical. When a little dwarf applies a feather duster to anything at all - then the result is a 'tickle' - AT BEST. And that walking 'freely' ... bit? What a JOKE. My DEAR Leon. If this is what you consider CRUEL - then disabuse yourself. You may look like Hitler - and you may even share his height challenges. But you CERTAINLY are not effective. But how SWEET. You actually think that you're cruel? That you're busy training 'dogs'? Long may you enjoy these fantasies of yours. They seem to satisfy you somewhat. ;D
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 01:19:30 AMReading those old posts one can almost see a childlike innocence and enthusiasm, something that's not evident any more. Now there's just this bitterness and desperation in her tone, and she clutches at whatever straws she can, but sadly, without her advisors to help her, she's slipping further and further away down the rabbit hole.
Indeed. I was excessively naive. I assumed that Open Source and dedicated energy forums were actually what they professed to be. I've learned MUCH. Especially the role that you and picowatt play. Jibbguy has LOTS to say about this. It's the way that you guys supplement your incomes. And in your case - it's the way you actually pander to your rather challenged little ego. You're on a MISSION here TK. I'm flattered that it warrants you every waking moment. And I'm delighted to see how UTTERLY ineffectual you are.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 01:19:30 AMI mean, look. She's been standing up arguing with her own hallucinations for the past two days, completely missing the point and contradicting herself multiple times, and making really basic math errors while misrepresenting and misquoting everybody on this forum and WIKI too... and yet she still has the temerity to show up day after day, bringing even more irrelevant and ignorant argument INSTEAD OF TESTING.
I LOVE that hallucinations thing. Your even claimed that I'm hallucinating WORDS - whatever that means. I've said it before. IF they're hallucinations - then they're shared by MANY of us. RAMPANT AND CONTAGIOUS. That puts them into an over unity bracket all on their own.
Rosie Pose
Hello Groundloop,
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 02:15:09 AM
Rosemary,
Attached is Ohm's law (Drawing use U for Volt but you can also use V for Volt).
U = Volt, I = Ampere, R = Resistance and P = Watt.
Now take your battery voltage and find current through your Load + RdsOn (for your mosfet it is 2 Ohm).
In case you battery voltage is 62 Volt and your load is 10 Ohm and your mosfet RdsOn is 2 Ohm.
I = U / R = 62 Volt / 12 Ohm = 5,17 Ampere. So when the mosfet is on there is 5,17 Ampere flowing.
This gives P = U * I = 62 * 5,17 = 320,3 Watt at the Load + RdsOn. Now the ON period is only 12.2% of one second.
So the wattage for one second is: 39,08 Watt per Second to your LOAD + RdsOn.
Now how much is going to the LOAD and how much is burned as heat in the RdsOn?
62 Volt over both resistances. This mean 10,3 Volt over RdsOn and 51,67 Volt over 10 Ohm LOAD.
So, P = U * I = 51,67 * 5,17 = 267,12 Watt, now 12.2% over load and for one second = 21,89 Watt per Second to 10 Ohm LOAD.
39,08 total - 21,89 = 17,19 Watt per Second to RdsOn as heat.
You can use the Ohm's Law for other numbers if you wish and I hope I got the math right. :-)
GL.
I am entirely satisfied that you've got your math right. And I'm also satisfied that this is very nearly what our resistor is dissipating during that short on period. So. WELL DONE. As ever. You're the ONLY one who is still coming up with appropriate measurements.
Thanks Groundloop,
Kindest regards,
Rosie
BTW - what I'm arguing is what happens to that heat during the second half of each duty cycle. It is not, as you've conceded - appropriate to the full duty cycle. During the second half of each duty cycle then that dissipation is - at best - somewhat less.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 03:23:36 AM
Hello Groundloop,
I am entirely satisfied that you've got your math right. And I'm also satisfied that this is very nearly what our resistor is dissipating during that short on period. So. WELL DONE. As ever. You're the ONLY one who is still coming up with appropriate measurements.
Thanks Groundloop,
Kindest regards,
Rosie
BTW - what I'm arguing is what happens to that heat during the second half of each duty cycle. It is not, as you've conceded - appropriate to the full duty cycle. During the second half of each duty cycle then that dissipation is - at best - somewhat less.
Rosemary,
Just to be absolute clear about it, the energy transferred to the 10 Ohm load is 21 Watt per Second.
I have alread calculated in the 12.2% ON time. So you can NOT calculate the duty cycle twice!
I have already explained to you what happen during the fuction generator OFF cycle. The -12 Volt
pulse from the function generator acts like a battery in series with the main battery. So the function
generator is injecting some energy INTO the circuit. This energy will reduce the average energy usage from
the main battery. The theoretical input the function generator will have is 2.88 Watt since the internal resistance
of the function generator is 50 Ohm. In real life it is less. So for each period of 87,8% of the duty cycle
the function generator input energy of approx. 2,6 Watt per Second. This means that at every OFF cycle the
main battery can provide 2,6 Watt per Second less to the load.
GL.
Groundloop - I am aware of your argument. You are arguing that there's an initial upwards of 5 amps flowing during the 'on time' of the duty cycle. IF there was that much amperage then it would be both evident and measurable across the current sensing resistor. What is evident is 0.32 mA at best. And IF - for whatever reason that upwards of 5 amps is being discharged by the battery supply and NOT flowing to its negative rail - then that would be a miracle all on its own.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 03:48:41 AM
Just to be absolute clear about it, the energy transferred to the 10 Ohm load is 21 Watt per Second.
I have alread calculated in the 12.2% ON time. So you can NOT calculate the duty cycle twice!
So Yes. You are right. You have indeed factored in that 12.2% period ON time. But it is NOT what is measured to be flowing during that brief 'ON' time.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 03:48:41 AMI have already explained to you what happen during the fuction generator OFF cycle. The -12 Volt pulse from the function generator acts like a battery in series with the main battery. So the function
generator is injecting some energy INTO the circuit. This energy will reduce the average energy usage from the main battery. The theoretical input the function generator will have is 2.88 Watt since the internal resistance of the function generator is 50 Ohm. In real life it is less. So for each period of 87,8% of the duty cycle the function generator input energy of approx. 2,6 Watt per Second. This means that at every OFF cycle the main battery can provide 2,6 Watt per Second less to the load.
Again. IF we factor in 20 watts dissipated during the 'on' time - which is not evident in the current discharged anywhere at all on that circuit - and IF we then factor in a further 2.6 watts - at best - of energy supplied during the 'off time' then we are still left with an anomaly. The actual heat dissipated at that resistor is upwards of 200 degrees centigrade. Look at the heat schedules in our paper. If we apply our element resistor to a continual DC supply source then wattage needed to get upwards of 200 degrees centigrade is also upwards of 50 watts. Where is there the current flow - even in your argument - that allows for all that heat?
But you're right. My answer to your post was excessively simplistic and certainly I factored in that duty cycle twice. But you must concede that IF we are indeed measuring plus/minus 0.32 mA or thereby during the ON period of the duty cycle then that must either be a measurements error or it is pointing at an anomaly. Where I thought you were touching on the 'fact' is that we are INDEED dissipating in the region of upwards of 20 watts during that brief ON period. We are not, however, able to reconcile that wattage with the current flow discharged from the battery supply. What we're measuring has being discharged from the battery is 0.32 mA for 12.5% of the duty cycle which is 0.04 mA over that entire cycle. Then the 'extra heat' comes from where? From that oscillation? You tell me because we actually don't have the answer. We have only proposed what might be the answer.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 04:15:21 AM
Groundloop - I am aware of your argument. You are arguing that there's an initial upwards of 5 amps flowing during the 'on time' of the duty cycle. IF there was that much amperage then it would be both evident and measurable across the current sensing resistor. What is evident is 0.32 mA at best. And IF - for whatever reason that upwards of 5 amps is being discharged by the battery supply and NOT flowing to its negative rail - then that would be a miracle all on its own.
So Yes. You are right. You have indeed factored in that 12.2% period ON time. But it is NOT what is measured to be flowing during that brief 'ON' time.
Again. IF we factor in 20 watts dissipated during the 'on' time - which is not evident in the current discharged anywhere at all on that circuit - and IF we then factor in a further 2.6 watts - at best - of energy supplied during the 'off time' then we are still left with an anomaly. The actual heat dissipated at that resistor is upwards of 200 degrees centigrade. Look at the heat schedules in our paper. If we apply our element resistor to a continual DC supply source then wattage needed to get upwards of 200 degrees centigrade is also upwards of 50 watts. Where is there the current flow - even in your argument - that allows for all that heat?
But you're right. My answer to your post was excessively simplistic and certainly I factored in that duty cycle twice. But you must concede that IF we are indeed measuring plus/minus 0.32 mA or thereby during the ON period of the duty cycle then that must either be a measurements error or it is pointing at an anomaly. Where I thought you were touching on the 'fact' is that we are INDEED dissipating in the region of upwards of 20 watts during that brief ON period. We are not, however, able to reconcile that wattage with the current flow discharged from the battery supply. What we're measuring has being discharged from the battery is 0.32 mA for 12.5% of the duty cycle which is 0.04 mA over that entire cycle. Then the 'extra heat' comes from where? From that oscillation? You tell me because we actually don't have the answer. We have only proposed what might be the answer.
Rosie
Rosemary,
If you are not measuring close to 1,25 Volt over the 0,25 Ohm RSHUNT during the ON time, then I will say that
the chance of the measurement beeing in error is 100%. :-)
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 04:27:36 AM
Rosemary,
If you are not measuring close to 1,25 Volt over the RSHUNT during the ON time, then I will say that
the chance of the measurement beeing in error is 100%. :-)
GL.
EXACTLY. And that's the only reasonable conclusion available. But the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY. And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments. So? Those instruments are NOT doing their thing. OR we're dealing with anomalies. That's PRECISELY why we've written those papers. And that's PRECISELY why we need WIDE engagement by experimentalists who are actually attempting to get to the heart of the problem and not simply DISMISS them as is TK et al trying to do. So FRANTICALLY, I might add. And that's also why we will demonstrate ALL of these experiments VERY PUBLICLY. That way our papers will be deemed to have been published. And that way our academics can engage in this discussion without the 'stigma' of dealing with 'false claims' related to a 'pathological science'. Perhaps that explains our motives better?
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 04:36:56 AM
EXACTLY. And that's the only reasonable conclusion available. But the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY. And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments. So? Those instruments are NOT doing their thing. OR we're dealing with anomalies. That's PRECISELY why we've written those papers. And that's PRECISELY why we need WIDE engagement by experimentalists who are actually attempting to get to the heart of the problem and not simply DISMISS them as is TK et al trying to do. So FRANTICALLY, I might add. And that's also why we will demonstrate ALL of these experiments VERY PUBLICLY. That way our papers will be deemed to have been published. And that way our academics can engage in this discussion without the 'stigma' of dealing with 'false claims' related to a 'pathological science'. Perhaps that explains our motives better?
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Rosemary,
I still have my 10 Ohm 25 Watt resistor, so I'm going to test this setup this weekend.
I will use a mosfet and a 0,25 Watt RSHUNT also. Then I will switch the mosfet permanently ON
by using a constant -12 Volt DC to the gate. Since the circuit now is in DC mode, and the mosfet
in on conducting curren all the time, then I can measure the voltage over the 0,25 Ohm RSHUNT
with a normal simple volt meter. No need for a fancy o-scope to do that.
I will let you know how it goes.
GL.
In the case we have been TRYING to discuss, the Q1 mosfet is not turned fully on. It is getting only about 5 volts to its gate and everybody agrees that the current during the ON part of the duty cycle is about 320 mA in the _particular case_ that we have been discussing, which is the scopeshot included in Ainslie's blog post number 117. Note the description of the data and the technique. Are we sure of ANYTHING that Ainslie reports?
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html)
ALL of Ainslie's rants having to do with her mistaken conceptions of power are based on her HALLUCINATION that I ever said or claimed that the full 20 Watts that is the instantaneous power conveyed by that current is dissipated at the load. In fact, when this first STARTED I explicitly calculated the I^2R power dissipation at the 11.1 ohm load corresponding to 320 mA. And I also commented that the duty cycle was reducing this in the average. Yet Ainslie prefers to lie about what I actually am saying and she argues with the words she PREFERS that I would have said: a hallucination, since I said no such thing and in fact, many times when this typical Ainslie behaviour occurs, have said just the opposite.
Now, in the case when the mosfet Q1 _is_ turned more fully on, like with seven volts or so, we see a different picture at the CVR with much higher current indicated.
BUT... and this is indeed an "anomaly" that remains unexplained by Polly Parrot, sometimes when the Q1 gate is given a positive signal.... nothing happens. EVEN WITH 12 VOLTS APPLIED TO ITS GATE.
Groundloop, if you can replicate ZERO CURRENT flowing through your mosfet with +12 volts applied to your gate....
I'll buy you a new, working mosfet. And you can buy the beer.
8)
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 04:46:54 AM
Rosemary,
I still have my 10 Ohm 25 Watt resistor, so I'm going to test this setup this weekend.
I will use a mosfet and a 0,25 Watt RSHUNT also. Then I will switch the mosfet permanently ON
by using a constant -12 Volt DC to the gate. Since the circuit now is in DC mode, and the mosfet
in on conducting curren all the time, then I can measure the voltage over the 0,25 Ohm RSHUNT
with a normal simple volt meter. No need for a fancy o-scope to do that.
I will let you know how it goes.
GL.
You wrote " minus 12 Volt DC".
??
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 05:14:02 AM
You wrote " minus 12 Volt DC".
??
TK,
I wrote wrong. I meant +12 volt positive bias on the gate to fully turn on the mosfet.
GL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 04:36:56 AM
EXACTLY. And that's the only reasonable conclusion available. But the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY. And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments. So? Those instruments are NOT doing their thing. OR we're dealing with anomalies. That's PRECISELY why we've written those papers. And that's PRECISELY why we need WIDE engagement by experimentalists who are actually attempting to get to the heart of the problem and not simply DISMISS them as is TK et al trying to do. So FRANTICALLY, I might add. And that's also why we will demonstrate ALL of these experiments VERY PUBLICLY. That way our papers will be deemed to have been published. And that way our academics can engage in this discussion without the 'stigma' of dealing with 'false claims' related to a 'pathological science'. Perhaps that explains our motives better?
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
No, actually Polly, that is NOT the only reasonable conclusion possible. Another even more reasonable conclusion is that you are misinterpreting your measurements.
You are confusing PRECISION with ACCURACY. You are making very precise measurements indeed and nobody is contesting your MEASUREMENTS. And I freely concede that your MEASUREMENTS are more precise than mine are, by some small percentage, perhaps in the third or fourth significant digit of a numerical result. That is the nice thing about digital equipment: it gives you precise results. Too precise sometimes, resulting in aliasing of displays, or long strings of meaningless digits after a decimal point in a computation.
Indeed your MEASUREMENTS are easy to reproduce in all kinds of systems and there is considerable literature explaining just why these MEASUREMENTS are obtained and why they are spurious. And this has been explained to you over and over by many many people--certainly far more than have ever come forth in your support, and even by your former collaborators.
But ACCURACY is a different thing from PRECISION. And your measurements are not ACCURATE representations of the quantities you desire to measure. Are you an archer, or a target shooter? It does no good at all to fire nice tight consistent groups or split one arrow with the following one ..... if you are hitting ten feet off to the right of the target you are aiming at.
You claim and maybe even think and believe that you are performing what you call "standard measurement protocols" on your apparatus. But in fact you are not. You are making an almost deliberately designed set of errors to obtain a specific result, and you have never actually done the definitive test of your battery's state of charge before and after operating your circuit.
Standard measurement protocols for such things do exist, in ASTM and IEEE and Agilent databases, and I have linked to a few of them. You choose to ignore them. That is willfull ignorance and arrogance of the highest order and you deserve strong chastisement for it.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 05:16:21 AM
TK,
I wrote wrong. I meant +12 volt positive bias on the gate to fully turn on the mosfet.
GL.
I knew that you did.
;)
LOL Guys,
This is the CLOSEST that TK will ever get to an admission of error. This from that 'CRUEL little man' who thinks he's disturbing my emotional or mental equilibrium. If I've said it once - it can bear repetition. TK - it is my opinion that you are a sad sorry little man with delusions of effectiveness that are disconcertingly amusing.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 04:48:44 AM
In the case we have been TRYING to discuss, the Q1 mosfet is not turned fully on. It is getting only about 5 volts to its gate and everybody agrees that the current during the ON part of the duty cycle is about 320 mA in the _particular case_ that we have been discussing, which is the scopeshot included in Ainslie's blog post number 117. Note the description of the data and the technique. Are we sure of ANYTHING that Ainslie reports?
ALL of Ainslie's rants having to do with her mistaken conceptions of power are based on her HALLUCINATION that I ever said or claimed that the full 20 Watts that is the instantaneous power conveyed by that current is dissipated at the load. In fact, when this first STARTED I explicitly calculated the I^2R power dissipation at the 11.1 ohm load corresponding to 320 mA. And I also commented that the duty cycle was reducing this in the average. Yet Ainslie prefers to lie about what I actually am saying and she argues with the words she PREFERS that I would have said: a hallucination, since I said no such thing and in fact, many times when this typical Ainslie behaviour occurs, have said just the opposite.
And my dear Leon. I do NOT RANT. I leave that to the likes of you. And - from memory - which admittedly in my dotage is sorely taxed - I seem to remember that you rather RELIED on that computation of 20 watts. LOL. This is hysterical.
Guys, TK - the sweet thing that he is - is trying to pretend that he NEVER claimed to have measured 20 watts instantaneous current flow. Presumably therefore - neither did picowatt. And then - Guys - I'm afraid we've ALL been hallucinating. And a quick reference to previous posts seems to indicate that those ruddy posts are ALSO hallucinating. It's RIFE and it's CONTAGIOUS. The Tar Baby is spreading delusions like confetti.
Yes TK. You most certainly and somewhat unequivocally claimed that we were showing 20 watts delivered by that battery supply which you seemed to think would be sufficient to heat our element resistor to 200 degrees centigrade. And you were essentially somewhat COMBATIVE in these your claims. And it is REALLY amusing that you're now denying this.
Rosie Pose.
Groundloop - just to caution you. IF you apply a continual positive to the Gate of Q1 then you will ONLY get a DC outflow. Do you really mean that? And does TK REALLY expect you to do that? I'm not sure why you'd want to prove this. It has no bearing on the issue. But far be it from me to interfere with your test objects.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 05:16:21 AM
TK,
I wrote wrong. I meant +12 volt positive bias on the gate to fully turn on the mosfet.
GL.
Regards as ever,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 05:34:40 AM
LOL Guys,
This is the CLOSEST that TK will ever get to an admission of error. This from that 'CRUEL little man' who thinks he's disturbing my emotional or mental equilibrium. If I've said it once - it can bear repetition. TK - it is my opinion that you are a sad sorry little man with delusions of effectiveness that are disconcertingly amusing.
And my dear Leon. I do NOT RANT. I leave that to the likes of you. And - from memory - which admittedly in my dotage is sorely taxed - I seem to remember that you rather RELIED on that computation of 20 watts. LOL. This is hysterical.
Guys, TK - the sweet thing that he is - is trying to pretend that he NEVER claimed to have measured 20 watts instantaneous current flow.
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE POLLY PARROT LIES AGAIN ho hohooo you are so silly and transparent.
QuotePresumably therefore - neither did picowatt. And then - Guys - I'm afraid we've ALL been hallucinating. And a quick reference to previous posts seems to indicate that those ruddy posts are ALSO hallucinating. It's RIFE and it's CONTAGIOUS. The Tar Baby is spreading delusions like confetti.
Yes TK. You most certainly and somewhat unequivocally claimed that we were showing 20 watts delivered by that battery supply which you seemed to think would be sufficient to heat our element resistor to 200 degrees centigrade. And you were essentially somewhat COMBATIVE in these your claims. And it is REALLY amusing that you're now denying this.
Linky please... you cannot support your contention here with a citation or a quote, because once again you are referring to your own hallucination. 320 mA times 62 volts is what again? YES, I do unequivocally "claim" or rather calculate from your data that the instantaneous power during the ON state is 20 Watts, roughly. And WHERE did I say it was dissipated? And do I believe that you obtained that temperature under the conditions of that scope trace? No, I do not, and in fact I deny that it is even possible, much less have I ever claimed that it was "sufficient", you hallucinating liar you.
Quote
Polly Parrot.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 05:39:30 AM
Groundloop - just to caution you. IF you apply a continual positive to the Gate of Q1 then you will ONLY get a DC outflow. Do you really mean that? And does TK REALLY expect you to do that? I'm not sure why you'd want to prove this. It has no bearing on the issue. But far be it from me to interfere with your test objects.
Regards as ever,
Rosie
NO, Polly Parrot, I expect him to refute the claims you make about this scope shot, where a +12 volt positive voltage is applied to the Gate of Q1..... FOR 16 SECONDS AT A TIME..... and yet NO CURRENT FLOWS.
I know of several ways to replicate the behaviour shown in the scope shot. None of them involve applying +12 volts to the gate of a properly connected, properly functioning mosfet.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 05:39:30 AM
Groundloop - just to caution you. IF you apply a continual positive to the Gate of Q1 then you will ONLY get a DC outflow. Do you really mean that? And does TK REALLY expect you to do that? I'm not sure why you'd want to prove this. It has no bearing on the issue. But far be it from me to interfere with your test objects.
Regards as ever,
Rosie
Rosemary,
It will be the same as setting my function generator to 10 second on and 10 second off,
and measuring over the RSHUNT with a voltmeter during the 10 second on period.
It will show what is happening during the ON pulse from the FG because at the ON pulse
there is NO oscillation and the mosfet is just conducting current in a DC mode.
And, it is a very relevant test to dertermine what the current is through the RSHUNT when
the FG is in the positive pulse.
And, it is relevant to show you that your measuremnets over the RSHUNT is right or wrong.
GL.
Groundloop - the plot thickens.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 05:58:20 AM
It will be the same as setting my function generator to 10 second on and 10 second off, and measuring over the RSHUNT with a voltmeter during the 10 second on period.
It will show what is happening during the ON pulse from the FG because at the ON pulse there is NO oscillation and the mosfet is just conducting current in a DC mode.
And, it is a very relevant test to dertermine what the current is through the RSHUNT when the FG is in the positive pulse.
And, it is relevant to show you that your measuremnets over the RSHUNT is right or wrong.
Exactly WHICH MOSFET measurement are you referring to? Which scope shot? Which measurement?
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 05:46:56 AM
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE POLLY PARROT LIES AGAIN ho hohooo you are so silly and transparent.
Guys, it seems that our TK is not only short in stature, short on courtesy, short on professionalism - but he's also somewhat short on emotional maturity. From this reference I take it we're dealing with 3 year old. And this the kind of post that our Harti prefers? For some reason? Very strange.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 05:46:56 AMLinky please... you cannot support your contention here with a citation or a quote, because once again you are referring to your own hallucination. 320 mA times 62 volts is what again? YES, I do unequivocally "claim" or rather calculate from your data that the instantaneous power during the ON state is 20 Watts, roughly. And WHERE did I say it was dissipated? And do I believe that you obtained that temperature under the conditions of that scope trace? No, I do not, and in fact I deny that it is even possible, much less have I ever claimed that it was "sufficient", you hallucinating liar you.
At least he's acknowledging that he claimed 20 watts instantaneous power. What utter NONSENSE.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
There was never any issue with the instantaneous power vs. the average power. The whole combative debate was crazy. It was a "yellow" debate, manufactured nonsense from the get-go. What possesses you to do this? What in God's name is going on with you?
You talk about trolls all the time. You are acting like the ultimate troll, combative endless arguments that serve no purpose and make no sense.
People are indeed getting frustrated and losing their cool. If you want to pretend that you have "scored a victory" in this "debate" because you are still harping on about average power, bla bla bla, then you are sorely mistaken.
There is nothing to disagree about with respect to the power. However, you claimed that there was insignificant power when the gate signal was +5 volts and that was clearly wrong. There were 20 watts being dissipated, and most of that power was being dissipated in the MOSFET itself. That simple basic analysis was never understood or done when you ran the NERD tests. In addition, that should be an embarrassment to yourself and the NERD team because your objective was to show power being dissipated in the load resistor, not in the MOSFETs.
You need to get a grip on the reality of your situation and who you are talking to here.
How about your dim bulb testing? When are you going to buy new and smaller batteries? What is your proposed protocol? When do you plan on doing the testing?
MileHigh
bullying
bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more 'lieutenants' who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities.
bullying behavior may include name calling, verbal or written abuse, exclusion from activities, exclusion from social situations, physical abuse, or coercion. bullies may behave this way to be perceived as popular or tough or to get attention. they may bully out of jealousy or be acting out because they themselves are bullied.
social aggression or indirect bullying is characterized by attempting to socially isolate the victim. this isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including spreading gossip, refusing to socialize with the victim, bullying other people who wish to socialize with the victim, and criticizing the victim's manner of dress and other socially-significant markers (including the victim's race, religion, disability, sex, or sexual preference, etc.). other forms of indirect bullying which are more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such as name calling, the silent treatment, arguing others into submission, manipulation, gossip/false gossip, lies, rumors/false rumors, staring, giggling, laughing at the victim, saying certain words that trigger a reaction from a past event, and mocking.
LOL Wilby,
I was wondering if you were still reading here.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 10, 2012, 10:56:03 AM
bullying
bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more 'lieutenants' who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities.
bullying behavior may include name calling, verbal or written abuse, exclusion from activities, exclusion from social situations, physical abuse, or coercion. bullies may behave this way to be perceived as popular or tough or to get attention. they may bully out of jealousy or be acting out because they themselves are bullied.
social aggression or indirect bullying is characterized by attempting to socially isolate the victim. this isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including spreading gossip, refusing to socialize with the victim, bullying other people who wish to socialize with the victim, and criticizing the victim's manner of dress and other socially-significant markers (including the victim's race, religion, disability, , or sexual preference, etc.). other forms of indirect bullying which are more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such as name calling, the silent treatment, arguing others into submission, manipulation, gossip/false gossip, lies, rumors/false rumors, staring, giggling, laughing at the victim, saying certain words that trigger a reaction from a past event, and mocking.
I think this PERFECTLY describes our TK et al - and their tactics. But it's excess also renders it ineffectual - somehow? Frankly I'd encourage them all to 'bring it on' as TK puts it. It serves the OU cause really well. Imagine where we'd be if they were merely decent upright citizens with no obvious agenda to follow? LOL. Then OU may certainly have been dealt a body blow. God forbid.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
@ Rosemary
QuoteBut the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY. And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments. So? Those instruments are NOT doing their thing. OR we're dealing with anomalies.
These are you two scenarios??
Calibrated instruments 'not doing their thing' or anomalies.
The possibility that you might have your equipment hooked up wrong never occurred to you?
Instead of asking 'what did I do wrong?' you immediately assume you did nothing wrong and that the instruments are 'not doing their thing' properly or there is an anomaly? Am I understanding your post as intended?
I doubt I am the first to mention this, but measuring things 'REPEATEDLY' with sophisticated calibrated instruments DOES NOT make those measurements a FACT Rosemary. Measurements give you numbers you need to PROVE or (better yet) try and DISPROVE using more tests. And those measurements don't mean ANYTHING if they aren't connected and MEASURED PROPERLY.
This is why the Dim Bulb Test has been suggested to you over and over and over ad. nauseum...
You aren't very easy to understand sometimes Rosemary.
I still don't get the 'sauce' remark...
You're covered in tar, not sauce lady.
Regards,
PC
@ Wilby: You realize that Rosemary is the only one listening to you right?
My dear MileHigh,
Since you are simply repeating your usual post then I'll simply repeat my earlier answer.
I'm entirely satisfied that the invective and 'bashing' was entirely from TK and picowatt and evolvingape and FTC and PhiChaser. Me? I merely argued their SPURIOUS assumption and their SPURIOUS allegation that 20 watts was representative of the energy applied to our element resistor. It was indeed a ridiculous proposal. Clearly 20 watts was NEVER applied on ANY continual basis at all. Therefore, correctly the wattage should have read 2.5 watts. You are all of you seasoned anti over unity campaigners. It is a sad truth that our poor science must fall victim in that campaign. And the flaunted credentials in support of that claimed 'competence' is lacking in EVIDENCE. TK must be the only student that has graduated with a degree in electrical engineering - with HONOURS - that STILL does not know that a MOSFET is not a mosfet - that a CSR is NOT a CVR - and who then further supposes that any part of any single voltage value from a switched cycle can represent the ACTUAL level of WATTAGE. He is also the ONLY such honours graduate who applies Ohm's Law without factoring in impedance. And notwithstanding the BURDEN of all this professed professionalism - indulges in level of invective that would - outside of the freedoms that Harti is allowing him - make him criminally accountable.
And may I add. He is also the only honours graduate who has claimed that instantaneous wattage can be 'inferred' 'applied' 'computed' from a switched cycle. Extraordinary. And the worst of it is that he STILL claims this. There most certainly WAS an issue related to instantaneous power vs average power. And our little TK disgraced himself with an oversight that should have hit him between the eyes - certainly if he hopes to convince anyone that he has any credentials at all. As it indeed it should also have occurred to picowatt. But at least picowatt admits that he is not credentialed. It's interesting to see how they both continue with that tar brush application. Notwithstanding. LOL.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AM
@ Wilby: You realize that Rosemary is the only one listening to you right?
LOL Not actually PhiChaser. No-one is listening. The best any of us can do is read. And self-evidently YOU are reading his posts. Which means that I am most certainly NOT the only one 'reading'. And I'm not sure that you can determine exactly who IS or IS NOT reading here. I think the best you can do is speculate. Which makes your observation spurious and unprovable. Like so many of your 'allegations' and 'observations'.
Golly.
as ever
Rosie Pose
And as to the balance of this post of yours PhiChaser - where you limp in the wake of TK's tarred 'feather duster'...
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AM
These are you two scenarios??
Calibrated instruments 'not doing their thing' or anomalies. The possibility that you might have your equipment hooked up wrong never occurred to you?
We have shown where our probes are 'hooked up' - in our schematic. And yes - IF there are still measurement errors - then that has to be proved.
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AMInstead of asking 'what did I do wrong?' you immediately assume you did nothing wrong and that the instruments are 'not doing their thing' properly or there is an anomaly? Am I understanding your post as intended?
NO. You are NOT understanding my post. Not even close. I said what I intended to say. And I said it to Groundloop.
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AMI doubt I am the first to mention this, but measuring things 'REPEATEDLY' with sophisticated calibrated instruments DOES NOT make those measurements a FACT Rosemary. Measurements give you numbers you need to PROVE or (better yet) try and DISPROVE using more tests. And those measurements don't mean ANYTHING if they aren't connected and MEASURED PROPERLY.
You are now stating the fatuously self-evident. And you're IMPLYING that we have connected and measured IMPROPERLY? LOL
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AMThis is why the Dim Bulb Test has been suggested to you over and over and over ad. nauseum...
The dim lightbulb test has not been done by TK. Or IF he's done this he has not shown us any numbers. WHAT exactly do you wish us to do with that strange little test? Replicate it? LOL
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AM
You're covered in tar, not sauce lady.
Not actually. The only thing that is rather disgustingly tarred is TK's Tar Baby.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
LOL Not actually PhiChaser. No-one is listening. The best any of us can do is read. And self-evidently YOU are reading his posts. Which means that I am most certainly NOT the only one 'reading'. And I'm not sure that you can determine exactly who IS or IS NOT reading here. I think the best you can do is speculate. Which makes your observation spurious and unprovable. Like so many of your 'allegations' and 'observations'.
Golly.
as ever
Rosie Pose
Heh heh, yeah, you got me there Rosemary. I read his post. I'm sure we all did...
I retract my statement. Sorry Wilby. I admit, I read your post.
The rest of my post still stands as written however. ;D
PC
Rosemary:
You are still 'disconnected' and spouting nonsense. You don't stand a chance and your ship is indeed sinking. You are in denial and still waiting for your waiter to bring you your tea even though the ship is listing to port at 30 degrees.
TK did indeed do a dim bulb test. You refused to answer my questions about your own dim bulb test. When you do it you are going to be in shock.
Poor Rosie Posie in denial on the
Ship of Doom.
There is nothing left to do but laugh. The never-ending drama.
Assuming that PW also does a replication you are going to be in for a real shock.
MileHigh
PS: Quoting you:
Quotewho applies Ohm's Law without factoring in impedance.
Please tell us how to "factor in impedance." We really want to know. We want a detailed explanation on how to do this along with a concrete example with all of your work shown. We want to see numbers.
You have made your "factoring in impedance" reference many times. So it's time for you to explain what this means in explicit detail.
We are all looking forward to getting your clarification on this issue.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 11:28:01 AM
My dear MileHigh,
Since you are simply repeating your usual post then I'll simply repeat my earlier answer.
I'm entirely satisfied that the invective and 'bashing' was entirely from TK and picowatt and evolvingape and FTC and PhiChaser. Me? I merely argued their SPURIOUS assumption and their SPURIOUS allegation that 20 watts was representative of the energy applied to our element resistor. It was indeed a ridiculous proposal. Clearly 20 watts was NEVER applied on ANY continual basis at all. Therefore, correctly the wattage should have read 2.5 watts. You are all of you seasoned anti over unity campaigners. It is a sad truth that our poor science must fall victim in that campaign. And the flaunted credentials in support of that claimed 'competence' is lacking in EVIDENCE. TK must be the only student that has graduated with a degree in electrical engineering - with HONOURS - that STILL does not know that a MOSFET is not a mosfet - that a CSR is NOT a CVR - and who then further supposes that any part of any single voltage value from a switched cycle can represent the ACTUAL level of WATTAGE. He is also the ONLY such honours graduate who applies Ohm's Law without factoring in impedance. And notwithstanding the BURDEN of all this professed professionalism - indulges in level of invective that would - outside of the freedoms that Harti is allowing him - make him criminally accountable.
And may I add. He is also the only honours graduate who has claimed that instantaneous wattage can be 'inferred' 'applied' 'computed' from a switched cycle. Extraordinary. And the worst of it is that he STILL claims this. There most certainly WAS an issue related to instantaneous power vs average power. And our little TK disgraced himself with an oversight that should have hit him between the eyes - certainly if he hopes to convince anyone that he has any credentials at all. As it indeed it should also have occurred to picowatt. But at least picowatt admits that he is not credentialed. It's interesting to see how they both continue with that tar brush application. Notwithstanding. LOL.
Rosie Posie
1. Where have I ever claimed to have a degree in electrical engineering? Two days ago she said I was a psychologist. Polly Parrot is flailing around again.
2. I have made no errors in my calculations. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that 20 watts was dissipated at the load resistor in the case we are discussing, and everybody but the hallucinating parrot knows that. I CALCULATED THE PROPER DISSIPATION AT THE LOAD RESISTOR WHEN THIS ALL STARTED, and SINCE I WAS DISCUSSING ONLY THE ON TIME THE DUTY CYCLE DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE PICTURE.
3. Polly Parrot THINKS that I did not "factor in" impedance. She is LYING YET AGAIN. Probably she cannot figure out how to download and open the SPREADSHEET where all my calculations and data are GIVEN for inspection by ANYONE, which I have linked several times. Where is Polly's comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance? Nowhere.
4. When does DC become DC? For 16 milliseconds out of every approx. 125 millisecond period, the circuit is passing a DC current of 320 mA at 62 volts from the battery. FOR THAT 16 milliseconds of each period, DC current flows, inductance doesn't matter, and 16 milliseconds is a long time. What is the average DC power during those 16 milliseconds?
(Edit: for a moment there I referenced the wrong scope shot, where she used a 50 second timebase setting-- the one with the blown mosfet. This scopeshot has a 50 millisecond timebase setting. Sorry.)
Keep it up, Polly, you are just about down to the bedrock, scraping away with those bloody fingernails.
Polly thinks I am "criminally accountable" for something. I think that is an ACTIONABLE SLANDER and that she should be very very careful in her accusations, because I HAVE PROOF of everything I've ever said here.... AND SHE DOES NOT.
(BW: For "current sensing resistor" Bing returns over 5 million hits. For "current viewing resistor"... over nine million hits. And what exactly is the difference between a MOSFET and a mosfet? Perhaps MOSFET is easier for ancient eyes to read, but as far as I can tell an IRFPG50 MOSFET performs exactly like an IRFPG50 mosfet (I have both types in stock). Of course... I didn't use a digital instrument to test them....)
QuoteWe have shown where our probes are 'hooked up' - in our schematic. And yes - IF there are still measurement errors - then that has to be proved.
It has been proven time and time again, with your own data, and time and time again by EVERYONE who has ever tried to "replicate" your results, whether in simulation or hardware.
And the people at journals who are rejecting your pitiful submissions can see this for themselves. Five minutes looking at THE SCOPESHOTS YOU HAVE INCLUDED IN THE MANUSCRIPTS is enough for anyone who knows how to read a scope to conclude that your measurements are very precise measurements of garbage.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 08:58:13 AM
Groundloop - the plot thickens.
Exactly WHICH MOSFET measurement are you referring to? Which scope shot? Which measurement?
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
There is no plot. And I'm not referring to any scope shots or measurements yet, because I said I will do
this test this weekend. And you should know your circuit by now. It is quite obvious that I'm going
to test the mosfet that switches ON when you put a positive bias to the gate and NOT the other one
that oscillate with a positive bias and has a grounded gate. Your circuit drawing has been posted a zillion
times now and you should know your circuit. I will post a drawing of what I will be testing this weekend.
GL.
QuoteThe dim lightbulb test has not been done by TK. Or IF he's done this he has not shown us any numbers. WHAT exactly do you wish us to do with that strange little test? Replicate it? LOL
Another pair of lies by Polly the blind deaf but not dumb Parrot. Of course I have done the dim lightbulb test, three times now, although the timelapse failed on the last one. Do you think I am hiding Tar Baby's failure to fail the Dim Bulb Test? Riiiiight. That's about as brilliant as Tar Baby's bulbs.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=youtube+tinselkoala+dim+bulb&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI (http://www.bing.com/search?q=youtube+tinselkoala+dim+bulb&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI)
And yes, Polly... we DO expect you to replicate that strange little test.... and so does Stefan I believe, and so does everybody else, because that is the EASIEST and QUICKEST way to test your main claim WHICH HAS NEVER YET been tested by you: Do your batteries discharge while running your circuit and heating a load to 194 degrees C... or do they not? The DIM BULB test requires nothing more than some bulbs and some extra batteries and a camera. I think you have all of that... you even have a TRIPOD don't you.
Oh... and it requires that you operate your circuit, first, for some hours heating that load to near 200 degrees C beforehand, of course. You can do that, can't you, using 72 volts and the layout you have published? For some hours?
The test is right up your alley, because it DOES NOT DEPEND AT ALL on measurements other than your own eyeballs. Of course you will need to "tune" your circuit to get it performing properly. You will of course do this with a
different but identical load, so that when you begin your running period at your desired tuning, you can use the first load... the cold one... so the experiment's load won't already be hot from the tuning stage. Fair is fair, right? I mean, you DON'T COUNT the tuning stage where the waveforms might be a lot different...... DO YOU?
Or perhaps .... YOU DO.
How do you eliminate the effect of the TUNING STAGE on the temperature of your load, anyway? I don't think anyone has worried about this yet, but since we are nearing the calorimetry tests of Tar Baby.... now might be a good time to bring it up.
The "effect" we are concerned with is supposed to happen in a steady-state system, but what we have seen from Polly Parrot is a bunch of different duty cycles and base frequencies, and clearly the circuit must be TUNED by the FG setting to produce the various modes of operation. Is it completely kosher to allow the load heat from the tuning process to be included in the heat data or the claims arising therefrom?
Somehow, I don't really think it is.
Oh.... by the way.... Ainslie's load temperature measurements are coming from a thermocouple attached directly to the body of her water-heater element "load resistor", are they not? And most of the time, the load is simply out in the open, until it is hot, and then it is inserted into water. But the thermocouple remains attached to the large thermal mass of the water heater element, right? I mean, they have NEVER actually measured the temperature of the water itself. (Clearly, a WATER temperature of 104 South African degrees would be impossible to attain in an unpressurized container in Johannesburg or Cape Town... they are not yet below sea level, are they?) And even at that precisely measured temperature, the water wasn't "actually boiling" when she first reported this experiment, as described in her blog post #117 and #118....it only becomes boiling after a year of mendacity and prevarication. It was releasing tiny bubbles. But not making the sound that a boiling teapot makes....
PERHAPS BECAUSE IT WASN'T BOILING at all, and the 104 degree reading is of the big metal load housing temperature, not the water temperature.
In Tar Baby's load cell, I have the resistors suspended by their leadin wires, completely submerged in 250 mL mineral oil, not touching the sides, with the thermometer well away from the resistors so that I am measuring the oil temperature.
But I will be very happy to take all of this apart and hang my load resistors in the air, and attach my thermocouple directly to the resistor body. What kinds of temperatures will I then be able to measure, I wonder. Does anyone doubt that I will be able to attain 200 degrees C this way, using the same conditions described in the Ainslie manuscript's "high heat" mode?
In the below shot we see "Texan degrees" displayed, that is degrees F. And this is NOT the temperature of some large metal mass, it is the temperature of the known quantity of known oil with known specific gravity and known specific heat, in which the resistors are submerged, and it is taken at a long enough time constant so that the resistors and the oil are most probably in thermal equilibrium... that is.... it may not be a super PRECISE measurement of the temperature due to the analog instrument and its calibration curve (which is also known, by the way) .... there may be a 3-5 percent error in the displayed figure... but it is an ACCURATE representation of the quantity being measured: the ENERGY that has been delivered to and dissipated at the load.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
3. Polly Parrot THINKS that I did not "factor in" impedance. She is LYING YET AGAIN. Probably she cannot figure out how to download and open the SPREADSHEET where all my calculations and data are GIVEN for inspection by ANYONE, which I have linked several times. Where is Polly's comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance? Nowhere.
@ TK,
You've made a interesting point about the "SPREADSHEETS" not being offered for each of the oscilloscope images posted in Rosemary's blog site, here at OverUnity and in the two botched submittals for peer review. The only thing that Rosemary refers to is the "MATH" function used without any referral to 'HARD COPY" data sampling recording or it's availability for inspection.
I wonder also what kind of software was used for the 500K (500,000) recorded data sampling was used this rate used which seems high for the wave forms being produced. I all most always used the 10K (10,000) recording data sampling rate as most spreadsheet software can do the line totals, there was two test runs that I did that were at 100K (100,000) and there wasn't anyone in the project that had software for the line totals although Harvey came up with a method to evaluate the data in a general condensed form.
The attached oscilloscope screen shot example is one from Rosemary's two submittal papers to a accredited journal or magazine for possible peer review and publication. This is a odd one in my opinion with a 50s (50 second) per division setting and a 500K recordable data sampling rate including the math function being used, where is all the "hard copy" data dump information at for this one ? I haven seen one data dump file for a single oscilloscope screen shot ? The big question for me is what kind of spreadsheet software was used for 500,000 (500K) line totals Rosemary used almost exclusively ?
FTC
;)
That is indeed an odd one, as we have noted before.
There is the blue trace, indicating a positive 12 volts applied to the gate of mosfet Q1, for a duration of about SIXTEEN SECONDS during each "on" period.
Yet... there is absolutely NO current flow indicated on the CVR trace during that time.
Surely even a zipon-saturated IRFPG50 would be able to turn on, from a 12 volt solid gate signal, within sixteen seconds. I mean they are slow, but not _that_ slow.
What can possibly be the explanation for this scope shot? What is keeping the Q1 mosfet from turning on and passing current?
Could it be that something is disconnected somewhere, or a different circuit is being used? Or is there an even simpler explanation?
Polly Parrot refuses to tell us what her explanation is for this staggering "anomaly". However she has squawked a bit about how her "academics" have confirmed the data or some such rot. Therefore we are assured that the DATA is correct: somehow, a Q1 mosfet is being given a 12 volt gate signal and yet is not able to pass current.
This is not an error in the data. It is really REALLY happening: A mosfet is being given + 12 volts at its gate and is not passing current between drain and source. Her academics agree.
Why is this happening? Every n-channel mosfet I've ever seen behaves differently than this.
Every mosfet, that is.... that was actually working and wired correctly into its circuit.
EDIT TO ADD: Is there anyone, anywhere, that believes that the NERD load could be heated to nearly 200 degrees C, when running as shown in that scope shot? I certainly don't.
Go ahead, Polly: PROVE ME WRONG by showing
1) a delivery of +12 volts to the gate of Q1 and NOT turning it on, and 2) Heating a load substantially using scope traces like those shown in that shot above.
Tk
You are using mineral oil, not water? From what I remember, water has quite a bit of resistance to taking on heat and getting rid of it compared to some other fluids.
Does the mineral oil heat up and dissipate at the same rate as water? Doing the same experiments side by side, 1 water and the other oil, would the temperatures of each rise and fall the same, in time?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on May 10, 2012, 07:02:10 PM
Tk
You are using mineral oil, not water? From what I remember, water has quite a bit of resistance to taking on heat and getting rid of it compared to some other fluids.
Does the mineral oil heat up and dissipate at the same rate as water? Doing the same experiments side by side, 1 water and the other oil, would the temperatures of each rise and fall the same, in time?
Mags
The specific heat of water is 4.18 Joules per gram per degree C. The specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 Joules per gram per degree, and the specific gravity of mineral oil is 0.83 grams per milliLiter, and there are 250 milliLiters of mineral oil in there _precisely_ . And I have posted this information several times before, but thanks for asking.
Side by side.... yes, the temperatures would rise and fall in synch. But the values of the temperatures at each instant would differ, because it takes more energy... about 2.5 times as much... to raise one gram of water by one degree than it does to raise one gram of mineral oil by one degree. Therefore, all other things being equal, if you simply multiplied the mineral oil time-temp curve values by (4.18/1.67) and (1/0.83) -- that is, scaling by the ratio of the specific heats and the densities -- you should get the water curve values, fairly closely.
Shouldn't you?
Now.... how many millLiters of water were there in Ainslie's report? How long was it heated, what was the starting temperature and the final temperature, what was the temperature when the element was finally immersed, why isn't there vigorous boiling if the temperature of the water is 104 degrees?
Look at her blog posts 117 and 118 where she is reporting in real time, and then compare to what it has grown to over the last year.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html
(Oh yes... there is a certain definite advantage to using mineral oil instead of water, and that should be obvious to anyone who wants to submerge a stack of power resistors in a liquid.)
Guys, just to alert you to the 'spin' - as ever and in answer to this FIRST point of TK's earlier post....
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
1. Where have I ever claimed to have a degree in electrical engineering? Two days ago she said I was a psychologist. Polly Parrot is flailing around again.
Our little TK's 'bluff and blunder' included the following statement posted as recently as two days ago.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMPersonally, I have sat through many many hours of classroom instruction in the topics we are discussing, sat exams, passed them with honors, and I have degrees that call me a scientist, and my job title includes "scientist" in it. In other words, I am credentialed, and these credentials are from MAJOR research universities in the USA.
NOTA BENE. he has sat through classroom instruction in these topics. The topic under discussion was 'how to determine dissipated or delivered energy from a switched circuit?' He then claims that he 'sat exams' on PRECISELY this subject. And 'passed them with honours'. And then he states not only that he is CREDENTIALED but that he has DEGREES - ie more than 1? - from RESEARCH universities? (God alone know why he makes that distinction. They're all dedicated to research ... I'd have thought. LOL) In any event the gist of this post is CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL. He's claiming credentialed knowledge of power engineering to the level of honours. And he draws the distinction that I by contrast am nothing more than a 'high school drop out'. This is patently untrue - easily disprovable and yet ANOTHER example of SLANDER - which is stated here...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AM
YOU have not got the prerequisite education to understand the concepts you are trying to discuss, this is evident DAILY in something or other that you say, and reading popular books like "Dancing Wu Li Masters" does not a physics education make.
Effectively therefore he is stating that UNLESS one has the required credentials then one is NOT qualified to comment. BUT - the hell of it is this. His own flaunted lack of appropriate knowledge is grossly evident. He's confusions manifold - as scheduled hereunder - and with it an amateurish level of electrical engineering that even surpasses my own.
. He assumes a MOSFET is a mosfet
. He refers to a CSR as a CVR
. He computes resistance without reference to frequency and resulting impedance
. He claims he can calibrate his instruments with reference to other uncalibrated instruments
. He uses nominally inductive loads in his 'flaunted' efforts to replicate our own NERD circuit apparatus
. He gives us videos - time out of mind - where it is IMPOSSIBLE to validate his multiple reference points which is utterly unprofessional
. He claims results without ever giving a CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS schedule of those results which is utterly unprofessional
. He concludes without giving a clear argument to support his conclusions which is utterly unprofessional
And then the doozy
. He ALSO now claims that you can 'infer' a wattage value from an incomplete sample range of voltage on a switching circuit
I trust that this answers his first question of this post. I'll deal with the balance of those questions in due course.
It seems that his new name for me is Polly Parrot? And again, guys NOTA BENE - quite apart from the disgusting level of rudeness associated with this term - is HARTI's ENDORSEMENT of this traducement. He does NOTHING to prevent it. Indeed - from appearances it seems that he is - rather - ACTIVELY encouraging it. THAT is what should be of primary concern in this whole exercise. What TK chooses to allege and infer and imply and the names he uses for me - are inconsequential - in comparison.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
SO Leon,
Does that answer your first question?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
1. Where have I ever claimed to have a degree in electrical engineering? Two days ago she said I was a psychologist. Polly Parrot is flailing around again.
If not I can always repost it.
Rosie Pose
So guys, moving on to the next question...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
2. I have made no errors in my calculations. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that 20 watts was dissipated at the load resistor in the case we are discussing, and everybody but the hallucinating parrot knows that. I CALCULATED THE PROPER DISSIPATION AT THE LOAD RESISTOR WHEN THIS ALL STARTED, and SINCE I WAS DISCUSSING ONLY THE ON TIME THE DUTY CYCLE DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE PICTURE.
There is no way under God's sun that you can compute, infer, or imply an instantaneous wattage value on a switched circuit. If the sample range chosen is NOT representative - then the wattage computation is NOT correct. I have explained this. Ad nauseum. But again. A wattage value is a unit of POWER. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference if the wattage refers to power delivered or power dissipated. It is still power. Or energy. And to evaluate the level of that energy one needs to factor in the time during which that energy was manifest. Again. IF that wattage was based on a continual DC or AC current flow - then we would have a 'fair' representation of the power delivered or dissipated. IT is NOT a continual DC OR AC current flow. it is based on a discontinued 'pulse' applied at regular intervals of 12.5% of each switched cycle. It's NOT representative therefore of the energy dissipated or delivered or anything at all. It is quite simply WRONG.
And guys - NOTA BENE. Now not only am I Polly Parrot - but I'm an hallucinating parrot. And STILL Harti does nothing. And STILL we're meant to believe that he's promoting a reasonable discussion in the interests of studying new energy sources. One cannot 'duck' that PREFERRED editorial bias.
Again,
Rosemary
And still moving on... to this next statement...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
3. Polly Parrot THINKS that I did not "factor in" impedance. She is LYING YET AGAIN. Probably she cannot figure out how to download and open the SPREADSHEET where all my calculations and data are GIVEN for inspection by ANYONE, which I have linked several times. Where is Polly's comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance? Nowhere.
INDEED. I have NOT seen these spreadsheets. Give us a link. It would be appreciated.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM4. When does DC become DC? For 16 milliseconds out of every approx. 125 millisecond period, the circuit is passing a DC current of 320 mA at 62 volts from the battery. FOR THAT 16 milliseconds of each period, DC current flows, inductance doesn't matter, and 16 milliseconds is a long time. What is the average DC power during those 16 milliseconds?
The average current flow is possibly 320 mA. The product of that and the voltage is NOT representative of the watts. Again. You cannot compute wattage from an isolated non-representative sample range within a switched cycle. To get the actual WATTAGE you need to include the full duty cycle. The DC power delivered during 16 milliseconds CANNOT be averaged over 16 milliseconds if you're hoping to represent that value in units of watts. I've explained this. Your best efforts here are WRONG. AND you are misinforming our members on this - Magsy being just one of them.
Rosie Pose.
And TK - NOR have you answered this post...
And then onto this last scheduled point... NUMBER 4
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM4. When does DC become DC? For 16 milliseconds out of every approx. 125 millisecond period, the circuit is passing a DC current of 320 mA at 62 volts from the battery. FOR THAT 16 milliseconds of each period, DC current flows, inductance doesn't matter, and 16 milliseconds is a long time. What is the average DC power during those 16 milliseconds?
(Edit: for a moment there I referenced the wrong scope shot, where she used a 50 second timebase setting-- the one with the blown mosfet. This scopeshot has a 50 millisecond timebase setting. Sorry.)
In answer to 'when does the DC become DC'? It is DC when it is continually greater than ground for the duration of a switched cycle. There is no other time.
And regarding your 'edit' - our 50 second timebase setting does NOT have a blown MOSFET. Never has and NEVER did. This is a gross misrepresentation of the fact is thereby also SLANDEROUS. Again. Why is it that Harti is encouraging this editorial bias - and, for this matter, this SLANDER. This ALLEGATION that our MOSFET has blown is EASILY DISPROVED. And we shall do so in our demonstrations. At which point TK will be obliged to retract this statement. It is a shame that he's not obliged to do so BEFORE our demonstration. But just as a point of interest. TK CLAIMS to be credentialed. He is, thereby CLAIMING a level of professionalism. That professionalism includes a PLEDGE to act in a professional manner. A professional manner precludes any criminal or nefarious activitiy. Slander is a criminal offense. Thereby does TK disprove his own claims of professionalism. And with it he disproves his CLAIMED accreditation.
Regards,
Rosemary
Polly Parrot squawks and flutters but says nothing true.
Except perhaps that she cannot find my spreadsheet. So I laugh and laugh and laugh.
Where is your comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance, Polly Parrot?
And your statements about the power continue to betray your abysmal ignorance.
And in addition it is perfectly possible for a person to obtain multiple degrees in different areas of study in the United States. I am sorry that this does not appear to be the case where you come from. And there certainly is a distinction between "research" universities and plain old liberal-arts colleges, which you would grasp if you ever attended any. But you haven't.
When are you going to be doing some kind of test that can prove me wrong, Polly Parrot? Never, that's when.
When are you going to explain how that last scope shot was made, Polly? You can't even do that. How do you put 12 volts positive to the gate of a mosfet without turning it on, Polly Parrot? Run off and ask your "academics" for an explanation of that scope shot, because it's clear that YOU don't understand it at all. You've been asked many times and you always dodge the issue.
When are you going to stop misrepresenting your OWN work, as you have been doing for some time? How do you explain the differences between your account in your blog posts 117 and 118, and your recent accounts of the same experiment?
Senility, perhaps? Or just your ordinary mendacity that we have grown to accept as normal from you?
And now to these ridiculous conclusions - 1 at a time...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
Keep it up, Polly, you are just about down to the bedrock, scraping away with those bloody fingernails.
This sentence has no part in any science forum anywhere - ever. It is ONLY appropriate to 'spin'. I do NOT have bloody fingernails. My hands are reasonably manicured. And not even 'figuratively' do I have bloody fingernails. Nor am I 'down to 'bedrock'. Except in the sense that I am working on a foundation of known physics and well established measurement protocols. Where you seem to be imposing a variation in the assessment of WATTAGE - and being aided and abetted in these rather misinformed endeavours - by your 'friends' - picowatt - PhiChser - FTC - and others. You are all of you WRONG. And if you managed to find 10 more to support this contention - you would STILL all be wrong. Unless you are SERIOUSLY proposing to revise our standard measurement protocols. In which case you would need to introduce an entirely new method of measurement analysis.
Polly Parrot Ainslie squawked,
QuoteAnd regarding your 'edit' - our 50 second timebase setting does NOT have a blown MOSFET. Never has and NEVER did. This is a gross misrepresentation of the fact is thereby also SLANDEROUS. Again. Why is it that Harti is encouraging this editorial bias - and, for this matter, this SLANDER. This ALLEGATION that our MOSFET has blown is EASILY DISPROVED. And we shall do so in our demonstrations. At which point TK will be obliged to retract this statement. It is a shame that he's not obliged to do so BEFORE our demonstration. But just as a point of interest. TK CLAIMS to be credentialed. He is, thereby CLAIMING a level of professionalism. That professionalism includes a PLEDGE to act in a professional manner. A professional manner precludes any criminal or nefarious activitiy. Slander is a criminal offense. Thereby does TK disprove his own claims of professionalism. And with it he disproves his CLAIMED accreditation.
And I have preserved it here for posterity... and evidence.
How, then, do you explain it, Ainslie? How do you, and nobody else, manage to apply 12 volts to a functioning mosfet and not turn it on,if the mosfet is not blown? Perhaps it's miswired, or perhaps the probes aren't connected properly, or maybe even the LOAD ITSELF is open. I don't know... but I do know that your scopeshot shows NO CURRENT FLOWING. The most likely reason is that YOUR MOSFET CANNOT HANDLE THE HEAT when you are using 72 volts and a positive gate drive. Why else would you remove a battery to make only 48 volts in your demo of that mode?
You explain it, please.
And IN ADDITION I am reporting this post to our kind host.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 11:08:43 PM
And now to these ridiculous conclusions - 1 at a time...
This sentence has no part in any science forum anywhere - ever. It is ONLY appropriate to 'spin'. I do NOT have bloody fingernails. My hands are reasonably manicured. And not even 'figuratively' do I have bloody fingernails. Nor am I 'down to 'bedrock'. Except in the sense that I am working on a foundation of known physics and well established measurement protocols. Where you seem to be imposing a variation in the assessment of WATTAGE - and being aided and abetted in these rather misinformed endeavours - by your 'friends' - picowatt - PhiChser - FTC - and others. You are all of you WRONG. And if you managed to find 10 more to support this contention - you would STILL all be wrong. Unless you are SERIOUSLY proposing to revise our standard measurement protocols. In which case you would need to introduce an entirely new method of measurement analysis.
No, Polly, as we have been telling you FOR YEARS NOW, and supporting what we say with references to IEEE documents, ASTM and Agilent documents.... YOU LIE WHEN YOU CLAIM TO USE STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
You refuse to decouple your batteries properly and you do not test your battery's charge state properly and you continually make errors about RATES and QUANTITIES, power and energy.
Come up with some external support for your assertions that we--- all of us--- are wrong about this. YOU CANNOT, and you have never done so and you will never do so.
Just as you will never perform any real tests.
Guys,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
Polly thinks I am "criminally accountable" for something. I think that is an ACTIONABLE SLANDER and that she should be very very careful in her accusations, because I HAVE PROOF of everything I've ever said here.... AND SHE DOES NOT.
At best - this is an 'unsupported allegation'. He has claimed that I am a 'high school drop out'. He has named me 'polly parrot'. He has stated that I 'hallucinate'... with 'words' - no less? LOL. And that's just some of those terms chosen from a list of expletives and invectives and claims that are easily disproved. And there are MANY others - especially as they relate to our technology. ALL of them EASILY disproved. All of them ACTIONABLE. All of them thereby SLANDEROUS and CRIMINAL. And this is being ACTIVELY encouraged by our Harti. Why? Why all that preferred editorial bias? It is certainly all food for thought.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
My dear Leon,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:12:20 PM
No, Polly, as we have been telling you FOR YEARS NOW, and supporting what we say with references to IEEE documents, ASTM and Agilent documents.... YOU LIE WHEN YOU CLAIM TO USE STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
You refuse to decouple your batteries properly and you do not test your battery's charge state properly and you continually make errors about RATES and QUANTITIES, power and energy.
Come up with some external support for your assertions that we--- all of us--- are wrong about this. YOU CANNOT, and you have never done so and you will never do so.
Just as you will never perform any real tests.
Not only will we do our tests - but having done so - we will then call on you to make a public apology and a public retraction of every single SLANDEROUS allegation you have ever made. Either you will be accountable - or we will ask to Harti to MAKE you accountable. He has, after all, given you some extraordinary license to flaunt the required forum guidelines. And while that CERTAINLY attracts a disproportionate amount of interest in your readers - it ALSO polarises opinions on an emotional level. Science is NOT emotional. I look forward to conducting my own thread here which will have NONE of your emotional 'spin' and it will, by contrast - be entirely dedicated to rather dry and even rather boring science. I am OLD. And before I die it is my mission to prove that our multiple claims related to our technology not only require but DESERVE respect. What you are doing is a paraded effort to DISRESPECT me and our technology in the forlorn hopes that this will somehow diminish those claims and thereby bury our technology. It would ONLY be effective if you were more 'balanced' in your approach. Thankfully you've been that 'reckless' that over enthusiastic with that 'tar brush' application - that there is NO thinking person who could ever endorse your nonsense. And our hope is to engage the more balanced reader and member. Which is in the best interest of science. As opposed to the emotional engagement that you rely on with this 'spin' and this 'propaganda'.
You and FTC and MileHigh not only indulge in this rather absurd reach into 'deviant' measurement practices - but you also also all of you indulge the most EXTRAORDINARY reach into PROPHESY. You are forever telling me what I will or won't do - or what we will or won't achieve. When has this EVER had anything to do with the subject? Or even with SCIENCE? It's ONLY a reflection of your own rather immature hopes.
Rosie Pose.
QuoteAnd regarding your 'edit' - our 50 second timebase setting does NOT have a blown MOSFET. Never has and NEVER did. This is a gross misrepresentation of the fact is thereby also SLANDEROUS. Again. Why is it that Harti is encouraging this editorial bias - and, for this matter, this SLANDER. This ALLEGATION that our MOSFET has blown is EASILY DISPROVED. And we shall do so in our demonstrations. At which point TK will be obliged to retract this statement. It is a shame that he's not obliged to do so BEFORE our demonstration. But just as a point of interest. TK CLAIMS to be credentialed. He is, thereby CLAIMING a level of professionalism. That professionalism includes a PLEDGE to act in a professional manner. A professional manner precludes any criminal or nefarious activitiy. Slander is a criminal offense. Thereby does TK disprove his own claims of professionalism. And with it he disproves his CLAIMED accreditation.
But haven't you replaced at least two of your mosfets, Ainslie? This is in the public record, even though you have tried hard to cover it up, just like you have never explained your battery fire, just after you got the bright idea to measure ACROSS YOUR LOAD.
Why did you replace those mosfets if they weren't blown? Did you not like their black coloring, perhaps? But the replacements were black too, weren't they. Oh well. Too bad for you.
Side by side under the same conditions. Tar Baby and NERD. ANY TIME ANY WHERE. We shall see who will be retracting what, won't we.
Or rather... since you aren't actually going to be doing anything but talking and repeating your old tests, not real ones..... there will still be no progress made, but you will continue to make your ridiculous claims without testing them.
Why did you remove a battery, leaving only 48 volts, for your "high heat" test in the video? I know why. Let's see you perform that same test but with your full 72 volt battery pack. YOU CANNOT, because your Q1 mosfet will overheat and fail.... again.
Is there something stopping you from opening "your own" thread right now? Is there something you are afraid of? Like not having any readers or comments? Why don't you try it and see what happens. I PROMISE YOU I WILL NOT POST IN IT AT ALL, no matter how much you lie about me and my work.
But unless you start posting SOMETHING besides your word salad soon... even Wilby might eventually conclude that you are just another squawking parrot, full of noise and fury but ultimately signifying nothing at all.
We have already EXHAUSTED this argument. LONG BACK. The function generator does NOT APPLY 12 VOLTS DC to Q1 during that 'extended' oscillation test in our paper. That voltage reading depends on required 'qualification' in terms of the chosen coupling and in terms of the applied offset of the function generator. IT IS A STANDARD function - and from the evidence it seems that you yourself have replicated this. Why then do you ask?
Therefore I absolutely DO NOT undestand this question of yours...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PM
How, then, do you explain it, Ainslie? How do you, and nobody else, manage to apply 12 volts to a functioning mosfet and not turn it on,if the mosfet is not blown?
Are you now saying that you have NOT managed to replicate this? I distinctly recall you showing us an identical waveform. Was I hallucinating? Again? Or did you simply show a small section of an oscillation precisely because you COULD not replicate this condition? LOL. Let us know. One way or the other. It will be interesting. Especially in the light of your CLAIM to have REPLICATED EACH AND EVERY claim that is included in our papers. And more especially as it relates to some of those videos of yours.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PMPerhaps it's miswired, or perhaps the probes aren't connected properly, or maybe even the LOAD ITSELF is open. I don't know... but I do know that your scopeshot shows NO CURRENT FLOWING. The most likely reason is that YOUR MOSFET CANNOT HANDLE THE HEAT when you are using 72 volts and a positive gate drive. Why else would you remove a battery to make only 48 volts in your demo of that mode?
We can demonstrate that condition of zero output from the supply with the application from 24 volts up to 72 volts tested. At no stage does the MOSFET even get significantly WARM. And that's Q1 which has NO significant heat sink to speak of.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PMPolly Parrot Ainslie squawked,
This phrase is SLANDEROUS and entirely unacceptable and not only needs to be retracted but also requires an apology.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PMAnd IN ADDITION I am reporting this post to our kind host.
I was relying on you doing so. Someone needs to bring your slander to his attention. It is in breach of forum guidelines and it is entirely unacceptable - let alone unprofessional and even criminal.
Rosie Pose
edited
Ainslie ranted, telling the story of the famous "collaboration":
QuoteI am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology. They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance. They are WELL PAID. And they are VERY EFFECTIVE. The also have liberal access to laboratories. And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there. I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name. They are DANGEROUS. And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses. I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case. We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense. The man's a genius. And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.
See.. she is NOT paranoid.
She is psychotic.
I am able to insert a wire that is simply not there. I am DANGEROUS. And the worst calumny of all.... I am WELL PAID.
Well, I'm amused, certainly.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/12/216-background-resulting-in-that-prior.html
It's time to move on. Rosemary, whether you understand it or not or believe it or not, nobody is disagreeing with the fundamental point that you are trying to get across about average power measurements. So it's time for you to drop the whole subject.
QuoteTherefore I absolutely DO NOT undestand this question of yours...
We all know that. And if you only knew the sinking feeling we all feel in our hearts when you make that statement.
At times, you seem to indicate that you understand how a MOSFET works. So I am assuming that you are unable to "parse" TK's statement, "How do you, and nobody else, manage to apply 12 volts to a functioning mosfet and not turn it on,if the mosfet is not blown?"
You still can't speak the language. There is a necessity to hold your hand and explain everything in explicit detail and for all I know it could take three posting or 53 postings for you to understand what TK said. It's very depressing and discouraging.
That's why, when in doubt, or when in serious doubt, go for Plan B, the dim bulb testing.
Go to the bulb..... Go to the bulb..... The bulb will set you free....
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 11:55:02 PM
We have already EXHAUSTED this argument. LONG BACK. Q2 does NOT APPLY 12 VOLTS DC to Q1 during that 'extended' oscillation test in our paper. That voltage reading depends on required 'qualification' in terms of the chosen coupling and in terms of the applied offset of the function generator. IT IS A STANDARD function - and from the evidence it seems that you yourself have replicated this. Why then do you ask?
Q2 applies whaaat? Who said anything about Q2? THE SCOPE TRACE SHOWS A POSITIVE 12 VOLT SIGNAL and unless you have changed the schematic again THAT IS APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q1 BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR and nobody BUT YOU said anything about Q2. You are hallucinating words again.
Quote
Therefore I absolutely DO NOT undestand this question of yours...Are you now saying that you have NOT managed to replicate this? I distinctly recall you showing us an identical waveform. Was I hallucinating? Again?
Of course you don't understand the question, because it's NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED, it is your hallucination.
QuoteOr did you simply show a small section of an oscillation precisely because you COULD not replicate this condition? LOL. Let us know. One way or the other. It will be interesting.
Post a link to my waveforms and I will be happy to explain EVERY FEATURE, in stark contrast to YOU, who cannot even explain ANY feature of your traces.
QuoteEspecially in the light of your CLAIM to have REPLICATED EACH AND EVERY claim that is included in our papers.
YOU LIE AGAIN, you lying bloviator. I have claimed ONE THING ONLY, and that is that TAR BABY and NERD perform just the same in all significant respects, and I have DEMONSTRATED that Tar Baby does NOT do what you only CLAIM but never show: Tar Baby's batteries discharge while running. You have claimed otherwise for NERD but never NEVER have you even tested this much less shown it. SO AGAIN and again you LIE about what I say and do. You should be made to wear a big red L on your forehead.
QuoteAnd more especially as it relates to some of those videos of yours. We can demonstrate that condition of zero output from the supply with the application from 24 volts up to 72 volts tested. At no stage does the MOSFET even get significantly WARM. And that's Q1 which has NO significant heat sink to speak of.
I will love to see that demonstrated with a working mosfet. It is impossible for a mosfet to carry significant current without getting warm. Rdss of the PG50 is 2 OHMS, and I know you know how to do I^2R. At least I hope you do, by now. Hint: the answer is in WATTS.
QuoteThis phrase is SLANDEROUS and entirely unacceptable and not only needs to be retracted but also requires an apology.I was relying on you doing so. Someone needs to bring your slander to his attention. It is in breach of forum guidelines and it is entirely unacceptable - let alone unprofessional and even criminal.
Rosie Pose
Preserved for evidence. Ainslie lies and lies, and has the outright temerity to make accusations and threats while she's doing it.
Maybe this visual aid will help those who can be helped, to understand why there is a question WHICH AINSLIE DOES NOT DEIGN TO ANSWER about this scopeshot from their "paper".
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
That is indeed an odd one, as we have noted before.
There is the blue trace, indicating a positive 12 volts applied to the gate of mosfet Q1, for a duration of about SIXTEEN SECONDS during each "on" period.
Yet... there is absolutely NO current flow indicated on the CVR trace during that time.
Surely even a zipon-saturated IRFPG50 would be able to turn on, from a 12 volt solid gate signal, within sixteen seconds. I mean they are slow, but not _that_ slow.
What can possibly be the explanation for this scope shot? What is keeping the Q1 mosfet from turning on and passing current?
Could it be that something is disconnected somewhere, or a different circuit is being used? Or is there an even simpler explanation?
Polly Parrot refuses to tell us what her explanation is for this staggering "anomaly". However she has squawked a bit about how her "academics" have confirmed the data or some such rot. Therefore we are assured that the DATA is correct: somehow, a Q1 mosfet is being given a 12 volt gate signal and yet is not able to pass current.
This is not an error in the data. It is really REALLY happening: A mosfet is being given + 12 volts at its gate and is not passing current between drain and source. Her academics agree.
Why is this happening? Every n-channel mosfet I've ever seen behaves differently than this.
Every mosfet, that is.... that was actually working and wired correctly into its circuit.
EDIT TO ADD: Is there anyone, anywhere, that believes that the NERD load could be heated to nearly 200 degrees C, when running as shown in that scope shot? I certainly don't.
Go ahead, Polly: PROVE ME WRONG by showing
1) a delivery of +12 volts to the gate of Q1 and NOT turning it on, and 2) Heating a load substantially using scope traces like those shown in that shot above.
@ TK
Using the schematic
Protoboard_schema_added(1).png with the Q1 / Q2-Q4 arrangement said to be used and the LeCroy DPO oscilloscope screen shots provided with probes connected to ....
Channel 1 = Rshunt
Channel 2 = Vbatt
Channel 3 = Gate ( Functions Generator - Square Wave Pulse )
Channel 4 = Drain
I was able to sort through the published oscilloscope screen shots that were posted by Rosemary all over the place with the original LeCroy numbers possibly because of the date and time.
SCRN0253.jpg 50s 500K 2011/03/02
07:54:13 am SCRN0254.jpg 20s 500K 2011/03/02
08:09:57 amSCRN0255.jpg 1us 10K 2011/03/02
08:12:37 amIf Channel 3 = Gate ( Functions Generator - Square Wave Pulse ) is whats connected in the oscilloscope screen shot
SCRN0255.jpg ( 1us 2011/03/02 08:12:37 am ) you and the others are correct that something is wrong .... ???
Now there is three (3) LeCroy oscilloscope screen shots taken in one place all taken in around eighteen minutes .... imagine that ::)
FTC
;)
Thanks, Fuzzy, I had not seen that second shot before.
That is another one then that shows a strong steady +12 volts "on" voltage in the gate signal-- to Q1 presumably-- and yet no current is shown in the CVR during those "on" periods.
Hey Fuzzy.... in that schematic you just posted... is the text "Q2-Q5" in the same font as the other text labels in the schematic? Where exactly did that schematic come from?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 01:41:17 AM
Hey Fuzzy.... in that schematic you just posted... is the text "Q2-Q5" in the same font as the other text labels in the schematic? Where exactly did that schematic come from?
Hi TK,
The schematic was from one of Poynt99 postings after the incorrect schematic was found in the YouTube video ...
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282318/#msg282318 Reply #708 on: April 20, 2011, 04:49:32 AM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/52205/ Protoboard_schema_added.png
So the fonts may have been his doing ;)
Rosemary,
I have done my DC test now. I did set up the circuit as shown in the attached drawing.
Here is my theoretical predictions for this test:
Q2 will turn fully ON and conducting DC current by using a 12K resistor as a positive bias for Q2.
The current will flow from the 12 volt power supply through RLOAD, through Q2, through RSHUNT
and back to the power supply. The worst case RDS(on) for Q2 is 1.6 Ohm.
The circuit current will be:
Circuit total resistance = 10 + 1,6 + 0,25 = 11,85 Ohm. I = U / R according to Ohms law.
I = 12 / 11,85 = 1,0126582278481012658227848101266 Ampere.
Voltage over RLOAD will be:
U1 = R * I = 10 * 1,0126582278481012658227848101266 = 10,126582278481012658227848101266 Volt.
Voltage over RSHUNT will be:
U2 = R * I = 0.25 * 1,0126582278481012658227848101266 = 0,25316455696202531645569620253165 Volt.
Voltage over Q2 will be:
U3 = R * I = 0.25 * 1,0126582278481012658227848101266 = 1,6202531645569620253164556962025 Volt.
The three voltages above added = 11,999999999999999999999999999993 e.g. 12 Volt (by using a calculator).
Now, my digital volt meter can't display all those digits, I have only two digits after the comma.
So we must round all the values to:
I = 1,01A U1 = 10,13V U2 = 0,25V U3 = 1,62V
The total Watt dissipated in the circuit will be:
P = (U * U) / R = (12 * 12) / 11,85 = 12,151898734177215189873417721519 Watt.
ACTUAL TEST:
Circuit was built as shown in the drawing. A power supply was adjusted to 12,00 Volt and connected
to the circuit. The voltage from the power supply was measured to be 12,29 volt. Q2 did turn ON
conducting current through the circuit and the 10 Ohm RLOAD resistor did heat up.
Measurement 1: The voltage over RSHUNT was 0,27 Volt.
Measurement 2: The voltage over RLOAD was 10,57 Volt.
Measurement 3: The voltage over Q2 was 1,45 Volt.
The current indicated by the power supply was 1,07 Ampere.
CONCLUSION
The above test describes what is happening in the Rosemary Ainslie circuit when the function generator
is at its positive pulse level. The Q1 will switch off and the Q2 will switch on and conducting DC current
for the duration of the function generator on pulse. So the Q2 will be operated as a DC switch
in this configuration. My measurements are in agreement with the predicted math and in the
usual +/-10% measurement range expected from a inexpensive digital volt meter. When using a
function generator then all we have to do is to compute the output Watt according to the duty cycle
length of the on pulse from the function generator.
We can actually use Ohms Law to compute the result when the function generator is at the positive pulse.
We can also use a inexpensive digital volt meter to measure the voltage over RSHUNT since the circuit
is in pure DC mode during the function generator on pulse.
Rosemary claims that the current flow is 320 mA at 62 Volt into the RLOAD (assuming 10 Ohm)
when the function generator is at the positive pulse. This is impossible if the Q2 was biased fully on!
With a Q2 biased fully on the current through the circuit should be 62 / 12,25 = 5 ampere. The actual current
to through the circuit when we calculate in the 87.8% on time, is 4,39 Ampere. So the 320mA looks like a
measurement error or a faulty Q2 MOSFET or a different RLOAD value than the 10 Ohm calculated here.
Rosemary, can you clarify what resistance your RLOAD was when doing the 62 Volt input run?
I have calculated all my math based on a 10 Ohm RLOAD. My test circuit also have a 10 Ohm RLOAD
and may have got the numbers wrong if you did use a different RLOAD on your circuit test run.
GL.
Thanks again, Fuzzy. Now you've got me reading again. And I found this bit of wisdom:
QuoteGuys - I need to explain something here. And you really ned to understand it. Proper measurement of electric energy is based on vi dt. This requires the calculation - the product - of volts and amps in real time. The minute one takes the average of the amperage over a certain period of time multiplied by the average of the voltage over a certain period of time - then one is actually only pointing to an average. It may very well be a fair reflection of the fact - very much as you can average the global temperature - but it tells you NOTHING about the temperature at any precise point. IF we measured electrical energy as an average - then it could be entirely misrepresented.
Here's an example. You can take the sum of the voltage across the shunt over - say - 1 minute - and then multiply it by the sum of the battery voltage over that same minute - and it will give a result that is only 'close' to but not 'representative of' the actual energy delivered or dissipated. It will certainly HIDE the benefits in phase relationships between those voltages - and it may either enhance or fudge the actual facts. Poynty is relying on this. He is hoping that your own lack of knowledge of detailed measurements is such that he can carry his argument. But pick up your phones. Talk to your academics. They're very approachable. They'll explain how it is that any measurment based on an average - is absolutely NOT acceptable. What is more - our own evidence shows that there are those relationships between the voltages that are ENTIRELY hidden by an average. I've not even touched on that side of the evidence yet. But Poynty et al - thay know of this. And this NEED TO AVERAGE is therefore also MUCH NEEDED. Else they'll have no argument.
We're here dealing with a really sophisticated effort to diffuse the efficacy of these forums. And it's actually where the real energy pollution is.
Regards,
And that was from
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg281955/#msg281955
Posted last April 18th, 2011.
@GL: What current do you get if you give the mosfet slightly under 5 volts at the gate?
Look at the scopeshot (blowup attached below) that gave her what we calculate as the 320 mA. The gate is only getting about 5 volts at most.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 04:07:36 AM
@GL: What current do you get if you give the mosfet slightly under 5 volts at the gate?
Look at the scopeshot (blowup attached below) that gave her what we calculate as the 320 mA. The gate is only getting about 5 volts at most.
TK,
I get 1.07 Ampere through the circuit when using 5 volt at the MOSFET gate.
I had to adjust the gate voltage down to 4.14 Volt to get 0.32 Ampere through the circuit.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 11, 2012, 04:21:00 AM
TK,
I get 1.07 Ampere through the circuit when using 5 volt at the MOSFET gate.
I had to adjust the gate voltage down to 4.14 Volt to get 0.32 Ampere through the circuit.
GL.
Thank you for checking.
So a mosfet getting 12 volts to the gate should pass a lot of current, several amps at least, easily visible on a CVR trace, as your experiment has shown, right?
And if it gets only 5 volts the current drops considerably, and if it got only 4 volts the current would be even less than 320 mA.
That sounds to me like a mosfet might make a pretty good amplifier if it is operated in this rather linear response mode !
All of my measurements on that scope trace are as accurate as I could get; I blew up the image and used calipers to make the measurements, but because of the fuzz it is difficult to decide where to put the line. So I tried to put it in the middle of the fuzz. But without knowing the fine details of the fuzz, it's not possible to know the precise voltage level that the mosfet got. Perhaps it was seeing less than 5 full volts. It would be nice to know, from Ainslie, just exactly what that voltage was. Too bad the scope wasn't set to display it, as it easily could have been.
I think that the mosfet was just underdriven for that shot and that the 320 mA figure might be close to the true DC current during those 16 millisecond ON periods. Ainslie's load is also given as 11.11 Ohms.
Have you had any luck reproducing this other shot... the one where +12 volts is definitely applied to the gate -- or somewhere -- for 16 full seconds each period ... but there is NO current flow whatever? This is Figure 3 from the first paper.
Here's a neat little picture I found.
I sure would have liked to have seen the event that produced this effect. I've seen it before, and I think I know why it happened in this particular case. But I wasn't there, and the person who was there has not described what happened in much detail, other than to state
Quotegolly guys. I've just had the batteries catch fire. Connecting leads vaporised. How's that for proof of energy. I was careless with one of those connections - I think. Not actually sure what happened. I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit.
Good heavens. I've heard about this happening. Never actually seen it.
I may be more actually sure what happened, even though I wasn't there. But certainly now... it seems that to describe this event as "two batteries catching fire" without giving more details.... is rather misleading. They didn't "catch on fire"... they very nearly blew up due to being short-circuited by mishandling, and the only thing that prevented it was the fusing of the connecting wire and the clips. Had that been a heavy-gauge wire, the batteries could well have exploded before the short circuit was broken.
I really hope that people playing around with big lead acid batteries, large capacitances, high voltages, and strong magnets are fully aware of the very real hazards these things can present. Has a lesson been learned? Do we see fuses or circuit breakers anywhere, in further work from this group?
Nice clips, though. Regulation battery clips, just like those on my automatic battery charger.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 10, 2012, 10:54:11 PM
And then onto this last scheduled point... NUMBER 4
In answer to 'when does the DC become DC'? It is DC when it is continually greater than ground for the duration of a switched cycle. There is no other time.
But what about long duty cycles? Say you had a two minute period of positive signal and a sixteen second period of ground signal during each period coming from a FG. Would it be fair to say that, during a one minute interval in the middle of the two minutes ON time.... the signal is DC? Why not? How would an observer tell the difference between that two minutes ON signal and a strictly inarguably DC wires-from-battery type of permanently ON signal?
Quote
And regarding your 'edit' - our 50 second timebase setting does NOT have a blown MOSFET. Never has and NEVER did. This is a gross misrepresentation of the fact is thereby also SLANDEROUS. Again. Why is it that Harti is encouraging this editorial bias - and, for this matter, this SLANDER. This ALLEGATION that our MOSFET has blown is EASILY DISPROVED. And we shall do so in our demonstrations. At which point TK will be obliged to retract this statement. It is a shame that he's not obliged to do so BEFORE our demonstration. But just as a point of interest. TK CLAIMS to be credentialed. He is, thereby CLAIMING a level of professionalism. That professionalism includes a PLEDGE to act in a professional manner. A professional manner precludes any criminal or nefarious activitiy. Slander is a criminal offense. Thereby does TK disprove his own claims of professionalism. And with it he disproves his CLAIMED accreditation.
Regards,
Rosemary
Oh... really? NEVER did? Well, I don't know what TIMEBASE setting you used to blow the two mosfets you blew last year in March ... but certainly you have blown mosfets in the past, so why is it not possible that you have done so again? I mean... it's pretty clear that you don't know how to identify a blown mosfet. Or how to explain that scope trace.
(I manage to damage mosfets frequently; it's easy to do, even by such innocent things as soldering to their pins or a static discharge from shuffling your feet on the carpet. But that's just me.... you are much more careful, I'm sure.)
QuoteJust had a diagnosis. 2 of the MOSFETs blown. Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation. Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required. I'll let you know. They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday. « Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »
Emphasis in the original:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279934/#msg279934
Too bad we don't know which mosfets blew or how they faulted.
TK - may I propose some quid pro quo. Is there some reason you have not addressed the points in this post of mine?
Guys, just to alert you to the 'spin' - as ever and in answer to this FIRST point of TK's earlier post....
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
1. Where have I ever claimed to have a degree in electrical engineering? Two days ago she said I was a psychologist. Polly Parrot is flailing around again.
Our little TK's 'bluff and blunder' included the following statement posted as recently as two days ago.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMPersonally, I have sat through many many hours of classroom instruction in the topics we are discussing, sat exams, passed them with honors, and I have degrees that call me a scientist, and my job title includes "scientist" in it. In other words, I am credentialed, and these credentials are from MAJOR research universities in the USA.
NOTA BENE. he has sat through classroom instruction in these topics. The topic under discussion was 'how to determine dissipated or delivered energy from a switched circuit?' He then claims that he 'sat exams' on PRECISELY this subject. And 'passed them with honours'. And then he states not only that he is CREDENTIALED but that he has DEGREES - ie more than 1? - from RESEARCH universities? (God alone know why he makes that distinction. They're all dedicated to research ... I'd have thought. LOL) In any event the gist of this post is CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL. He's claiming credentialed knowledge of power engineering to the level of honours. And he draws the distinction that I by contrast am nothing more than a 'high school drop out'. This is patently untrue - easily disprovable and yet ANOTHER example of SLANDER - which is stated here...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AM
YOU have not got the prerequisite education to understand the concepts you are trying to discuss, this is evident DAILY in something or other that you say, and reading popular books like "Dancing Wu Li Masters" does not a physics education make.
Effectively therefore he is stating that UNLESS one has the required credentials then one is NOT qualified to comment. BUT - the hell of it is this. His own flaunted lack of appropriate knowledge is grossly evident. He's confusions manifold - as scheduled hereunder - and with it an amateurish level of electrical engineering that even surpasses my own.
. He assumes a MOSFET is a mosfet
. He refers to a CSR as a CVR
. He computes resistance without reference to frequency and resulting impedance
. He claims he can calibrate his instruments with reference to other uncalibrated instruments
. He uses nominally inductive loads in his 'flaunted' efforts to replicate our own NERD circuit apparatus
. He gives us videos - time out of mind - where it is IMPOSSIBLE to validate his multiple reference points which is utterly unprofessional
. He claims results without ever giving a CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS schedule of those results which is utterly unprofessional
. He concludes without giving a clear argument to support his conclusions which is utterly unprofessional
And then the doozy
. He ALSO now claims that you can 'infer' a wattage value from an incomplete sample range of voltage on a switching circuit
I trust that this answers his first question of this post. I'll deal with the balance of those questions in due course.
It seems that his new name for me is Polly Parrot? And again, guys NOTA BENE - quite apart from the disgusting level of rudeness associated with this term - is HARTI's ENDORSEMENT of this traducement. He does NOTHING to prevent it. Indeed - from appearances it seems that he is - rather - ACTIVELY encouraging it. THAT is what should be of primary concern in this whole exercise. What TK chooses to allege and infer and imply and the names he uses for me - are inconsequential - in comparison.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Groundloop on May 10, 2012, 01:52:39 PM
Rosemary,
There is no plot. And I'm not referring to any scope shots or measurements yet, because I said I will do this test this weekend. And you should know your circuit by now. It is quite obvious that I'm going to test the mosfet that switches ON when you put a positive bias to the gate and NOT the other one that oscillate with a positive bias and has a grounded gate. Your circuit drawing has been posted a zillion times now and you should know your circuit. I will post a drawing of what I will be testing this weekend.
GL.
Groundloop. I have just seen this post of yours. May I ask if I have 'offended you'? Somehow? The tone of this post of yours is one of EXASPERATION verging on 'rudeness'? Of course I know my circuit. But we have published MANY different test results from many different settings. And why should it be OBVIOUS that you're going to test the MOSFET that switches ON. It would be just as OBVIOUS to test the MOSFET that is NOT switching on - DESPITE a positive signal at ITS GATE? I would have thought. Are you simply pretending that I've badgered you? to test anything at all? Do I somehow deserve this - in the light on our email correspondence? I assumed we were friends. Are you trying to let everyone know that we're NOT? Or indeed, was I mistaken in assuming that we WERE friends? Or is it that for the first time in the 4 years that I have been following your posts - that you have FINALLY changed from the single most reasonable poster I have ever studied - to one on veiled belligerence?
I cannot understand this 'tone'. It is ill mannered and undeserved and entirely out of character. Are you joining the TK bandwagon here? Is that it? For whatever reason?
Regards
Rosemary
And TK - another one. How does this post of yours hereunder...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PM
Polly Parrot Ainslie squawked,
And I have preserved
it here for posterity... and evidence.
How, then, do you explain it, Ainslie? How do you, and nobody else, manage to apply 12 volts to a functioning mosfet and not turn it on,if the mosfet is not blown? Perhaps it's miswired, or perhaps the probes aren't connected properly, or maybe even the LOAD ITSELF is open. I don't know... but I do know that your scopeshot shows NO CURRENT FLOWING. The most likely reason is that YOUR MOSFET CANNOT HANDLE THE HEAT when you are using 72 volts and a positive gate drive. Why else would you remove a battery to make only 48 volts in your demo of that mode?
You explain it, please.
And IN ADDITION I am reporting this post to our kind host.
In any way answer this post of mine?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
Keep it up, Polly, you are just about down to the bedrock, scraping away with those bloody fingernails.
>>This sentence has no part in any science forum anywhere - ever. It is ONLY appropriate to 'spin'. I do NOT have bloody fingernails. My hands are reasonably manicured. And not even 'figuratively' do I have bloody fingernails. Nor am I 'down to 'bedrock'. Except in the sense that I am working on a foundation of known physics and well established measurement protocols. Where you seem to be imposing a variation in the assessment of WATTAGE - and being aided and abetted in these rather misinformed endeavours - by your 'friends' - picowatt - PhiChser - FTC - and others. You are all of you WRONG. And if you managed to find 10 more to support this contention - you would STILL all be wrong. Unless you are SERIOUSLY proposing to revise our standard measurement protocols. In which case you would need to introduce an entirely new method of measurement analysis.
For some reason you seem to think that it deserves being preserved for 'posterity'? I think more to the point is that you PERSIST with the calumny related to calling me Polly Parrot and then you add the indignity of saying that I 'squawked' . You then advised all and sundry that you were REPORTING my protest to Harti. WELL? WHY should I answer you in any context at all when you are this flagrantly and criminally abusive in your reply to me?
Rosie Pose
And TK nor have you addressed this point in this post of mine.
And then onto this last scheduled point... NUMBER 4
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM4. When does DC become DC? For 16 milliseconds out of every approx. 125 millisecond period, the circuit is passing a DC current of 320 mA at 62 volts from the battery. FOR THAT 16 milliseconds of each period, DC current flows, inductance doesn't matter, and 16 milliseconds is a long time. What is the average DC power during those 16 milliseconds?
(Edit: for a moment there I referenced the wrong scope shot, where she used a 50 second timebase setting-- the one with the blown mosfet. This scopeshot has a 50 millisecond timebase setting. Sorry.)
In answer to 'when does the DC become DC'? It is DC when it is continually greater than ground for the duration of a switched cycle. There is no other time.
And regarding your 'edit' - our 50 second timebase setting does NOT have a blown MOSFET. Never has and NEVER did. This is a gross misrepresentation of the fact is thereby also SLANDEROUS. Again. Why is it that Harti is encouraging this editorial bias - and, for this matter, this SLANDER. This ALLEGATION that our MOSFET has blown is EASILY DISPROVED. And we shall do so in our demonstrations. At which point TK will be obliged to retract this statement. It is a shame that he's not obliged to do so BEFORE our demonstration. But just as a point of interest. TK CLAIMS to be credentialed. He is, thereby CLAIMING a level of professionalism. That professionalism includes a PLEDGE to act in a professional manner. A professional manner precludes any criminal or nefarious activitiy. Slander is a criminal offense. Thereby does TK disprove his own claims of professionalism. And with it he disproves his CLAIMED accreditation.
Regards,
Rosemary
NOR TK for that matter, have you addressed the points in THIS post.
Guys,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
Polly thinks I am "criminally accountable" for something. I think that is an ACTIONABLE SLANDER and that she should be very very careful in her accusations, because I HAVE PROOF of everything I've ever said here.... AND SHE DOES NOT.
At best - this is an 'unsupported allegation'. He has claimed that I am a 'high school drop out'. He has named me 'polly parrot'. He has stated that I 'hallucinate'... with 'words' - no less? LOL. And that's just some of those terms chosen from a list of expletives and invectives and claims that are easily disproved. And there are MANY others - especially as they relate to our technology. ALL of them EASILY disproved. All of them ACTIONABLE. All of them thereby SLANDEROUS and CRIMINAL. And this is being ACTIVELY encouraged by our Harti. Why? Why all that preferred editorial bias? It is certainly all food for thought.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
And as for this number...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 12:11:57 AM
Ainslie ranted, telling the story of the famous "collaboration":
See.. she is NOT paranoid.
She is psychotic.
I am able to insert a wire that is simply not there. I am DANGEROUS. And the worst calumny of all.... I am WELL PAID.
Well, I'm amused, certainly.
Guys I'll try and find the link. Jibbguy has explained the 'function' of the TK's and picowatts of this world - and the MileHigh's for that matter. I'lll try and look for the link and attach it here. I 'stumbled' on the thread. Something to do with 'how to find out if you're dealing with a troll'. Something like that. In any event. He sketched the procedure which he learned because he, himself was approached to 'join the team' so to speak. Not TK's team specifically. Just be become one of the 'enlisted'. Rather bravely he did a bit of whistle blowing. Mylow - the poor sod - had some motor which seemed to work. His tests ENTIRELY convinced one collaborator and at least 2 other engineers that I've spoken to. They concluded that TK 'inserted' a 'wire' - and Mylow then went underground. I know NOTHING about this because I wasn't even on the forums at that time. But frankly - now that I see TK in 'full flood' so to speak - I am ENTIRELY satisfied that poor Mylow was subjected to PRECISELY the same spin - with probably the same 'formula' or 'procedure'. Not sure. In any event. I am INDEED - ENTIRELY satisfied that TK has a paid agenda. He works on this FULL TIME - and he can ONLY succeed if he manages to effectively diminish our results. It certainly is NOT paranoia. If it were then I'd be 'scared' of this 'cruel' attack. In truth I'm hugely amused. But that - in no way - means that any of their tactics are acceptable. They're a disgrace to any forum let alone a forum with the wealth of information that is available here. It's a 'blot' on the proud reach of Open Source and research into Energy Efficiencies. I intend to salvage that rather excellent Open Source tradition - and with it the required credibility for the ease with which we breach those unity barriers.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 08:11:37 AM
TK - may I propose some quid pro quo. Is there some reason you have not addressed the points in this post of mine?
Yes, Polly Parrot. It is very simple:
1. Because you are an idiot liar; and
2. Because I already did, pages ago. For example I showed that a Google search for "Current sensing resistor" returned five million hits, and a search for "current VIEWING resistor" returned NINE million hits.
So now you are reduced to simply reposting your old messages, cut and paste. Do you know what that is called, on the internet?
YOU ARE SPAMMING, in addition to being a bloviating and insulting, paranoid liar.
When will you be doing ANYTHING to refute ANYTHING I've demonstrated? When will you give us that "transcript" of ALL my videos like you promised? I am especially interested in your response to the one you have been trying to bury for the past several days under your piles of logorrhea.
But your tactic isn't going to work. You aren't going to be able to get yourself banned, like you are plainly trying to do. YOU CANNOT GET OFF THE HOOK that easily.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, Polly Parrot.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 08:45:18 AM
NOR TK for that matter, have you addressed the points in THIS post.
... He has named me 'polly parrot'....
Yes, because you parrot back words you do not understand at all, and you squawk holy hell when your tail feathers are pulled.
Is my name really Leon? Is it, Polly?
Are you a scrawny wench? Am I a shorter version of Hitler?
You figure it out.
When YOU START OFF calling people funny names.... you really shouldn't protest too much when they do it back, Polly Parrot.
And guys... Just take a LONG HARD LOOK at this number...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PM
Polly Parrot squawks and flutters but says nothing true.
An INFANTILE exercise in 'name calling' and a slanderous allegation of lying. Amusingly 'direct' and 'unrestrained' but the amusement somewhat tempered by the rather clumsy OBVIOUS - disrespect. It's on a par a kindergarden standard of dialogue. Possibly not even that much. Yet no attempt at moderation.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMExcept perhaps that she cannot find my spreadsheet. So I laugh and laugh and laugh.
Clear evidence of malice and a flaunted refusal to co-operate on a professional level. Intended somehow to make anyone at all think that he's clever. Sadly. At best it's just SO inappropriate it's actually hugely amusing. And would require moderation - at least.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMWhere is your comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance, Polly Parrot?
This is RIDICULOUS. IF I didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention. Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing their abusive level of dialogue with me. Not only that but I would, again, be subjected to another 5 pages of PROTEST - as was evident when I weakened and EXPLAINED why it was that the duty cycle needed to be incorporated into the analysis of WATTAGE. We all know where that one went. Still not addressed. And STILL TK is trying to argue that he was correct.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMAnd your statements about the power continue to betray your abysmal ignorance.
And this is simply a 'doozy'. I was, after all, the one who needed to point out THEIR rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power. And NOW? He claims that I'm suffering form 'abysmal ignorance'? And this is meant to be taken seriously? The tactics are SO obvious that it's actually intellectually INSULTING. It's factually slanderous. It's tactically transparent. And it's criminally abusive. AGAIN. No effort to moderate. Apparently Harti sees no need.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMAnd in addition it is perfectly possible for a person to obtain multiple degrees in different areas of study in the United States. I am sorry that this does not appear to be the case where you come from. And there certainly is a distinction between "research" universities and plain old liberal-arts colleges, which you would grasp if you ever attended any. But you haven't.
And as for this? What a load of nonsense. I'm 63 years old. I have, myself, attended university. WHY would I not know that there are MANY people who have MULTIPLE degrees - in many unrelated fields. What's new? I haven't even commented on this. I only commented on TK's claim to have multiple degrees. In SCIENCE to boot. Why then does he NOT know that you cannot take an unrepresentative sample from a small part of a duty cycle - and CLAIM that it in any way can be represented as a reliable measure of watts. It STILL hasn't been answered. And why, if he is, as he claims, a 'professional' - does he act as a criminal? The two terms are mutually exclusive.
continued/...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMWhen are you going to be doing some kind of test that can prove me wrong, Polly Parrot? Never, that's when.
These incessant demands. That I perform when they DEMAND that I perform. Our tests will most certainly be done. But right now we STILL do not have our LeCroy. It's STILL with that calibration laboratory - STILL more than 1000 K's out of reach. Apparently there's some difficulties in calibrating a machine with 4 channels. And they've had to refer questions to LeCroy. I'm not entirely sure of the problem. But. As ever. It will eventually come to hand. And EVEN then I'll need time to orchestrate the event. There's much planning to be done.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMWhen are you going to explain how that last scope shot was made, Polly? You can't even do that. How do you put 12 volts positive to the gate of a mosfet without turning it on, Polly Parrot? Run off and ask your "academics" for an explanation of that scope shot, because it's clear that YOU don't understand it at all. You've been asked many times and you always dodge the issue.
I will only ever feel obliged to answer any of TK's questions TK when he's apologised for his slander and calumny and sundry traducements and when he engages on a level that is professional. Else I am simply dealing with a criminal with a criminal disregard for his accountability and a criminal predisposition to abuse.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMWhen are you going to stop misrepresenting your OWN work, as you have been doing for some time? How do you explain the differences between your account in your blog posts 117 and 118, and your recent accounts of the same experiment?
This again is SLANDER. We have only ever represented results that are born out by PERFECTLY excellent machines. This statement is not only malicious but it is SLANDEROUS. Our demonstrations will PROVE that slander. Then he will, most assuredly, be required to account for that slander.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:03:38 PMSenility, perhaps? Or just your ordinary mendacity that we have grown to accept as normal from you?
And there it is again. If I am senile there would need to be some evidence. I think my ability to reason is considerably greater than his own and my command of language more than adequate to demonstrate that reasonableness. Therefore - yet again - we have more examples of criminal and slanderous abuse. And STILL it is entirely and completely advanced without any requirement for him to conform to forum guidelines. Which begs that same old question. Why is this not only ALLOWED - but PROMOTED - on this a 'science forum'? It is rather strange.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 06:38:06 AM
Thank you for checking.
So a mosfet getting 12 volts to the gate should pass a lot of current, several amps at least, easily visible on a CVR trace, as your experiment has shown, right?
And if it gets only 5 volts the current drops considerably, and if it got only 4 volts the current would be even less than 320 mA.
That sounds to me like a mosfet might make a pretty good amplifier if it is operated in this rather linear response mode !
All of my measurements on that scope trace are as accurate as I could get; I blew up the image and used calipers to make the measurements, but because of the fuzz it is difficult to decide where to put the line. So I tried to put it in the middle of the fuzz. But without knowing the fine details of the fuzz, it's not possible to know the precise voltage level that the mosfet got. Perhaps it was seeing less than 5 full volts. It would be nice to know, from Ainslie, just exactly what that voltage was. Too bad the scope wasn't set to display it, as it easily could have been.
I think that the mosfet was just underdriven for that shot and that the 320 mA figure might be close to the true DC current during those 16 millisecond ON periods. Ainslie's load is also given as 11.11 Ohms.
Have you had any luck reproducing this other shot... the one where +12 volts is definitely applied to the gate -- or somewhere -- for 16 full seconds each period ... but there is NO current flow whatever? This is Figure 3 from the first paper.
TK,
I can reproduce it with a mosfet that has a blown gate and a small leakage of current regardless of what
voltage I put onto the gate. One of the blown mosfets I have give me approx. 0,12 Ampere at 12 volt.
I have to test this on my setup again to be sure.
GL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 08:22:43 AM
Groundloop. I have just seen this post of yours. May I ask if I have 'offended you'? Somehow? The tone of this post of yours is one of EXASPERATION verging on 'rudeness'? Of course I know my circuit. But we have published MANY different test results from many different settings. And why should it be OBVIOUS that you're going to test the MOSFET that switches ON. It would be just as OBVIOUS to test the MOSFET that is NOT switching on - DESPITE a positive signal at ITS GATE? I would have thought. Are you simply pretending that I've badgered you? to test anything at all? Do I somehow deserve this - in the light on our email correspondence? I assumed we were friends. Are you trying to let everyone know that we're NOT? Or indeed, was I mistaken in assuming that we WERE friends? Or is it that for the first time in the 4 years that I have been following your posts - that you have FINALLY changed from the single most reasonable poster I have ever studied - to one on veiled belligerence?
I cannot understand this 'tone'. It is ill mannered and undeserved and entirely out of character. Are you joining the TK bandwagon here? Is that it? For whatever reason?
Regards
Rosemary
Rosemary,
I think I did explain fairly well in the earlier posts what I was going to test. I also have very little time right now to post
in this forum. Nothing has changed between you and me. And I probably was irritated over to explain that I had to do the
testing at a later time. So I was out of bed at 0500 today after 4 hour of sleep. Did build the test circuit and did make the
drawing and the test prediction this morning. I did not detect any 'rudeness' in my post and I have not entered any bandwagon.
I report what I see happening as good as I can. And I try to be short and to the point because of limited time right now.
GL.
Rosie Posie:
QuoteI was, after all, the one who needed to point out THEIR rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power.
I have told you several times this is all hot air for nothing. There are no catastrophic errors and when you say things like this you are making a spectacle of yourself.
QuoteIF I didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention. Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing their abusive level of dialogue with me.
Sorry Rosie but you can't have it both ways. You are already involved in a dialogue and you can't pretend that you are not going to address this issue because that would be 'endorsing' the dialogue.
You are talking 'impedance' so you need to explain to us exactly what you mean and cite an example with calculations if you can. If not, we will all be tempted to think that you are bluffing.
MileHigh
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg311545/#msg311545 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg311545/#msg311545) Reply #543 on: February 03, 2012, 10:17:19 PM
Quote
Here's that list.
It is my considered opinion ...
. that anyone with 27 years of experience in electronics cannot seriously compute wattage from a measured voltage WITHOUT the flow of current.
. that nor can anyone seriously propose that the energy is not WHOLLY conserved but that Power IS.
. that notwithstanding Poynt's argument to the contrary, a battery supply source is NOT capable of delivering a negative current flow.
. that convention has adequately described polarities related to wattage analysis which convention impeccably represents all power measurements.
. that to apply his protocols one would first need to upend standard protocols.
. that it is catastrophically incorrect to claim voltage across a load resistor is consistent with the direction of the flow of current from a supply source.
. that Poynty relies on ASSUMPTION that our oscilloscope probes are reading the incorrect battery voltage.
. which flies in the face of the evidence where we apply those probes directly to the battery terminals
. that Poynty relies on eccentric and illogical deductions related to all these points to refute our claim
. that he also relies on eccentric and illogical deductions to refute his own simulated evidence
. that he relies on ill defined terminologies and acronyms to deliberately confuse our members with the impression of some higher knowledge
. notwithstanding the fact that he is aware of the need of all science to be clear - as is Professor Jones
. that there are those members who are not aware of the mathematical corruptions that he continually applies
. that they are both committed to the denial of all over unity claims - in principle and regardless of the evidence
. that the offer of a prize is a lure to the unsuspecting claimants that there is any serious intention of doing a sincere evaluation
. that they apply techniques of scorn - gossip - and traducement and slander - to the claimants in order to diminish the claim by association
. that it is grossly unprofessional to engage at that level as this is, indeed, ACTIONABLE - SUBJECT only to a disclosure of their names
. that the stronger the claim the stronger is that traducement and the greater then is their criminal indulgence in slander
. that this is exercised as an abuse of 'freedom of speech' which in its essence requires a full accountability and disclosure of their names
. and that they hide behind pseudonyms and optional internet identities to avoid that accountability
. that their efforts are well rewarded
Which I think more or less covers it. If there are other points I'll add them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 08:11:37 AM
TK - may I propose some quid pro quo. Is there some reason you have not addressed the points in this post of mine?
Guys, just to alert you to the 'spin' - as ever and in answer to this FIRST point of TK's earlier post....Our little TK's 'bluff and blunder' included the following statement posted as recently as two days ago. NOTA BENE. he has sat through classroom instruction in these topics. The topic under discussion was 'how to determine dissipated or delivered energy from a switched circuit?' He then claims that he 'sat exams' on PRECISELY this subject. And 'passed them with honours'. And then he states not only that he is CREDENTIALED but that he has DEGREES - ie more than 1? - from RESEARCH universities? (God alone know why he makes that distinction. They're all dedicated to research ... I'd have thought. LOL) In any event the gist of this post is CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL. He's claiming credentialed knowledge of power engineering to the level of honours. And he draws the distinction that I by contrast am nothing more than a 'high school drop out'. This is patently untrue - easily disprovable and yet ANOTHER example of SLANDER - which is stated here...Effectively therefore he is stating that UNLESS one has the required credentials then one is NOT qualified to comment. BUT - the hell of it is this. His own flaunted lack of appropriate knowledge is grossly evident. He's confusions manifold - as scheduled hereunder - and with it an amateurish level of electrical engineering that even surpasses my own.
. He assumes a MOSFET is a mosfet
. He refers to a CSR as a CVR
. He computes resistance without reference to frequency and resulting impedance
. He claims he can calibrate his instruments with reference to other uncalibrated instruments
. He uses nominally inductive loads in his 'flaunted' efforts to replicate our own NERD circuit apparatus
. He gives us videos - time out of mind - where it is IMPOSSIBLE to validate his multiple reference points which is utterly unprofessional
. He claims results without ever giving a CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS schedule of those results which is utterly unprofessional
. He concludes without giving a clear argument to support his conclusions which is utterly unprofessional
And then the doozy
. He ALSO now claims that you can 'infer' a wattage value from an incomplete sample range of voltage on a switching circuit
I trust that this answers his first question of this post. I'll deal with the balance of those questions in due course.
It seems that his new name for me is Polly Parrot? And again, guys NOTA BENE - quite apart from the disgusting level of rudeness associated with this term - is HARTI's ENDORSEMENT of this traducement. He does NOTHING to prevent it. Indeed - from appearances it seems that he is - rather - ACTIVELY encouraging it. THAT is what should be of primary concern in this whole exercise. What TK chooses to allege and infer and imply and the names he uses for me - are inconsequential - in comparison.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
"IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified)
"QUOTE" And guys... Just take a LONG HARD LOOK at this number...An INFANTILE exercise in 'name calling' and a slanderous allegation of lying. Amusingly 'direct' and 'unrestrained' but the amusement somewhat tempered by the rather clumsy OBVIOUS - disrespect. It's on a par a kindergarden standard of dialogue. Possibly not even that much. Yet no attempt at moderation. Clear evidence of malice and a flaunted refusal to co-operate on a professional level. Intended somehow to make anyone at all think that she's clever. Sadly. At best it's just SO inappropriate it's actually hugely amusing. And would require moderation - at least.This is RIDICULOUS. IF he didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention. Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing her abusive level of dialogue with them. Not only that but I would, again, be subjected to another 5 pages of PROTEST - as was evident when they weakened and EXPLAINED why it was that the duty cycle needed to be incorporated into the analysis of WATTAGE. We all know where that one went. Still not addressed. And STILL Rosemary is trying to argue that she was correct. And this is simply a 'doozy'. They were, after all, the ones who needed to point out HER rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power. And NOW? She claims that everyone is suffering form 'abysmal ignorance'? And this is meant to be taken seriously? The tactics are SO obvious that it's actually intellectually INSULTING. It's factually slanderous. It's tactically transparent. And it's criminally abusive. AGAIN. No effort to moderate. Apparently Harti sees no need. And as for this? What a load of nonsense. I'm years old. I have, myself, attended a college. WHY would I not know that there are MANY people who have MULTIPLE degrees - in many unrelated fields. What's new? I haven't even commented on this. I only commented on Rosemary's claim to have a proper education in electronics. In SCIENCE to boot. Why then does she NOT know that you cannot take an unrepresentative sample from a small part of a duty cycle - and CLAIM that it in any way can be represented as a reliable measure of watts. It STILL hasn't been answered. And why, if she is, as she claims, a 'professional' - does she act as a criminal? The two terms are mutually exclusive.
"IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified)
"END QUOTE" Rosemary's looking for any reason to get banned because of the request on re-testing .....
1) Stefan will not give her a thread at Over Unity and her as "MODERATOR" of that thread ( which is the correct choice for the right reasons )
2) Any re-testing done will indicate a "ERROR" in her prior testing and evaluation work which would make her "THESIS" incorrect, mute and it's death.
3) Any re-testing "IF" done would have to totally agree with or duplicate the prior (incorrect) testing and evaluation done to keep the "THESIS" theory intact and that can't be done with all the prior outstanding questions answered from OU members she argues her word salad with.
4) It is my opinion that Rosemary has also destroyed the prior "COP>INFINITY" device as she did to the "COP>17" device, removing of all the evidence related to this new claim. The reason I feel knowing this is the lack of a response to the Rshunt requests for more information and or a photograph relating to the uh inductance. I could understand the fighting of her published data and how it was collected but to hold out information on the Rshunt makes no sense at all other than the device is gone.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal "standard model".
FTC
???
Rosemary:
To respond to the issue of who's on the payroll of Free Energy Strike Force Five...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmgaTPz63Bw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmgaTPz63Bw)
Oh, the joys of refutation.
I've done all these before... but here we go again.
CVR vs. CSR: Bing returns five million hits for "current sensing resistor" and nine million hits for "current viewing resistor". One again, the resistor senses nothing. It allows one to VIEW the current by taking the voltage drop SENSED across the resistor by a scope or meter. Ainslie's objection to my using CVR in preference to CSR is as ridiculous as her calling a stack of four power resistors a "shunt". She's never seen a shunt and wouldn't know one if she woke up lying next to it. Ainslie exhibits her ignorance for the world to see and scoff at.
MOSFET vs mosfet: I laugh and laugh at this one. Does a MOSFET perform differently than a mosfet? Is there someone somewhere who does not know what I'm saying when I refer to a mosfet, but would understand perfectly if I talked instead about MOSFETs? Yes.... Rosemary Ainslie.
Misrepresenting her own work: Lulz. Time after time again she does it. but this case is particularly egregious. Here's how she's reported it recently:
QuoteNOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
And here's how it was reported in real time, on the afternoon it was actually performed:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html
and post 118 immediately following. Compare, contrast.... this is the SAME EVENT that is being described in both places.
Ainslie misrepresents her own work:
Just a day or so ago she said that she NEVER has blown a mosfet.
QuoteJust had a diagnosis. 2 of the MOSFETs blown. Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation. Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required. I'll let you know. They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279934/#msg279934
Ainslie is willfully and woefully ignorant of her topic:
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
Ainslie is ignorant, arrogant, overweening and insulting :
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
Ainslie is ignorant, arrogant, overweening and insulting:
Quote
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 12:03:05 AM
QuotePW says: "...will be dissipated in the 50R and to a lesser degree in the left side body diode and in the right side drain to source resistance. "
Right side drain? Source resistance? What are you talking about? If you mean the drain or source legs of Q1 or Q2 then say it. If you are referring to the drain or source rail of the battery then say it. This entire phrase is entirely undefined. It is the simple 'rule' of science that terms must be defined and clearly expressed. Anything less and we're NOT talking science.
Ainslie lies about and misrepresents the work of others, hallucinating things that were never said, seeing things that aren't there:
QuoteUnless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor. Or so you said in that video. And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR? And WHY did you identify it as the load? And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?
The real joke is this. You complained that we don't take voltages across the load. Explain this. IF YOU DARE.
Every single statement made in that paragraph is untrue.
1. the video has not been removed
2. the link has not been changed and neither has the video
3. I don't and cannot monitor across the load because I don't have differential voltage probes.
4. I said no such thing in the video.
5. I was indeed monitoring the Current Viewing Resistor.
6. I did not "relate" it to the "voltage across the transistor".
7. I never identified the "shunt" as the "load" anywhere in that video or anywhere else.
8. I have, as I have said before, NOT shown voltages taken across the load.
9. And I have never complained that Ainslie doesn't "take voltages across the load." I have suggested that they monitor the information-rich mosfet COMMON DRAINS, but other than in the demo video and some early scopeshots, she refuses to do so. Perhaps because this signal reveals too much.
In fact, as Ainslie found out when she nearly exploded her batteries by improper hookups, YOU CANNOT measure across the load while you are also measuring the other parameters because the REFERENCES ARE AT DIFFERENT POTENTIALS and if you try it... you will short-circuit the battery through the scope's probe grounds. Unless of course you have differential voltage probes (Ainslie does not) or you use a fully isolated scope like the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter.
There is more, so much more. I can prove every contention I've ever made about Ainslie, except calling her a high school dropout. She never attended a real high school so there was no need for her to drop out... she was already gone. Certainly she has never taken so much as a freshman algebra class.
But I'm tired of all this. It's not even sporting, when Ainslie gives me all the material I need to refute her totally, right in her very own posts and data.
Do your tests, Ainslie, and stop with your lying rants already. They are getting very old, especially when you repost the same post over and over like a textbook case of a disgruntled spammer.
Or publish that "transcript" of all my videos that you promised to do. Where is it? Did you lose interest? Did you check with your academics, perhaps, who sought to dissuade you from your vindictive and meaningless little mendacity? Or is the lighting just toooo baaaad for your senile old eyeballs? I dunno... but I do know that you PROMISED something that you are never going to deliver... YET AGAIN.
Guys, and yet MORE evidence of 'rampant' sociopathy...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 09:38:25 AM
Yes, because you parrot back words you do not understand at all, and you squawk holy hell when your tail feathers are pulled.
and the kind of 'exchange' that would be more appropriate to a kindergarden.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 09:38:25 AM
Is my name really Leon? Is it, Polly?
And as for this? He signs himself Leon. I address him as Leon. And for some reason this is WRONG? No explanation as to why. For ONCE I think he's disclosed something of his identity. And this too was some sort of ELABORATE ruse?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 09:38:25 AMAre you a scrawny wench? Am I a shorter version of Hitler?
LOL. And I have merely referred to his 'self confessed' need to apply the kind of abuse he seems to think is also applied to a 'dog'. I would say that one would require the mind set of someone like Hitler to ever assume that was appropriate. That Hitler is also 'short' is the unfortunate consequence of the 'short man syndrome' which invariably looks to exaggerate a personal sense of effectiveness. Usually by dehumanising everyone he can. It's a well known pathology.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 11, 2012, 09:38:25 AMWhen YOU START OFF calling people funny names.... you really shouldn't protest too much when they do it back, Polly Parrot.
And I have NEVER called him 'funny names'. God forbid. I would hope that on this thread I have complied to forum guidelines. There is NEVER an excuse for the barrage of abuse that TK et al - apply. It is patently CRIMINAL in its excess and its reach. And for some reason it's not only permitted - it's ENCOURAGED?
Regards,
Rosemary
My dear MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 11, 2012, 11:50:49 AM
I have told you several times this is all hot air for nothing. There are no catastrophic errors and when you say things like this you are making a spectacle of yourself.
When one tries to represent the product of a small sample of current flow and applied voltage, in a switched cycle - as fair 'representative' unit of applied power - then it is - at BEST - CATASTROPHICALLY wrong. It couldn't be more so. And then add to that his attempt to convince Magsy that his wattage analysis is CORRECT? And he STILL persists in this? And you think it's NOT catastrophic? And for me to point this out makes me a 'spectacle'? That's rather odd. If I thereby make myself a 'spectacle' as you put it then so be it. There's at least then the outside hope that Magsy will check this out for himself before he 'believes' TK and then applies those non-standard protocols to his own analyses - in the future.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 11, 2012, 11:50:49 AMSorry Rosie but you can't have it both ways. You are already involved in a dialogue and you can't pretend that you are not going to address this issue because that would be 'endorsing' the dialogue.
Actually MileHigh I do NOT engage. I am simply using as much as I can of TK's posts to remind our readers of his spin. All that propagandising. :o TK serves us well - in that he is the quintessential example of the reason that everyone's research into alternate energy on these forums - gets nowhere. He's the 'snuffer' of any earnest attempts to advance anything at all. I'm probably not that effective in countering his agenda. But while I'm here - then he gets increasingly excessive in his applications of 'abuse' - and that, as we've discussed before - is INVALUABLE in showing up his agenda.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 11, 2012, 11:50:49 AMYou are talking 'impedance' so you need to explain to us exactly what you mean and cite an example with calculations if you can. If not, we will all be tempted to think that you are bluffing.
WHY would I be bluffing? I assure you that it is well known that higher frequencies grossly alter the resistance of inductive components. It is taught EVERYWHERE. Why should I lie about this? Just go check your own text books. And I'm sure that it's well referenced in WIKI. I will not offer my own explanation. I was goaded to do so and did with regard to that average wattage. And again. LOOK where it got me. Still RAMPANT denial. It's a waste of time. Quite apart from which it endorses an UTTERLY criminal level of engagement. I refuse to co-operate with TK until he shows he can act like a professional. As it is he is indulging in CRIMINAL abuses.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: MileHigh on May 11, 2012, 04:22:11 PM
To respond to the issue of who's on the payroll of Free Energy Strike Force Five...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmgaTPz63Bw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmgaTPz63Bw)
As ever MilesUpThere - EXCELLENT video. I think it's to do with the story of the farm worker who was skiving off work. The farmer goes to the chicken coop - calls out the worker's name to be told that 'there ain't no-one here but us chickens'. Something like that. Hugely amusing.
Rosie Posie
And as for THIS contribution...
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 02:53:16 PM
And guys... Just take a LONG HARD LOOK at this number...An INFANTILE exercise in 'name calling' and a slanderous allegation of lying. Amusingly 'direct' and 'unrestrained' but the amusement somewhat tempered by the rather clumsy OBVIOUS - disrespect. It's on a par a kindergarden standard of dialogue. Possibly not even that much. Yet no attempt at moderation. Clear evidence of malice and a flaunted refusal to co-operate on a professional level. Intended somehow to make anyone at all think that she's clever. Sadly. At best it's just SO inappropriate it's actually hugely amusing. And would require moderation - at least.This is RIDICULOUS. IF he didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention. Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing her abusive level of dialogue with them. Not only that but I would, again, be subjected to another 5 pages of PROTEST - as was evident when they weakened and EXPLAINED why it was that the duty cycle needed to be incorporated into the analysis of WATTAGE. We all know where that one went. Still not addressed. And STILL Rosemary is trying to argue that she was correct. And this is simply a 'doozy'. They were, after all, the ones who needed to point out HER rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power. And NOW? She claims that everyone is suffering form 'abysmal ignorance'? And this is meant to be taken seriously? The tactics are SO obvious that it's actually intellectually INSULTING. It's factually slanderous. It's tactically transparent. And it's criminally abusive. AGAIN. No effort to moderate. Apparently Harti sees no need. And as for this? What a load of nonsense. I'm years old. I have, myself, attended a college. WHY would I not know that there are MANY people who have MULTIPLE degrees - in many unrelated fields. What's new? I haven't even commented on this. I only commented on Rosemary's claim to have a proper education in electronics. In SCIENCE to boot. Why then does she NOT know that you cannot take an unrepresentative sample from a small part of a duty cycle - and CLAIM that it in any way can be represented as a reliable measure of watts. It STILL hasn't been answered. And why, if she is, as she claims, a 'professional' - does she act as a criminal? The two terms are mutually exclusive.
Not only is this post a FRAUDULENT misrepresentation of my work it is also another example of plagiarism. Which DIAMETRICALLY opposes the declared 'rules of engagement' on this forum and any forum anywhere. CRIMINAL in not one but two categories. And STILL this kind of post is permitted. With no applied moderation?
His own level of communication is actually BEST illustrated in those further scheduled points which are ENTIRELY incomprehensible.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Do you have any answers to my question posted in the test I did?
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/1740/
And I also would like to know what voltage your function generator was at when you got the 320mA current?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 11, 2012, 08:35:06 PM
Rosemary,
Do you have any answers to my question posted in the test I did?
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/1740/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/1740/)
And I also would like to know what voltage your function generator was at when you got the 320mA current?
GL.
Groundloop - I STILL do not understand why you even did that experiment. We have discussed the 'voltage' evident across that Q1 as illustrated in that scope shot - AT LENGTH - in the LOCKED thread. picowatt went to extraordinary lengths to explain that the zero reference indicated in the 'boxes' at the base of the screen ONLY related to their position with respect to the central 'horizontal' line. I on the other hand said that the values in those boxes related to the chosen 'coupling' being AC or DC. In effect the voltage evident over that transistor is shown as a DC coupled value when it should - in truth - be an AC coupled value. TK is well aware of the argument. He actively engaged. picowatt's reference to the zero crossing was CORRECT. My reference to the coupling was CORRECT. But the point was made - by me - that the zero crossing, as indicated, is NOT appropriate to an AC coupled value that was actually REQUIRED. The coupling at that channel is DC.
It was subsequently explained to me that I COULD, in fact, have coupled that channel to AC. In which case you most assuredly would be looking at something in the order of 4 Volts - as you, yourself - determined.
What TK is trying to do here is to REVIVE that argument with the 'inference' that we had NOT dealt with this subject - AT LENGTH. Then he would have used YOUR finding to suggest that you, a known and skilled member and participant - would PROVE that 12 volts enables that current flow. Which would then 'spin' the story that our SCOPE VOLTAGE VALUE has been misrepresented. It WAS misrepresented. It IS only 4 volts or thereby but it is 4 volts AC. Again. Our coupling on all our channels was DC. And I will GLADLY demonstrate this when we get out demonstrations up and running.
What is sad is that you were engaged at all without first finding out - from me - our own stance on this. The more so as you then also went to such extraordinary lengths to prove his point. But I'm personally grateful for your efforts. And as ever, you are essentially correct. But you are also, correctly representing the zero crossing line. Our scope shots representation of this is NOT correct. But our REFERENCE to that channel 2 was to show evidence of NOT the voltage - but the frequency. And that was NOT misrepresented. Had the emphasis been on the VOLTAGE then I would indeed, have MISREPRESENTED that value.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
edited and added
Guys I edited 'shunt' to 'transistor'. Fortunately Groundloop KNEW it was an error. TK not so much. He needed to spin this through a page and a half - for some reason best understood by himself. And by ALL of us. LOL. Check it out. It's lower down this page. And a rather LOW reach with that feather duster. Such a strange little man. 8)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 08:27:33 PM
And as for THIS contribution...
Not only is this post a FRAUDULENT misrepresentation of my work it is also another example of plagiarism. Which DIAMETRICALLY opposes the declared 'rules of engagement' on this forum and any forum anywhere. CRIMINAL in not one but two categories. And STILL this kind of post is permitted. With no applied moderation?
His own level of communication is actually BEST illustrated in those further scheduled points which are ENTIRELY incomprehensible.
Regards,
Rosemary
So whats wrong with your
WORD SALAD little miss
SUPER TROLL .....
"IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified)
"QUOTE" to hard to chew do you need some new dentures to replace the wooden ones ??
As for
"RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" that term is used only in war in my opinion, if you want to play
BATTLESHIP lets play, your always the one that needs a soap box and a loud speaker to
"SHOOT" your mouth off.
The
"ENTIRELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" part posted I'll re-post again ....... as your such a
"NITWIT" you cant even figure out how to do it yourself can you.
Rosemary's looking for any reason to get banned because of the request on re-testing .....
1) Stefan will not give her a thread at Over Unity and her as
"MODERATOR" of that thread ( which is the correct choice for the right reasons )
2) Any re-testing done will indicate a
"ERROR" in her prior testing and evaluation work which would make her
"THESIS" incorrect, mute and it's death.
3) Any re-testing
"IF" done would have to totally agree with or duplicate the prior (incorrect) testing and evaluation done to keep the
"THESIS" theory intact and that can't be done with all the prior outstanding questions answered from OU members she argues her word salad with.
4) It is my opinion that Rosemary has also
destroyed the prior
"COP>INFINITY" device as she did to the
"COP>17" device, removing of all the evidence related to this new claim. The reason I feel knowing this is the lack of a response to the Rshunt requests for more information and or a photograph relating to the uh inductance. I could understand the fighting of her published data and how it was collected but to hold out information on the Rshunt makes no sense at all other than the device is gone.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal
"standard model".
:P
Guys - it seems that there is no end to the malice of this poor man. It is my opinion that he's been bitten by the green eyed monster.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM
So whats wrong with your WORD SALAD little miss SUPER TROLL ....."IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified) "QUOTE" to hard to chew do you need some new dentures to replace the wooden ones ??
I think his requirement to refer to my work as a 'word salad' is based on his own rather challenged efforts in this regard. I'm not sure that there's much wrong with my ability to express myself. I may not have MileHigh's ease of prose - nor Groundloop's economy of expression. But I am well able to put my point across. But here again we have that infantile mind set. Adults who resort to 'name calling'. How ridiculous is that? If he thinks this promotes him as a sane and reasonable citizen - then he's way off course.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMAs for "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" that term is used only in war in my opinion, if you want to play BATTLESHIP lets play, your always the one that needs a soap box and a loud speaker to "SHOOT" your mouth off.
And here it is again. The poor guy has obviously taken the trouble to look up the term 'engagement' and then assumed that it's only applied in the context of a war game? LOL. Which again speaks to that rather challenged aptitude in the use of language. Quite apart from which we also have that 'infantile' mind set that requires OVERT abuse because he has no sense of common decency and even less of a sense of proportion. 'soap box' INDEED. What nonsense. And then .... 'shoot your mouth off'? LOL Is this meant to be 'adult'? Or 'reasonable'? Or is it just another rather retarded effort at wit with it's somewhat OBVIOUS reference to those 'rules of engagement'? Please. It is certainly less than interesting and considerably less than entertaining. And it is yet more example of that criminal propensity to slander and traducement.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMThe "ENTIRELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" part posted I'll re-post again ....... as your such a "NITWIT" you cant even figure out how to do it yourself can you.
LOL. I'm now a 'nitwit'? Golly. That's rather impolite? And cruel? Like TK? ;D This is again rather more amusing than I think was intended.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMRosemary's looking for any reason to get banned because of the request on re-testing ...
Guys this is patently nonsense. IF I was looking to get banned I'd be using terms like 'nitwit' and 'shoot your mouth off' and 'shut up' and 'you idiot' and on and on and on. Because rest assured if I were to do so then I WOULD be banned. I needs must comply to forum guidelines. But FTC - NOT SO MUCH. Nor TK for that matter. :o 8) ;D
continued/...
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM1) Stefan will not give her a thread at Over Unity and her as "MODERATOR" of that thread ( which is the correct choice for the right reasons )
We most assuredly have been offered our own moderated thread. It may be that I'll need to send a video to STEFAN in advance of that - to PROVE certain claims of ours - BUT IT MOST CERTAINLY has been contracted.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM2) Any re-testing done will indicate a "ERROR" in her prior testing and evaluation work which would make her "THESIS" incorrect, mute and it's death.
Here guys, I'm up against it. AGAIN. I have NO idea of his point. I would LOVE to see a thesis made 'mute' to its death' based on prior testing and evaluation? Where? What? Which? Why? I have NO idea of his point. Except that I'm to assume that a thesis 'talks'- and then talks itself 'to death' - LOL. How odd? Hugely confusing imagery. But by the same token - hugely amusing.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM3) Any re-testing "IF" done would have to totally agree with or duplicate the prior (incorrect) testing and evaluation done to keep the "THESIS" theory intact and that can't be done with all the prior outstanding questions answered from OU members she argues her word salad with.
Again. Hysterically confusing. And utterly meaningless. Perhaps he can ask picowatt to put his point across for him - AGAIN. FTC - you need someone to help you. I see you are trying to say SOMETHING. I'm not sure what?
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM4) It is my opinion that Rosemary has also destroyed the prior "COP>INFINITY" device as she did to the "COP>17" device, removing of all the evidence related to this new claim. The reason I feel knowing this is the lack of a response to the Rshunt requests for more information and or a photograph relating to the uh inductance. I could understand the fighting of her published data and how it was collected but to hold out information on the Rshunt makes no sense at all other than the device is gone.
What 'device is gone'? What shunt? What has this got to do with anything at all? What evidence have I removed related to my COP>17 claim? This level of communication is that fraught that it beggars belief. It is ENTIRELY illogical.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal "standard model".
It certainly IS about the thesis. That has ALWAYS been the theme of all our tests. But it is NOT MY thesis. It is a thesis that has been advanced by those with CONSIDERABLY more authority than any that I would EVER dare to pretend. Guys. I honestly think that FTC is almost insanely jealous of our claim. And he is STILL hoping to usurp this as his own. It really is rather sad. Really, really sad.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary the "SUPER TROLL" again has purposefully misinterpreted and misrepresented the facts .....
Quote
1) Stefan will not give her a thread at Over Unity and her as "MODERATOR" of that thread ( which is the correct choice for the right reasons )
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
We most assuredly have been offered our own moderated thread. It may be that I'll need to send a video to STEFAN in advance of that - to PROVE certain claims of ours - BUT IT MOST CERTAINLY has been contracted.
Your a liar and have no PROOF and can't provide any that's why the continued "WORD SALAD" and "BLOVIATING" we see from you Rosemary the SUPER TROLL in every single posting .... wheres that required testing at ??
Quote
2) Any re-testing done will indicate a "ERROR" in her prior testing and evaluation work which would make her "THESIS" incorrect, mute and it's death.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Here guys, I'm up against it. AGAIN. I have NO idea of his point. I would LOVE to see a thesis made 'mute' to its death' based on prior testing and evaluation? Where? What? Which? Why? I have NO idea of his point. Except that I'm to assume that a thesis 'talks'- and then talks itself 'to death' - LOL. How odd? Hugely confusing imagery. But by the same token - hugely amusing.
Here we see more of Rosemary the SUPER TROLLS ADDICTION TO DENIAL of the facts which has been proven that she made a fraudulent YouTube video with a schematic shown in the video but not of the device demonstrated in the video, two documents sent to accredited journals or magazines for peer review and possible publication with two different schematics shown and authors that had nothing to do with the testing and evaluation the entire presentation and documentation for the claim of proof was not done in any known scientific method that could ever be reproduced for verification in a amateur or professional manner. The THESIS is now a DOA document submission but good enough to be excepted to the trash can.
Quote
3) Any re-testing "IF" done would have to totally agree with or duplicate the prior (incorrect) testing and evaluation done to keep the "THESIS" theory intact and that can't be done with all the prior outstanding questions answered from OU members she argues her word salad with.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Again. Hysterically confusing. And utterly meaningless. Perhaps he can ask picowatt to put his point across for him - AGAIN. FTC - you need someone to help you. I see you are trying to say SOMETHING. I'm not sure what?
Here is more redirection of the facts on Rosemary the SUPER TROLLS inability of doing any testing or evaluation of anything new ..... in the past three threads here at OverUnity you have been requested to do some kind of testing countless times by other members and Stefan and HAVE NOT PROVIDED ONE THING NEW SINCE JULY 2011, nothing, nada, zip, zero !!! Stefan even has asked in these three threads eleven times ..... WHATS the problem ??
Quote
4) It is my opinion that Rosemary has also destroyed the prior "COP>INFINITY" device as she did to the "COP>17" device, removing of all the evidence related to this new claim. The reason I feel knowing this is the lack of a response to the Rshunt requests for more information and or a photograph relating to the uh inductance. I could understand the fighting of her published data and how it was collected but to hold out information on the Rshunt makes no sense at all other than the device is gone.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
What 'device is gone'? What shunt? What has this got to do with anything at all? What evidence have I removed related to my COP>17 claim? This level of communication is that fraught that it beggars belief. It is ENTIRELY illogical.
Here you see more WORD SALAD from Rosemary the SUPER TROLL acting stupid or dumb not knowing whats being typed in plain view by my belief of her DESTROYING the DEVICE that she has used for the claim, testing and evaluation of a COP>INFINITY. Then you see the comment of what shunt this is a expert not knowing that the device she invented only has one Rshunt resistor shown on every schematic that the SUPER TROLL refers to. The easy proof of HER still having the COP>INFINITY device would be to grab the digital camera take a picture and record the resistor information then post it here on the forum to "PROVE" me wrong that the device still exists ...... anyone see a NEW image or photo of a .25 ohm shunt wire wound resistor ( 1 ohm 10 watt x4 ) or the manufacture information and part number for the uh (micro henry) value ...... no one will.
I'd offer the SUPER TROLL some scissors to cut a hole in those knickers so she could possibly see out ..... but than again I don't know if in South Africa they use such things under their loin cloths they wear. :o
Where is that required testing Rosemary the SUPER TROLL .... have you started ?? If not when are you going to ?? ???
:P
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 08:58:23 PM
Groundloop - I STILL do not understand why you even did that experiment. We have discussed the 'voltage' evident across that Q1 as illustrated in that scope shot - AT LENGTH - in the LOCKED thread. picowatt went to extraordinary lengths to explain that the zero reference indicated in the 'boxes' at the base of the screen ONLY related to their position with respect to the central 'horizontal' line. I on the other hand said that the values in those boxes related to the chosen 'coupling' being AC or DC. In effect the voltage evident over that shunt is shown as a DC coupled value when it should - in truth - be an AC coupled value. TK is well aware of the argument. He actively engaged. picowatt's reference to the zero crossing was CORRECT. My reference to the coupling was CORRECT. But the point was made - by me - that the zero crossing, as indicated, is NOT appropriate to an AC coupled value that was actually REQUIRED. The coupling at that channel is DC.
It was subsequently explained to me that I COULD, in fact, have coupled that channel to AC. In which case you most assuredly would be looking at something in the order of 4 Volts - as you, yourself - determined.
What TK is trying to do here is to REVIVE that argument with the 'inference' that we had NOT dealt with this subject - AT LENGTH. Then he would have used YOUR finding to suggest that you, a known and skilled member and participant - would PROVE that 12 volts enables that current flow. Which would then 'spin' the story that our SCOPE VOLTAGE VALUE has been misrepresented. It WAS misrepresented. It IS only 4 volts or thereby but it is 4 volts AC. Again. Our coupling on all our channels was DC. And I will GLADLY demonstrate this when we get out demonstrations up and running.
What is sad is that you were engaged at all without first finding out - from me - our own stance on this. The more so as you then also went to such extraordinary lengths to prove his point. But I'm personally grateful for your efforts. And as ever, you are essentially correct. But you are also, correctly representing the zero crossing line. Our scope shots representation of this is NOT correct. But our REFERENCE to that channel 2 was to show evidence of NOT the voltage - but the frequency. And that was NOT misrepresented. Had the emphasis been on the VOLTAGE then I would indeed, have MISREPRESENTED that value.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Rosemary,
Thank you for the answer. I understand that your function generator output voltage was close to 4 Volt and that
was the reason for the low 320mA current through the switch. This I also have tested and did find the same result
at that low voltage. I did build my setup to have something to test on. And one has to start somewhere. So I decided
to start with the ON cycle to see if the math holds true. And it did. So next test will be connecting my function generator
and actually measure how much current that is going to or from the function generator when the circuit runs.
GL.
I keep revisiting this "calculation" because it is so very hilarious. Ainslie refuses to correct it, instead preferring simply to admit that it is "a tad out".
Come, let us dissect it and see what a "tad" is in South African English. It is much larger than a Texan "tad", that is for sure.
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
This is the definition of the calorie, no problem here, since it's just parroted from a text.
QuoteWe've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.
Have we? But when the experiment was reported Ainslie said " This was an exciting test. We took water to boil 0.7 litres. " (Blog post #117). So let's use 700 mL in our calculation.
QuoteWe ran that test for 90 minutes.
Did we? Normally when reporting time-temperature data one records the time it took to arrive at that temperature, and since Ainslie proceeds to attempt to calculate that way, we are justified in taking 90 minutes as the time it took to raise the 700 mL of water to 104 degrees C using a submerged heating element. HOWEVER... that is not how the experiment was actually performed, is it. " It rose from 66.9 degrees C to it's (sic) final temperature of 240 degrees C. That's when I put it in water. And then it took the water up to 80 degrees centigrade where it pretty well stabilised. " (Blog post #117). And this temperature is not actually the water temperature but the temperature of the heating element, isn't it, because the thermocouple is still mounted to the element. No matter... let's continue as if it took 90 minutes to get all the water to 104 degrees as Ainslie implies with the rest of the calculation. But does " a little over 80" mean 82? "The water temperature then stabilsed (sic) after an hour or so - at a little over 80 degrees centigrade." (Blog post #117).
QuoteThen we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.
Did we? But.... any child with a calculator could tell you that 82 plus 20 is not 104. (An error of 2 percent is a Texan "tad".) And that water at sea level atmospheric pressure boils at 100 C and you CANNOT get it hotter than that without pressurizing it. And.... "Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think. It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles. And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory." is how it was reported at the time the experiment was done. (Blog post #118). And of course the 104 degrees is the temperature of the element not the water. And it has small bubbles but no sound of boiling. Ho. Hum. Yawn.
QuoteWe ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second.
No, "Joules" is NOT equal to one watt per second. Most definitely not, and the rest of the "calculation" that Ainslie commits illustrates just why the terms Watt and Joule are NOT interchangeable and mean different things. A QUANTITY is NOT A RATE.
QuoteSo. Do the math.
This is so overweeningly arrogant and ignorant that I am flabbergasted every time she uses the phrase, because nearly every time she does so, she errs in one way or another. MOST ESPECIALLY in this post of hers right here, but many times elsewhere as well.
Quote4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second
Stop right there. There are NO SECONDS, no time terms in the first part of the equation. The correct result, using the correct water volume, is 4.18 x 700 x 66 = 193,116 JOULES. It took that much ENERGY to raise the water temperature (at least, but, if the test was correctly done, not much more).
Quote248 292 Joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.
Ha ha again. Polly Parrot parrots her calculator numbers without understanding what she is doing. Aren't there 60 seconds in a minute? So, you must include that factor of 60 as well, which would correct that tiny part of the "calculation" anyway. 248292 "Joules per second" x 60 seconds per minute x 90 minutes = 1,340,776,800 Joules. But even Ainslie couldn't swallow that whopper, so she left out the 60 seconds per minute part.
QuoteThen ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.
Do I have that? Let's see. In the first place, isn't the "water" already "at" 82 degrees C? So really "we" are only raising it another "104" - 82 = 22 degrees, over a timespan of ten minutes. So, 4.18 J/gram/degree x 700 g x 22 degrees is 64,372 JOULES and again no time term YET. Unless you want the average power during that time period; then you divide the JOULES by the SECONDS to arrive at WATTS. So for that ten minutes where 64,372 Joules are dissipated, the average power is 64,372/(60 seconds per minute x 10 minutes) or about 107 JOULES PER SECOND, aka Watts, an entirely plausible number IF the measurements are correct (unlikely) and the experimental procedures are correct (definitely not).
QuoteThen add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
And it is literally dishonest to do so, because for one thing even if the numbers themselves ARE correct you are adding the same quantity twice (the energy it took to go from 16 to 82 degrees, which got included in BOTH the bogus calcs above when it only belongs in the first one.) So the correct number of Joules expended was most definitely NOT 25.6 million Joules in 90 minutes. What is the power level required to dissipate 25 megaJoules in 90 minutes? Since a Watt is a Joule PER SECOND, the average power needed TO ARRIVE AT AINSLIE's NUMBERS, must be 25,600,000 Joules DIVIDED BY (60 seconds per minute x 90 minutes) == nearly
FIVE KILOWATTS. And since Ainslie neither understands the units nor the math, she allows that ridiculous result --- 25.6 megaJoules dissipated in 90 minutes -- to stand uncorrected and unquestioned. Unquestioned, that is, by those who don't take her advice and don't actually DO THE MATH. The correct number of Joules expended was, using the normal assumptions of time-temperature test protocols, 193,116 Joules for the first 80 minutes and 64,372 Joules for the last 10 minutes, and that equals 257488 Joules. Only. And if that number of Joules was dissipated in 90 minutes, that gives an average power of just under 50 Watts. Unremarkable and well within the battery's capacity of over 10 megaJoules. But because of the way the experiment ACTUALLY was done, if one can believe Ainslie's first report of it... the true dissipation is likely much less. But there is no way to know without being able to examine the RAW DATA, which Ainslie has never shown to anyone, other than having her notebook present a cameo appearance with no data, in a photograph of her 1-mosfet apparatus. The closest we get to raw data is her blog posting on the same day of the experiment or shortly thereafter, along with the scope traces she posts.
QuoteAll 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules.
Is it? Or are they really 60 A-H batteries, which seems to be the case today? No matter, let's stick with the 40 figure -- perhaps two thirds of their true capacity -- that Ainslie used to get 10 megaJoules capacity. So.... we used about a quarter of a megaJoule in our 90 minute test... and the battery contains 10 megaJoules when fully charged. This means that the battery could do about 10,000,000 / 250,000 or FORTY such tests before becoming exhausted.
QuoteIn that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.
FALSE.QuoteAnd that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.
Yes, that is right. The evidence is conclusive that Ainslie cannot calculate, making multiple arithmetic, algebraic and conceptual errors, does not check her work, and makes outrageous unsupported claims based on nothing more than her ERRORS.
QuoteThose batteries have outperformed.
FALSE.QuoteThey are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
And of course, finally, the measurement of "OVER 12 volts EACH" is not an indication of state of charge at all and does not support the claim at all.
So.. it appears that a SA "tad" is indeed larger than a Texan "tad"... by quite a bit.
From Blog Post # 117: Scope shots showing current passing through mosfets. Note that the amount of current in the last screen is clearly less than in the second screen.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html)
Note also the "SCRN" sequence numbers of the images, as given by Ainslie. These are in the order she presented them on the blog page ... but look at the timestamps in the bottom right corner of each shot.
It's clear that the current is decreasing over the timespan of the experiment when the shots are looked at in chronological order ... until finally... well, see the next post's image from Blog Post 118.
And now... the final screen shot from that experiment, included in Blog Post 118.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/118-this-was-final-step-to-take-it-to.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/118-this-was-final-step-to-take-it-to.html)
What happened to the current? The gate pulse is still 12 volts positive, as far as I can determine with the 50 volts per division channel setting. (facepalm)
BUT THERE IS NO CURRENT EVIDENT IN THE CVR TRACE during those +12 volt gate drive portions.Compare to the middle picture in the last post from Blog 117.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CURRENT? WHY is a mosfet, getting +10 or +12 volts at its gate, NOT TURNING ON and passing measureable current? Why has the current level decreased over the span of this experiment?
(Sorry, this is the resolution that she seems to have posted this shot with. It can be seen at better resolution on the blog page linked above, where it is easily seen that no current is indicated during the +12 volt gate signal periods.)
And by the way, Ains-liar, ... I have NEVER signed my name as "Leon".
I have occasionally quoted a line from one of my favorite movies, ADDRESSED to Leon.... by analogy TO AINSLIE HERSELF.
So if she wants to call me by her hallucination of my signature, then I will feel free to call her Polly Parrot, because once again, whenever she does call me LEON, she is parroting back something that she simply does not understand. She is looking at the finger, instead of where the finger is POINTING.... which is at herself.
Now, look at this. Groundloop asked Ainslie what was the level of the GATE SIGNAL.
He simply and succinctly asked, "And I also would like to know what voltage your function generator was at when you got the 320mA current?"
And this is her entire answer, with my emphases and comments interspersed.
QuoteGroundloop - I STILL do not understand why you even did that experiment.
That's right... because she is naive to the scientific method, she cannot understand why people ACTUALLY do experiments: to see what happens, NOT TO PROVE SOME THEORY.
QuoteWe have discussed the 'voltage' evident across that Q1 as illustrated in that scope shot - AT LENGTH - in the LOCKED thread. picowatt went to extraordinary lengths to explain that the zero reference indicated in the 'boxes' at the base of the screen ONLY related to their position with respect to the central 'horizontal' line. I on the other hand said that the values in those boxes related to the chosen 'coupling' being AC or DC. In effect the voltage evident over that shunt is shown as a DC coupled value when it should - in truth - be an AC coupled value. TK is well aware of the argument. He actively engaged. picowatt's reference to the zero crossing was CORRECT. My reference to the coupling was CORRECT. But the point was made - by me - that the zero crossing, as indicated, is NOT appropriate to an AC coupled value that was actually REQUIRED. The coupling at that channel is DC.
But GL asked you about the GATE SIGNAL, not the shunt. Fortunately he is able to see through your hallucinations and take home the "4 volts" value as representative of the voltage APPLIED TO THE GATE.
Quote
It was subsequently explained to me that I COULD, in fact, have coupled that channel to AC. In which case you most assuredly would be looking at something in the order of 4 Volts - as you, yourself - determined.
What TK is trying to do here is to REVIVE that argument with the 'inference' that we had NOT dealt with this subject - AT LENGTH.
That is an out and out lie. LOOK AT THE ANNOTATED BLOW UP I POSTED OF THAT SCOPESHOT. I AM THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT THAT THE GATE SIGNAL WAS NOT TURNING THE MOSFET FULLY ON BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY 4 or 5 VOLTS. I CALCULATED THE CORRECT 320 mA CURRENT, TO WHICH AINSLIE AGREED. I EVEN POINTED THIS OUT TO GL WHEN HE USED 12 VOLTS IN HIS FIRST EXPERIMENT.
QuoteThen he would have used YOUR finding to suggest that you, a known and skilled member and participant - would PROVE that 12 volts enables that current flow. Which would then 'spin' the story that our SCOPE VOLTAGE VALUE has been misrepresented. It WAS misrepresented. It IS only 4 volts or thereby but it is 4 volts AC. Again. Our coupling on all our channels was DC. And I will GLADLY demonstrate this when we get out demonstrations up and running.
You don't even know what you are talking about. The only trace where AC coupling could be valid is the CVR trace.... but the 4 VOLTS IS ON THE GATE TRACE. And that trace should most definitely NEVER be AC coupled. You have no idea about the purpose or the behaviour of DC vs. AC coupling; you are parroting words without understanding them at all.
And of course what you say about me is total crap, responding again to what YOU HALLUCINATE that someone says, rather than what they actually say.
Quote
What is sad is that you were engaged at all without first finding out - from me - our own stance on this. The more so as you then also went to such extraordinary lengths to prove his point.
You are sad. He is not proving "my point"... he is illustrating the truth, by experiment, something that YOU have never done.
QuoteBut I'm personally grateful for your efforts. And as ever, you are essentially correct. But you are also, correctly representing the zero crossing line. Our scope shots representation of this is NOT correct.
WHAAT? Is this coming from the same person who said, "
There is no way the scope can be used improperly. A setting is a setting. "
QuoteBut our REFERENCE to that channel 2 was to show evidence of NOT the voltage - but the frequency. And that was NOT misrepresented. Had the emphasis been on the VOLTAGE then I would indeed, have MISREPRESENTED that value.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Can anybody decode that last part? What difference does the presenter's "emphasis" have on the DISPLAYED DATA? Does the emphasis change the numbers? Well, in Ainslie's mad mind apparently so.
Now... what _I_ believe GL has shown with his experiments is simply this:
In the first screen below, the 320mA current is entirely reasonable for the level of gate drive shown.
And in the second shot below... the level of current shown (ZERO) is
not reasonably expected from a functioning mosfet wired properly in the circuit receiving a gate drive level shown. And that's all.
Some explanation therefore must be sought for the mosfet's strange behaviour. There are multiple explanations possible. My current favorite is that the mosfet is simply permanently open, fried from its high-heat experiences, and thus will pass no current regardless of the gate drive level. However I can also think of other reasons as well. Without an explanation from the experimenter, I will continue to "assume" that the mosfet is simply blown.
We are all trapped in circles.
I must have commented at least five times that Rosemary's "thermal story" is purely anecdotal and not scientific at all. I am sure the irony in that statement is self-evident to most readers. She will persist to tell the story anyways. It's just like the battle over the scope traces and the power averaging. It just goes in circles.
The only way out of this trap is to move forward and talk about something new.
I was thinking about how to do the dim bulb testing in as simple a manner as possible. The only thing that has to be estimated is how long you keep the batteries connected to the NERD circuit before you do the dim bulb test.
So, let's assume that we want to "hypothetically" burn off 2/3 of the energy stored in her batteries before you do the dim bulb test. Here is a proposed simple procedure.
1. Rosemary sets up her negative oscillation mode and measures the current flowing through the main loop with a digital multimeter or an ammeter.
2. Using the measured rate of current flow and the ampere-hour rating of the (presumably) new and smaller batteries, you determine how long the NERD circuit has to run to "hypothetically" burn off 2/3 of the energy stored in the batteries.
3. Run the NERD circuit for the calculated amount of time.
4. Do the dim bulb testing.
Note that if she uses a function generator then we can factor in the duty cycle for the negative oscillation mode - without drama.
So if anyone has any comments or suggestions please feel free.
You can imagine the setup running for say, 20 hours, with the DSO recording negative power, a.k.a.; "COP infinity." However, we also know that the ammeter shows a net current flow from positive to negative, and we used that information to calculate the length of the test run.
Right there you see two seemingly contradictory pieces of data. You can infer from the net current flow that the batteries are discharging, while the real-time power averaging done by the DSO is indicating that there is a net flow of power back into the batteries.
So which is right, the inference made from the basic current flow measurement, or the high-tech DSO average power measurement? That is the crux of the issue.
All of this drama could be resolved by the simple 4-step test procedure outlined above.
MileHigh
Guys, it seems that our TK is now getting as far out of control as FTC. IF that's possible. Certainly they've both been working on this for some time now. And all that 'passion'. If I didn't know better I'd think they're both in love. LOL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:05:04 AM
I keep revisiting this "calculation" because it is so very hilarious. Ainslie refuses to correct it, instead preferring simply to admit that it is "a tad out". Come, let us dissect it and see what a "tad" is in South African English. It is much larger than a Texan "tad", that is for sure. This is the definition of the calorie, no problem here, since it's just parroted from a text.
I certainly endorse that 'reason' that he's proposed for his continual reference to this. That he finds it 'funny'. It's always a good thing to laugh. And I think the essential difference between us is that I freely acknowledged a mere computation error. TK the poor soul needs to concede a profound misunderstanding related to power analysis. Understandably he DARE not.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:05:04 AMHave we? But when the experiment was reported Ainslie said " This was an exciting test. We took water to boil 0.7 litres. " (Blog post #117). So let's use 700 mL in our calculation.
Actually it started off at nearer 1 liter. But with that rather dramatic insertion of that element resister there was a significant amount of it splattered and spilled out. But I think that 0.7 liters is certainly a conservative and fair assessment.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:05:04 AMDid we? Normally when reporting time-temperature data one records the time it took to arrive at that temperature, and since Ainslie proceeds to attempt to calculate that way, we are justified in taking 90 minutes as the time it took to raise the 700 mL of water to 104 degrees C using a submerged heating element. HOWEVER... that is not how the experiment was actually performed, is it. " It rose from 66.9 degrees C to it's (sic) final temperature of 240 degrees C. That's when I put it in water. And then it took the water up to 80 degrees centigrade where it pretty well stabilised. " (Blog post #117). And this temperature is not actually the water temperature but the temperature of the heating element, isn't it, because the thermocouple is still mounted to the element. No matter... let's continue as if it took 90 minutes to get all the water to 104 degrees as Ainslie implies with the rest of the calculation. But does " a little over 80" mean 82? "The water temperature then stabilsed (sic) after an hour or so - at a little over 80 degrees centigrade." (Blog post #117).
This is somewhat confusing. YES it's the temperature of the element resistor. YES it appears to have reduced after its immersion in water. YES I think it's a fair measure of the temperature of that water as it was evident OVER TIME. I'm satisfied that this much he's got right. Which is REMARKABLE.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:05:04 AMDid we? But.... any child with a calculator could tell you that 82 plus 20 is not 104. (An error of 2 percent is a Texan "tad".) And that water at sea level atmospheric pressure boils at 100 C and you CANNOT get it hotter than that without pressurizing it. And.... "Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think. It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles. And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory." is how it was reported at the time the experiment was done. (Blog post #118). And of course the 104 degrees is the temperature of the element not the water. And it has small bubbles but no sound of boiling. Ho. Hum. Yawn.
And guys. RED ALERT - MORE SPIN. The rise in 20 degrees took less than 10 minutes - AFTER we changed the the applied switching frequency. And it certainly DID NOT represent a stable temperature of the water - as it didn't have enough time to stabilise. We HAD to stop that test. It was just WAY more energy than I was comfortable with. ANd 104 degrees centigrade was STILL the measure of the heat on the load resistor. That's PRECISELY where that probe was attached.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:05:04 AMNo, "Joules" is NOT equal to one watt per second. Most definitely not, and the rest of the "calculation" that Ainslie commits illustrates just why the terms Watt and Joule are NOT interchangeable and mean different things. A QUANTITY is NOT A RATE.-
And GUYS. We ALL know this. A Joule is the quantity of POWER computed over 1 second. And a WATT is a unit of power that is representative of the energy and voltage applied over a representative sample of voltages. I think TK is simply trying to remind himself of this. It's possibly the kind of repetition he needs to get something 'drilled' into that mind of his. Hopefully he won't AGAIN try and claim that 0.32 mA x vbatt is the wattage when it's calculated over a mere 12.4% of a single duty cycle. LOL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:05:04 AMThis is so overweeningly arrogant and ignorant that I am flabbergasted every time she uses the phrase, because nearly every time she does so, she errs in one way or another. MOST ESPECIALLY in this post of hers right here, but many times elsewhere as well.
LOL I LOVE the word 'flabbegasted'. And I'm neither arrogant nor ignorant. I think the word he's looking for is 'indifferent'. Notwithstanding all the CRUEL treatment. ;D And INDEED I'm prone to the occasional error. Aren't we all? I don't think I'VE ever misrepresented myself as an EXPERT. Let alone a SCIENTIST with MULTIPLE degrees.
Kindest regards guys. And I've spared you that RIDICULOUS math reference. It's so LOADED with spin and misrepresentation that it'll likely confuse God himself.
Rosemary
All you need is an alarm clock, an automatic battery charger, and her oscilloscope.
Charge up all batteries to the same level using an automatic automotive battery charger that shuts off when it senses a full charge has been reached (by whatever method it uses, usually decrease in charge current at some specific voltage applied). Take two batteries at random and set them aside, in a bullet proof safe under lock and key, so TK can't fly quickly from Texas to SA, sneak into her mansion at night, drug her little rat dog, and discharge those batteries.
Then use the remaining 4 batteries to run the Ainslie circuit, tuned by the scope and ACTIVELY BOILING 700 mL of WATER. That's no problem, right? RIGHT??
Set the alarm clock for 24 hours from start (not including the tuning time, of course), and walk away. Hire some kids to keep the water container topped off overnight with instructions to call the fire department if a battery catches fire. When the alarm clock rings, stop the run and perform the Dim Bulb test on all the batteries, using time-lapse webcam and clear labels of which battery is which.
Repeat the test 5 times, taking about 2 weeks total to perform all 5 tests, recharging and randomly selecting the batteries each time.
And 3 out of 5 sets wins the match. That is, if on 3 out of 5 tests the Ainslie run batteries last just as long -- or longer -- as the set-asides, Ainslie's claim is PRELIMINARILY vindicated and further testing should be performed, and a LOT of people will be very excited. OTOH... should Ainslie's batteries run down first, on 3 out of 5 trials.... then somebody has some thinking to do, nobody will be very excited, and we can all go on to other more important work. Well... most of us will be able to, anyway.
Note that this isn't even a stringent test. Since Ainslie has repeatedly claimed that her batteries are all still fully charged, a STRINGENT test of her claims would not permit her to charge the batteries conventionally AT ANY TIME. Even before her "current" set of proposed tests, which are unlikely ever to be performed anyway.
And here's another doozy.
My dear TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 03:51:30 AM
All you need is an alarm clock, an automatic battery charger, and her oscilloscope.
Charge up all batteries to the same level using an automatic automotive battery charger that shuts off when it senses a full charge has been reached (by whatever method it uses, usually decrease in charge current at some specific voltage applied). Take two batteries at random and set them aside, in a bullet proof safe under lock and key, so TK can't fly quickly from Texas to SA, sneak into her mansion at night, drug her little rat dog, and discharge those batteries.
Then use the remaining 4 batteries to run the Ainslie circuit, tuned by the scope and ACTIVELY BOILING 700 mL of WATER. That's no problem, right? RIGHT??
Set the alarm clock for 24 hours from start (not including the tuning time, of course), and walk away. Hire some kids to keep the water container topped off overnight with instructions to call the fire department if a battery catches fire. When the alarm clock rings, stop the run and perform the Dim Bulb test on all the batteries, using time-lapse webcam and clear labels of which battery is which.
Repeat the test 5 times, taking about 2 weeks total to perform all 5 tests, recharging and randomly selecting the batteries each time.
And 3 out of 5 sets wins the match. That is, if on 3 out of 5 tests the Ainslie run batteries last just as long -- or longer -- as the set-asides, Ainslie's claim is PRELIMINARILY vindicated and further testing should be performed, and a LOT of people will be very excited. OTOH... should Ainslie's batteries run down first, on 3 out of 5 trials.... then somebody has some thinking to do, nobody will be very excited, and we can all go on to other more important work. Well... most of us will be able to, anyway.
Note that this isn't even a stringent test. Since Ainslie has repeatedly claimed that her batteries are all still fully charged, a STRINGENT test of her claims would not permit her to charge the batteries conventionally AT ANY TIME. Even before her "current" set of proposed tests, which are unlikely ever to be performed anyway.
This would ENTIRELY satisfy your standards of proof. We all know this. It is NOT, however, scientific.
Rosie Pose
So tell us what you would want to do please.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 03:49:47 AM
Guys, it seems that our TK is now getting as far out of control as FTC. IF that's possible. Certainly they've both been working on this for some time now. And all that 'passion'. If I didn't know better I'd think they're both in love. LOL.I certainly endorse that 'reason' that he's proposed for his continual reference to this. That he finds it 'funny'. It's always a good thing to laugh. And I think the essential difference between us is that I freely acknowledged a mere computation error. TK the poor soul needs to concede a profound misunderstanding related to power analysis. Understandably he DARE not. Actually it started off at nearer 1 liter. But with that rather dramatic insertion of that element resister there was a significant amount of it splattered and spilled out. But I think that 0.7 liters is certainly a conservative and fair assessment.This is somewhat confusing. YES it's the temperature of the element resistor. YES it appears to have reduced after its immersion in water. YES I think it's a fair measure of the temperature of that water as it was evident OVER TIME. I'm satisfied that this much he's got right. Which is REMARKABLE.And guys. RED ALERT - MORE SPIN. The rise in 20 degrees took less than 10 minutes - AFTER we changed the the applied switching frequency. And it certainly DID NOT represent a stable temperature of the water - as it didn't have enough time to stabilise. We HAD to stop that test. It was just WAY more energy than I was comfortable with. ANd 104 degrees centigrade was STILL the measure of the heat on the load resistor. That's PRECISELY where that probe was attached.And GUYS. We ALL know this. A Joule is the quantity of POWER computed over 1 second. And a WATT is a unit of power that is representative of the energy and voltage applied over a representative sample of voltages. I think TK is simply trying to remind himself of this. It's possibly the kind of repetition he needs to get something 'drilled' into that mind of his. Hopefully he won't AGAIN try and claim that 0.32 mA x vbatt is the wattage when it's calculated over a mere 12.4% of a single duty cycle. LOL.LOL I LOVE the word 'flabbegasted'. And I'm neither arrogant nor ignorant. I think the word he's looking for is 'indifferent'. Notwithstanding all the CRUEL treatment. ;D And INDEED I'm prone to the occasional error. Aren't we all? I don't think I'VE ever misrepresented myself as an EXPERT. Let alone a SCIENTIST with MULTIPLE degrees.
Kindest regards guys. And I've spared you that RIDICULOUS math reference. It's so LOADED with spin and misrepresentation that it'll likely confuse God himself.
Rosemary
You are digging ever deeper into your hole.
If 700 mL is an accurate and fair assessment, why do you report it as 900 mL?
If the water wasn't actually boiling, why do you report that it was?
And you are still confounding your Joules and your Watts, and my calculation of the instantaneous power is correct and any person you ask will tell you so. YOUR OWN OSCILLOSCOPE WILL EVEN TELL YOU SO.
Go ahead, produce someone who agrees with you and not with me, PW, and the others who have analyzed that data. GO AHEAD. SHOW SOME EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM. You cannot.
A Joule is a quantity of ENERGY. There is NO TIME INVOLVED, just as there is no time involved in a "mile" or a "quart" or a "rock" or a "mosfet" or a "bag of peanuts". POWER IS A RATE, not a quantity. There is TIME involved in POWER. That same JOULE of energy could be dissipated very quickly or dragged out over a long time. You can eat a bag of peanuts all at once (one bag
per minute
for one minute), or you can eat one nut
per day
for many weeks (one one-hundredth of a bag
per day
for one hundred days). The WATT is the RATE at which JOULES are dissipated. A WATT is one Joule
PER SECOND. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If you dissipate ONE JOULE very quickly you have a HIGH POWER LEVEL. if you dissipate that SAME ONE JOULE very slowly, you have a LOW POWER LEVEL. One Joule can be turned into KILOWATTS of power
for a brief instant or it can be turned into microWatts of power
for a much longer interval.
One WATT, though... is ALWAYS one Joule
PER SECOND. If I go through a tenth of a Joule of energy
per a tenth of a second, the power is ONE WATT during that tenth of a second (0.1/0.1 = 1). If I dissipate 1000 Joules of energy
per 1000 seconds, the power is ONE WATT
for that entire time of 1000 seconds. Observe: (1 watt) x (1000 seconds) == 1000 Wattseconds.... aka 1000 JOULES. Note the technical use of the common words
PER, indicating a division operation, and
FOR, indicating a multplication operation. One WATT
FOR 1000 SECONDS == 1 x 1000 == 1000 Joules. One thousand Joules
PER 1000 seconds == 1000/1000 = 1 Joule
PER second == one WATT.
ENERGY, Joules, is CONSERVED. ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. POWER, Watts, is not necessarily conserved. A peak level of 1 kW input power can result in peak output power levels of hundreds of kiloWatts or more if the energy discharges are made
FOR very short durations.
Take that paragraph to ANY PHYSICIST OR EE ANYWHERE ON EARTH -- or for that matter to 99 percent of the posters ON THIS FORUM -- and ask them to tell you what is right, and what is wrong with it. Go ahead, Ainslie... as you have said to me: I DARE YOU.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 03:56:10 AM
And here's another doozy.
My dear TK, This would ENTIRELY satisfy your standards of proof. We all know this. It is NOT, however, scientific.
Rosie Pose
AGAIN SHE LIES. I explicitly state what, in the post? I state that if AINSLIE WINS that would PRELIMINARILY validate her basic claim and make further testing worthwhile. Entirely satisfy my standards of proof? Hardly. It would make calorimetry marginally worthwhile as well as more tightly controlled testing. Here we are talking just about uncontrolled remote, Ainslie-performed tests.. which beggar the idea of "standards of proof".
On the other hand... how could a FAILURE to win IN A TEST ENTIRELY UNDER HER OWN CONTROL be interpreted in any other way than to disprove her claim altogether? Batteries either discharge, in which case they will be weaker than non-discharged ones, or they do not. The claim is that batteries can heat a load usefully without discharging. Boiling under a quart of water for 24 hours is kind of a minimal test of utility but yes, it is acceptable under my standards of proof... which is that FAILURE TO DISPROVE an hypothesis is the only kind of "proof" that counts.
Of course at the root of her refusal ever to perform such a test is that her apparatus simply cannot even do this much WITH battery discharging, the way it is built. It won't even run for 24 hours boiling water as it is set up now, because the Q1 mosfet will fail from overheating.
Need I point out that there is a very simple way to PROVE ME WRONG about this?
Word salads and threats and calling me a criminal because I challenge her claims is not that way.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AM
You are digging ever deeper into your hole.
If 700 mL is an accurate and fair assessment, why do you report it as 900 mL?
If the water wasn't actually boiling, why do you report that it was?
And you are still confounding your Joules and your Watts, and my calculation of the instantaneous power is correct and any person you ask will tell you so. Go ahead, produce someone who agrees with you and not with me, PW, and the others who have analyzed that data. GO AHEAD. SHOW SOME EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM. You cannot.
A Joule is a quantity of ENERGY. There is NO TIME INVOLVED, just as there is no time involved in a "mile" or a "quart" or a "rock" or a "mosfet" or a "bag of peanuts". POWER IS A RATE, not a quantity. There is TIME involved in POWER. That same JOULE of energy could be dissipated very quickly or dragged out over a long time. You can eat a bag of peanuts all at once (one bag per minute for one minute), or you can eat one nut a day for many weeks (one one-hundredth of a bag per day for one hundred days). The WATT is the RATE at which JOULES are dissipated. A WATT is one Joule PER SECOND. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If you dissipate ONE JOULE very quickly you have a HIGH POWER LEVEL. if you dissipate that SAME ONE JOULE very slowly, you have a LOW POWER LEVEL. One Joule can be turned into KILOWATTS of power for a brief instant or it can be turned into microWatts of power over a much longer interval.
One WATT, though... is ALWAYS one Joule PER SECOND. If I go through a tenth of a Joule of energy in a tenth of a second, the power is ONE WATT during that tenth of a second. If I dissipate 1000 Joules of energy in 1000 seconds, the power is ONE WATT for that entire time of 1000 seconds.
ENERGY, Joules, is CONSERVED. ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. POWER, Watts, is not necessarily conserved. A peak level of 1 kW input power can result in peak power levels of hundreds of kiloWatts or more if the energy discharges are made very short in duration.
Take that paragraph to ANY PHYSICIST OR EE ANYWHERE ON EARTH -- or for that matter to 99 percent of the posters ON THIS FORUM -- and ask them to tell you what is right, and what is wrong with it. Go ahead, Ainslie... as you have said to me: I DARE YOU.
TK,
>>>A Joule is a quantity of ENERGY. There is NO TIME INVOLVED
You are wrong about the definition of Joule.
Here is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
"The joule is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one meter (1 newton meter or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second."
That means that 1 Joule = 1 Watt per second. That also mean that 1 Watt per Second = 1 Joule.
You are stating that the above is not true. But it must be, the equal sign makes it true.
Joule is a definition of WORK done. And to do WORK you must do it over a time frame.
1 Watt is a unit but 1 Watt per Second is a unit of work done.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 04:45:44 AM
TK,
>>>A Joule is a quantity of ENERGY. There is NO TIME INVOLVED
You are wrong about the definition of Joule.
Here is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule)
"The joule is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one meter (1 newton meter or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second."
That means that 1 Joule = 1 Watt per second. That also mean that 1 Watt per Second = 1 Joule.
You are stating that the above is not true. But it must be, the equal sign makes it true.
Joule is a definition of WORK done. And to do WORK you must do it over a time frame.
1 Watt is a unit but 1 Watt per Second is a unit of work done.
GL.
Sorry but you are also incorrect here. It is true that FUNDAMENTALLY all units are derived from length, time, charge and mass. Therefore yes, deep into the definition of the Joule, a quantity of energy, there is a time element involved. But there is no time element in the first definition you cite, is there, and the second electrical definition is circular just like Ohm's Law.
However if you DO THE MATH (tm RA) you will find that one Joule is one Watt TIMES one second, not one watt per second.
The Joule is a quantity. A quantity DIVIDED by a time interval is a rate. Kilometers per hour, amperes per second: all rates. A Joule per second means 1 Joule / one second, and that is the definition of a WATT-- Power, the RATE at which units of work are done.
A Watt is a rate. A rate MULTIPLIED by a time interval yields a quantity. Burn a hundred watt bulb for ten seconds and what energy has been dissipated?
One hundred watts TIMES ten seconds equals 1000 Joules. Joules: the units of work, which can be done slowly (low power) or quickly (high power).
"That means that 1 Joule = 1 Watt per second. That also mean that 1 Watt per Second = 1 Joule.
You are stating that the above is not true. But it must be, the equal sign makes it true."
No, my friend, you have misstated the formulae. 1 Watt = one Joule /second. One Joule = one watt X one second. And of course two wrong equations with the same terms are equal if they are simply flipped around like you have done.
1 Joule is not equal to 1 watt per second, it is equal to one wattsecond, or one watt FOR one second, mathematically 1 watt x 1 second.
1 Watt IS equal to 1 Joule PER second, mathematically 1 Joule / 1 second.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 05:05:05 AM
Sorry but you are also incorrect here. It is true that FUNDAMENTALLY all units are derived from length, time, charge and mass. Therefore yes, deep into the definition of the Joule, a quantity of energy, there is a time element involved. But there is no time element in the first definition you cite, is there, and the second electrical definition is circular just like Ohm's Law.
However if you DO THE MATH (tm RA) you will find that one Joule is one Watt TIMES one second, not one watt per second.
The Joule is a quantity. A quantity DIVIDED by a time interval is a rate. Kilometers per hour, amperes per second: all rates. A Joule per second means 1 Joule / one second, and that is the definition of a WATT-- Power, the RATE at which units of work are done.
A Watt is a rate. A rate MULTIPLIED by a time interval yields a quantity. Burn a hundred watt bulb for ten seconds and what energy has been dissipated?
One hundred watts TIMES ten seconds equals 1000 Joules. Joules: the units of work, which can be done slowly (low power) or quickly (high power).
TK,
No I do NOT agree with you. The time factor in Joule is NOT deep into the definition of the Joule. It is plain and simple open.
Joule is NOT a unit without time in it. Joule is a definition of WORK DONE. To do WORK you have to use some time to do it.
1 Joule = (kg * (m*m)) / (s * s), where kg = kilogram, m = meter, s = second.
1 Joule is also 1 Ampere at 1 Volt through 1 Ohm in 1 Second = Work done.
So if we heat a 1 Ohm resistor at 1 Volt with 1 Ampere for 1 Second then we get 1 Joule of Work done.
Therefore: 1 Joule = 1 Watt per Second AND 1 Watt per Second = 1 Joule.
So saying that a Joule is a timeless UNIT is plain wrong.
1 Joule is NOT 1 Watt DIVIDED (/) by one second. It is 1 Watt at the duration (per) of one second.
And if you have 1 Watt lasting 1 second in your load then you get 1 Joule.
>>>>A Joule per second
You can't say that! The definition of a Joule already HAS time integrated into the formula.
It like saying: ((kg*(m*m)/(s*s) * s and that is NOT correct. A Joule is NOT a timeless unit.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 05:14:50 AM
TK,
No I do NOT agree with you. The time factor in Joule is NOT deep into the definition of the Joule. It is plain and simple open.
Joule is NOT a unit without time in it. Joule is a definition of WORK DONE. To do WORK you have to use some time to do it.
1 Joule = (kg * (m*m)) / (s * s), where kg = kilogram, m = meter, s = second.
1 Joule is also 1 Ampere at 1 Volt through 1 Ohm in 1 Second = Work done.
So if we heat a 1 Ohm resistor at 1 Volt with 1 Ampere for 1 Second then we get 1 Joule of Work done.
Therefore: 1 Joule = 1 Watt per Second AND 1 Watt per Second = 1 Joule.
So saying that a Joule is a timeless UNIT is plain wrong.
1 Joule is NOT 1 Watt DIVIDED (/) by one second. It is 1 Watt at the duration (per) of one second.
And if you have 1 Watt lasting 1 second in your load then you get 1 Joule.
GL.
That latter part is what I have been telling Ainslie, and now you, all along. I have NEVER said that a Joule is 1 watt / 1 second. In English, the word PER means division. Miles per hour. Watts PER second. AINSLIE has been saying 1 joule = 1 watt / one second, and calculating that way too.
If you have one watt lasting FOR one second that is 1 watt x one second or one WATTSECOND or one JOULE.
If you have ten Joules sitting there in your battery, waiting to do some work, where is the time? If you then dissipate those Joules at a RATE of ten Joules PER second, ten Joules/second, you are THEN performing work with your Joules and exerting POWER at a rate of ten WATTS. You could dissipate that same ten joules at a rate of one Joule PER second and you would be working at a power of 1 Watt. RIGHT?
If a Joule and a Watt are the same thing, how can this be? The same number of Joules makes a different number of Watts?
A quantity is not a rate. They are not the same thing and their math roles are very different.
Sorry to shout, maybe there is a language barrier. In English per means division and for means multiplication.
Hi guys,
http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/electric/Joule_to_Watt.htm
HOW TO CONVERT JOULES TO WATTS
How to convert energy in joules (J) to electric power (http://www.rapidtables.com/electric/electric_power.htm) in watts (http://www.rapidtables.com/electric/watt.htm) (W).
You can calculate watts from joules and seconds, but you can't convert joules to watts, since joule and watt units represent different quantities.
JOULES TO WATTS CALCULATION FORMULA
The power P in watts (W) is equal to the energy E in joules (J), divided by the time period t in seconds (s):
P(W) = E(J)/ t(s)
So
watt = joule / second
or
W = J / s
EXAMPLE What is the power consumption of an electrical circuit that has energy consumption of 90 joules for time duration of 3 seconds?
P(W) = 90J / 3s = 30W
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 05:29:06 AM
That latter part is what I have been telling Ainslie, and now you, all along. I have NEVER said that a Joule is 1 watt / 1 second. In English, the word PER means division. Miles per hour. Watts PER second. AINSLIE has been saying 1 joule = 1 watt / one second, and calculating that way too.
If you have one watt lasting FOR one second that is 1 watt x one second or one WATTSECOND or one JOULE.
If you have ten Joules sitting there in your battery, waiting to do some work, where is the time? If you then dissipate those Joules at a RATE of ten Joules PER second, ten Joules/second, you are THEN performing work with your Joules and exerting POWER at a rate of ten WATTS.
Sorry to shout, maybe there is a language barrier. In English per means division and for means multiplication.
TK,
Yes, we are talking about the same issue.
But it is wrong to say Joule per Second, as you did. (See post over.)
Yes you can use / and also x to find Joule.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 05:36:57 AM
TK,
Yes, we are talking about the same issue.
But it is wrong to say Joule per Second, as you did. (See post over.)
Yes you can use / and also x to find Joule.
GL.
No, it's not wrong to say one Watt is one Joule PER second. This is completely accepted usage of the word PER which indicates division in English.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=watt+per+second&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI (http://www.bing.com/search?q=watt+per+second&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI)
http://www.bing.com/search?q=joule+per+second&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI (http://www.bing.com/search?q=joule+per+second&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_unit_is_equivalent_to_watts_per_second (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_unit_is_equivalent_to_watts_per_second)
http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/power/joule-per-second (http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/power/joule-per-second)
It is however completely wrong to say that 1 joule = 1 watt per second.
Work done is force x distance moved - work done is independent of the time it takes to do it (although your human experience might tell you that prevaricating over an unpleasant job takes longer and requires more effort overall, and in fact one's personal intuitive experience of what "work" involves is misleading).
When you raise a brick a meter in the earths gravitational field, does the potential energy you endow it with depend on how long you take to get it there?
Will it hurt your foot more or less when it drops, dependent on whether it was catapulted into place or raised using a tortoise and a system of pulleys?
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 05:46:03 AM
Work done is force x distance moved - work done is independent of the time it takes to do it (although your human experience might tell you that prevaricating over an unpleasant job takes longer and requires more effort overall, and in fact one's personal intuitive experience of what "work" involves is misleading).
When you raise a brick a meter in the earths gravitational field, does the potential energy you endow it with depend on how long you take to get it there?
Will it hurt your foot more or less when it drops, dependent on whether it was catapulted into place or raised using a tortoise and a system of pulleys?
Thank you.
And while ALL units ultimately come down to length, charge, mass and time in various combinations, there is a real difference between having a "seconds squared" term in a denominator .... and a RATE of something PER second.
The ability to do work... energy ... is different from the rate at which the work is performed... power. A Joule is a Joule even when it's sitting in a capacitor doing crossword puzzles or whatever they do in there and will be the same forever unless it leaks out. A watt isn't anything at all unless some Joules are acting
PER a time period. When your car is sitting still, how many miles will you go in an hour?
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 05:46:03 AM
Work done is force x distance moved - work done is independent of the time it takes to do it (although your human experience might tell you that prevaricating over an unpleasant job takes longer and requires more effort overall, and in fact one's personal intuitive experience of what "work" involves is misleading).
When you raise a brick a meter in the earths gravitational field, does the potential energy you endow it with depend on how long you take to get it there?
Will it hurt your foot more or less when it drops, dependent on whether it was catapulted into place or raised using a tortoise and a system of pulleys?
mrsean2k,
The definition of a Joule = ((kg*(m*m)/(s*s). See the s in there? It is the seconds you used to move the mass.
GL.
GL, as TK alludes in his post, that s2 term isn't anything to do with the amount of time it takes to move the mass. It's a counter-intuitive artefact of the way these units are ultimately derived.
When I wind my watch, the amount of energy stored in the spring - the work done - is identical no matter whether I wind it at the rate of 1/4 turn per week, or in one frenzied burst.
I put a brick on one end of a see-saw, and a pail on the other. I run a hose into the pail. It doesn't matter whether I turn the tap on full, or it barely drips, by the time the brick has been raised, the same work has been done; the brick has the same additional potential energy - also measured in Joules - in each case.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 05:54:37 AM
Thank you.
And while ALL units ultimately come down to length, charge, mass and time in various combinations, there is a real difference between having a "seconds squared" term in a denominator .... and a RATE of something PER second.
The ability to do work... energy ... is different from the rate at which the work is performed... power. A Joule is a Joule even when it's sitting in a capacitor doing crossword puzzles or whatever they do in there and will be the same forever unless it leaks out. A watt isn't anything at all unless some Joules are acting PER a time period. When your car is sitting still, how many miles will you go in an hour?
TK,
A Watt = Voltage * Ampere and is a timeless unit. A Watt is used to describe what is happening right now in a circuit.
A Watt per Second is not timeless and describes the work done during that time in that circuit.
A Joule is 1 Ampere during 1 Second into 1 Ohm and is a description of work done during that time.
A joule is not a timeless unit. Never has been, never will be. 1 Joule = ((1kg*(1m*1m)/(1s*1s) or 1A*1s into 1 Ohm.
So if you say 1 Joule per Second then this is the same as ((1kg*(1m*1m)/(1s*1s)*s or (1A*1s into 1 Ohm)*1s.
And that is a description of the RATE of CHANGE of the work done and not a Joule. Do you see the difference?
A Joule is NOT a Watt. A Watt is NOT a Joule. A Joule is a Watt per Second. So a Watt per Second is also a Joule.
A Watt per Second per Second is a rate of change in a circuit and is NOT a Joule, but a Joule per Second.
GL.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 07:01:59 AM
GL, as TK alludes in his post, that s2 term isn't anything to do with the amount of time it takes to move the mass. It's a counter-intuitive artefact of the way these units are ultimately derived.
When I wind my watch, the amount of energy stored in the spring - the work done - is identical no matter whether I wind it at the rate of 1/4 turn per week, or in one frenzied burst.
I put a brick on one end of a see-saw, and a pail on the other. I run a hose into the pail. It doesn't matter whether I turn the tap on full, or it barely drips, by the time the brick has been raised, the same work has been done; the brick has the same additional potential energy - also measured in Joules - in each case.
mrsean2k,
I'm fully aware that you can use different time and get the same potential energy.
The Joule is not a timeless unit. And when talking about work done as Watt then
you have to use time. 1 Joule = (1A*1V)*1Sec. This is a Watt per Second.
You lifted the brick with a electric motor and did use 1 second to lift the brick 1 meter using 1 ampere at 1 volt.
You lifted the brick with and electric motor using a 1:10 gear and did use 10 seconds to lift the brick 1 meter using 0,1 ampere at 1 volt.
Same amount of energy used in both cases.
GL.
GL, the problem remains that you are digging into the derivation of some units and not others.
You state Watts = Volts x Amps
Agreed.
But how is the Amp defined?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere)
"In practical terms, the ampere is a measure of the amount of electric charge passing a point in an electric circuit per unit time"
The Watt is, by definition inextricably linked to the concept of time.
A "Watt per second" isn't a Joule. "1 Watt" is by definition "1 Joule / second" (or "1 Joule per second" if you prefer)
Determining total work done or energy - by definition and necessity - involves multiplying the rate at which the work is done - measured in "Watts" or "Joules per second" - by the number of seconds, returning Joules. A quantity that exists independently of time.
But even if that still doesn't seem correct intuitively, consider a thought experiment; what if the total energy or work done *was* dependent on the time taken to do it? Where would that lead?
It would mean, for instance, that mechanical perpetual motion would be an everyday occurrence. We wouldn't need to mess around with batteries, function generators and mosfets. We'd just need a supply of bricks, and a lift. Lift the bricks slowly up one side, drop them down the other, harvesting the extra kinetic energy energy created when it hit the ground. And the slower the lift, the more free energy we'd have!
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 07:21:59 AM
mrsean2k,
I'm fully aware that you can use different time and get the same potential energy.
The Joule is not a timeless unit. And when talking about work done as Watt then
you have to use time. 1 Joule = (1A*1V)*1Sec. This is a Watt per Second.
You lifted the brick with a electric motor and did use 1 second to lift the brick 1 meter using 1 ampere at 1 volt.
You lifted the brick with and electric motor using a 1:10 gear and did use 10 seconds to lift the brick 1 meter using 0,1 ampere at 1 volt.
Same amount of energy used in both cases.
GL.
We're almost in violent agreement.
Your example is a perfect illustration.
What I can't understand is how you can reconcile:
"The Joule is not a timeless unit"
with
"Same amount of energy used in both cases"
I think it almost certainly has to do with a misapplication of the term "per" and what that does to understanding.
You say:
"1 Joule = (1A*1V)*1Sec. This is a Watt per Second."
it isn't! In fact, that's a Watt-Second (total Watts * total Seconds),
And look what happens to the time element when this correction is made. Remember, 1 Amp is an amount of charge flowing past a fixed point *per second*.
So using CH to represent that amount of charge and substituting:
"1 Joule = ((CH / 1Sec) * 1V) * 1Sec"
The "1Sec" terms cancels out in the numerator and denominator and you're left with a value that's *independent* of time.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 07:26:11 AM
GL, the problem remains that you are digging into the derivation of some units and not others.
You state Watts = Volts x Amps
Agreed.
But how is the Amp defined?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere)
"In practical terms, the ampere is a measure of the amount of electric charge passing a point in an electric circuit per unit time"
The Watt is, by definition inextricably linked to the concept of time.
A "Watt per second" isn't a Joule. "1 Watt" is by definition "1 Joule / second" (or "1 Joule per second" if you prefer)
Determining total work done or energy - by definition and necessity - involves multiplying the rate at which the work is done - measured in "Watts" or "Joules per second" - by the number of seconds, returning Joules. A quantity that exists independently of time.
But even if that still doesn't seem correct intuitively, consider a thought experiment; what if the total energy or work done *was* dependent on the time taken to do it? Where would that lead?
It would mean, for instance, that mechanical perpetual motion would be an everyday occurrence. We wouldn't need to mess around with batteries, function generators and mosfets. We'd just need a supply of bricks, and a lift. Lift the bricks slowly up one side, drop them down the other, harvesting the extra kinetic energy energy created when it hit the ground. And the slower the lift, the more free energy we'd have!
mrsean2k,,
Great discussion. :-)
And how is volt defined?
A single volt is defined as the difference in electric potential across a wire when an electric current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power.
So, 6.241 × 1018 electrons traveling through a wire with current of one ampere dissipates one Watt of power.
That can also we described in the attached formulas.
So, 1 Ampere = 1*Coulomb/s and 1 Volt = J/Coulomb this gives W = Coulomb/s * J/Coulomb gives W = J*s
Wouldn't you know it. :-) I was wrong! :-)
I retract all my statements about the Joule and humbly bend down into the dust.
GL.
GL, hehe, no reason for that. Very useful discussion for me as well, thanks!
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 08:06:11 AM
snip....
So, 1 Ampere = 1*Coulomb/s and 1 Volt = J/Coulomb this gives W = Coulomb/s * J/Coulomb gives W = J*s
Wouldn't you know it. :-) I was wrong! :-)
I retract all my statements about the Joule and humbly bend down into the dust.
GL.
LOL. I pointed out in the previous NERD thread, it is easy to become confused about things such as power and energy when using certain formula.
I made the following post and then another member called GravityBlock posted some further information regarding better formulas to use to avoid confusion.
"
Quote from: hoptoad on January 15, 2012, 03:45:28 AM (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg309854/#msg309854)
Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy),
it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 Ampère is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second - for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs. Cheers from Hoptoad
By using the true electrical units, this hidden factor, which has been the author of confusion, is now clearly exposed.
q = kg.
A = m/s^2
Z = seconds
Energy, work, quantity of heat = Joule or qA^2 Z^2 while,
Power, radiant flux = Watt or qA^2 Z
Electromotive force, potential difference = Volt or qA
Electric Current = Amp or AZ
Electric Resistance = Ohm or q/Z
Electric Charge, quantity of E = Coulomb or AZ^2
Gravock "
Cheers
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 08:15:09 AM
GL, hehe, no reason for that. Very useful discussion for me as well, thanks!
mrsean2k,
I'm looking at all the formulas now.
But what scares me is that they use Watt and Ampere in the formula to define a Volt:
"A single volt is defined as the difference in electric potential across a wire when an electric current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power."
Isn't that some sort of circular logic?
(Sorry TK for the off topic discussion.)
GL.
Quote from: hoptoad on May 12, 2012, 08:22:08 AM
LOL. I pointed out in the previous NERD thread, it is easy to become confused about things such as power and energy when using certain formula.
I made the following post and then another member called GravityBlock posted some further information regarding better formulas to use to avoid confusion.
"
Quote from: hoptoad on January 15, 2012, 03:45:28 AM (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg309854/#msg309854) Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy),
it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 Ampère is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second - for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs. Cheers from Hoptoad
By using the true electrical units, this hidden factor, which has been the author of confusion, is now clearly exposed.
q = kg.
A = m/s^2
Z = seconds
Energy, work, quantity of heat = Joule or qA^2 Z^2 while,
Power, radiant flux = Watt or qA^2 Z
Electromotive force, potential difference = Volt or qA
Electric Current = Amp or AZ
Electric Resistance = Ohm or q/Z
Electric Charge, quantity of E = Coulomb or AZ^2
Gravock "
Cheers
Hoptoad,
Thanks.
I have come to the same conclusion by looking at all the formulas. :-)
GL.
My dear TK
WHY, as you ask here, would I bother anyone at all, let alone an expert....
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMTake that paragraph to ANY PHYSICIST OR EE ANYWHERE ON EARTH -- or for that matter to 99 percent of the posters ON THIS FORUM -- and ask them to tell you what is right, and what is wrong with it. Go ahead, Ainslie... as you have said to me: I DARE YOU.
with your question? You are wrong. PROFOUNDLY so. This NEXT entire paragraph - from beginning to end - is equally WRONG and deeply disturbing that you try and promote this nonsense. And it REALLY doesn't matter if you are in the majority with every single member of this entire forum. You would ALL STILL be wrong.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AM...And you are still confounding your Joules and your Watts, and my calculation of the instantaneous power is correct and any person you ask will tell you so. YOUR OWN OSCILLOSCOPE WILL EVEN TELL YOU SO. Go ahead, produce someone who agrees with you and not with me, PW, and the others who have analyzed that data. GO AHEAD. SHOW SOME EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM. You cannot.
And WHEN has science ever been established by majority opinion? That is RIDICULOUS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMA Joule is a quantity of ENERGY. There is NO TIME INVOLVED, just as there is no time involved in a "mile" or a "quart" or a "rock" or a "mosfet" or a "bag of peanuts". POWER IS A RATE, not a quantity. There is TIME involved in POWER. That same JOULE of energy could be dissipated very quickly or dragged out over a long time. You can eat a bag of peanuts all at once (one bag per minute for one minute), or you can eat one nut per day for many weeks (one one-hundredth of a bag per day for one hundred days). The WATT is the RATE at which JOULES are dissipated. A WATT is one Joule PER SECOND. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If you dissipate ONE JOULE very quickly you have a HIGH POWER LEVEL. if you dissipate that SAME ONE JOULE very slowly, you have a LOW POWER LEVEL. One Joule can be turned into KILOWATTS of power for a brief instant or it can be turned into microWatts of power for a much longer interval. One WATT, though... is ALWAYS one Joule PER SECOND. If I go through a tenth of a Joule of energy per a tenth of a second, the power is ONE WATT during that tenth of a second (0.1/0.1 = 1). If I dissipate 1000 Joules of energy per 1000 seconds, the power is ONE WATT for that entire time of 1000 seconds. Observe: (1 watt) x (1000 seconds) == 1000 Wattseconds.... aka 1000 JOULES. Note the technical use of the common words PER, indicating a division operation, and FOR, indicating a multplication operation. One WATT FOR 1000 SECONDS == 1 x 1000 == 1000 Joules. One thousand Joules PER 1000 seconds == 1000/1000 = 1 Joule PER second == one WATT. ENERGY, Joules, is CONSERVED. ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. POWER, Watts, is not necessarily conserved. A peak level of 1 kW input power can result in peak output power levels of hundreds of kiloWatts or more if the energy discharges are made FOR very short durations.
As is this entire paragraph. From beginning to end. It is self-evidently and ENTIRELY ridiculous.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 08:24:14 AM
mrsean2k,
I'm looking at all the formulas now.
But what scares me is that they use Watt and Ampere in the formula to define a Volt:
"A single volt is defined as the difference in electric potential across a wire when an electric current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power."
Isn't that some sort of circular logic?
(Sorry TK for the off topic discussion.)
GL.
GL, it is in that case, but there's more than one way to arrive at these definitions.
When you look at Wikipedia, it's repeating many of the handy relationships between these concepts that are useful in predicting real-life behaviour, or solving problems where you know one or more measurements, and want to calculate another.
(And similarly, TK, I'll shut up now)
Ok. I've just caught up. Sorry Groundloop. I'll leave this to you. Thank HEAVENS you're there.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
GL,
After you have charged a 1000uF capacitor to 10V, how much energy in Joules is stored in that capacitor?
Now, with that potential energy "sitting there" in that capacitor, how is time involved in any way?
It is NOT. It is a static quantity of potential energy, and TIME does not become a factor until you begin discharging that capacitor at a rate of "x" Joules per second.
Spoke too soon.
I've been trying to think of an example where "Watts per second" would be a legitimate usage, both in everyday language and technical sense.
Imagine you have a heating element in a water-filled bucket, connected to variable power supply.
You start heating the water, with the dial set to 10 Watts. That's 10 Joules per second being converted from electrical energy into raising the temperature of the water.
Every second, you bump the dial up by another 1 Watt division. So that's 10 Watts during second #1, 11 Watts during second 2, 12 Watts during second 3. And so on, and so on, until you hit the maximum setting on your dial.
During the time when you were able to turn the dial, you could legitimately say that the rate of power increase was 1 Watt per second.
This is entirely different to a situation where a static value is applied. In that case, you are talking about a fixed quantity of energy in Joules being delivered in a fixed time period, usually a second. It is entirely incorrect to talk about 1 Watt per second. The energy transferred to the water is 1 Watt-Second. That is (1J / s) * 1 s = 1 J
Rosemary confuses these terms. It may be that she doesn't mean what she writes and expresses it poorly, but the way she applies these terms are not standard usage in either common parlance or in any technical sense.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 12, 2012, 09:22:24 AM
GL,
After you have charged a 1000uF capacitor to 10V, how much energy in Joules is stored in that capacitor?
Now, with that potential energy "sitting there" in that capacitor, how is time involved in any way?
It is NOT. It is a static quantity of potential energy, and TIME does not become a factor until you begin discharging that capacitor at a rate of "x" Joules per second.
.99,
You are arguing with the wrong person. :-) It was TK who said that, not me.
And, read my post above, I got the Joule Watt relationship now.
I agree with your statement.
GL.
Rosemary:
QuoteAs is this entire paragraph. From beginning to end. It is self-evidently and ENTIRELY ridiculous.
Jesus Christ almighty, when is this insanity going to end? Remember the insanity when you and Joit could not comprehend that the MOSFET would invert a high input on the gate and show a low output on the drain? Well this discussion about Joules and Watts and your dismissing of TK's paragraph in your comment above is
INSANE.
If you can't understand the difference between Joules and Watts and you stand by your comment above then what the hell are you doing here?
Really, what's going on? Are you an "energy researcher looking for support of your thesis" or just a bloody mindless guppy?
You go and read a book or search online or whatever, but I want to see you retract that quoted statement above. If you don't retract that statement then you are tarring and feathering yourself.
So what's it going to be Rosemary? Do you retract that statement above or do you push forward like some hapless fool that doesn't even understand the definitions for power and energy?
Exasperated,
MileHigh
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 09:32:06 AM
.99,
You are arguing with the wrong person. :-) It was TK who said that, not me.
And, read my post above, I got the Joule Watt relationship now.
GL.
No, it was you that said the Joule was NOT a timeless quantity or unit.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 05:14:50 AM
Joule is NOT a unit without time in it.
It is in fact a unit without TIME, and I am supporting what TK said, not refuting it. The example I gave was to illustrate to you that the JOULE IS a unit without time.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 09:32:06 AM
.99,
You are arguing with the wrong person. :-) It was TK who said that, not me.
And, read my post above, I got the Joule Watt relationship now.
GL.
GL, I genuinely don't think TK has mis-stated the relationship anywhere. But in any case, the important point is that there is
near unanimity on what we mean by "Watt", "Joule" and "per", and how these differences are significant when referring to claimed results There may be little missteps as any further discussion unfolds, but that's to be expected when recently grokking something.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 12, 2012, 09:37:48 AM
No, it was you that said the Joule was NOT a timeless quantity or unit.
It is in fact a unit without TIME, and I am supporting what TK said, not refuting it. The example I gave was to illustrate to you that the JOULE IS a unit without time.
.99,
Read my post 1803.
GL.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 09:38:31 AM
GL, I genuinely don't think TK has mis-stated the relationship anywhere. But in any case, the important point is that there is near unanimity on what we mean by "Watt", "Joule" and "per", and how these differences are significant when referring to claimed results There may be little missteps as any further discussion unfolds, but that's to be expected when recently grokking something.
mrsean2k,
Yes I agree.
But TK did say: "A Joule is a Joule even when it's sitting in a capacitor doing crossword puzzles or whatever they do in there and will be the same forever unless it leaks out." :-)
GL.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
Spoke too soon.
I've been trying to think of an example where "Watts per second" would be a legitimate usage, both in everyday language and technical sense.
Imagine you have a heating element in a water-filled bucket, connected to variable power supply.
You start heating the water, with the dial set to 10 Watts. That's 10 Joules per second being converted from electrical energy into raising the temperature of the water. Every second, you bump the dial up by another 1 Watt division. So that's 10 Watts during second #1, 11 Watts during second 2, 12 Watts during second 3. And so on, and so on, until you hit the maximum setting on your dial.
During the time when you were able to turn the dial, you could legitimately say that the rate of power increase was 1 Watt per second. This is entirely different to a situation where a static value is applied. In that case, you are talking about a fixed quantity of energy in Joules being delivered in a fixed time period, usually a second. It is entirely incorrect to talk about 1 Watt per second. The energy transferred to the water is 1 Watt-Second. That is (1J / s) * 1 s = 1 J
Rosemary confuses these terms. It may be that she doesn't mean what she writes and expresses it poorly, but the way she applies these terms are not standard usage in either common parlance or in any technical sense.
Since you're now telling me what I think - then let me put in my tuppence worth. If you are varying the rate at which the energy is applied to that bucket of water then CORRECTLY you would take the first 10 watts and then - over the next 10 seconds of the test under review, you would increase that wattage by 1 watt per second. So that you would have 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 +18 +19 + 20 giving at total of 165 watts over a 10 second time period giving a total of 16.5 watts per second. And then if you extended that time period and simply and continually applied 20 watts per second - then THEREAFTER - you could talk about a continual applied wattage. At no stage during that 10 second period where you are adjusting that applied wattage can state that there is 10 watts of energy applied to that circuit.
To continue with this analogy. IF you applied this 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds - and then stalled the application for a further 90 seconds - and then reapplied that EXACT same quantity of energy - and so on - repeatedly. And you did this at each 100 second intervals, then the actual wattage would need be factored over that ENTIRE time period - being every 100 seconds. Because during the 90 seconds when no energy is being applied then the water would NOT be heating at the rate of 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds. If anything and without the required cladding to that bucket of water - IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE COOLING during 90 percent of that cycle. Therefore CORRECTLY the ACTUAL wattage APPLIED to that element - in that bucket of water - would need to be factored as 16.5 watts per second for every 10 seconds. And then zero watts for the next 90 seconds. Which gives 16.5 watts every 100 seconds. Which in turn makes the wattage delivered 0.165 watts per second and NOT 16.5 watts per second. To EVER try and represent the wattage as 16.5 watts is ENTIRELY incorrect.
Watts is first and foremost a UNIT OF POWER OR ENERGY. IF the term watt is defined as volts x amps - it is because that is correct. But if the voltage varies or the applied current flow varies over time, that there is NO steadily applied voltage and amperage - then that variation over time needs must be factored in. And therefore the analysis of wattage explicitly and implicitly requires TIME. Any attempt to determine wattage without factoring in TIME is also, by definition NOT therefore 'WATTAGE'. IT IS THAT SIMPLE FOLKS. Watts and the concept of watts is defined as THE RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated. And if you apply a switched cycle - then you most certainly have a voltage that is varying over time. And time is most certainly therefore required in the analysis of wattage. Instantaneous wattage analysis is ONLY appropriate to steady voltage and amperage values.
If you are saying that I'm CONFUSED about this mrsean, then I BEG TO DIFFER.
Regards,
Rosemary
added
And in the face of MileHigh's expletives - let me continue with my own simplistic understanding of things.
Your basic 'watt' represents a unit of energy based on the product of volts and the amps. It is determined by the amount of volts x amps that is delivered over time. IF, as I've mentioned 'ad nauseum' this varies over time - then a fair and representative sample of volts x amps over time - divided by the number of samples over that time period - then gives the CORRECT value of watts. Else - if it does not vary over time - then the product of volts times amps WOULD be a CORRECT and representative value of instantaneous wattage.
Joules is a value of the WORK that is either done or can be done - based on that UNIT of WATTAGE. Therefore Joules is correctly a product of watts over time. And it can either be sitting in a capacitor or in a battery - as WORK POTENTIAL - or it can be dissipated as heat over the circuit or circuit components or over element resistors or sundry work loads as DISSIPATED ENERGY. Watts determine the rate at which those JOULES are applied. Again. It's that simple folks.
And regarding watts per second and joules per second - IF there is a difference it is that the calculation of watts - being the RATE PER SECOND at which the energy is dissipated or delivered or even 'stored' - is then applied as a product over time. And the distinction is that this PRODUCT is represented as Joules - based on that UNIT of applied wattage. And this is MOST ASSUREDLY the correct application. When it comes to the finer definitions of amps and volts and the rest. Then that's best handled by the likes of Groundloop and sundry EXPERTS.
Again,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
Quotegiving a total of 16.5 watts per second
You are
still confused.
Please review the concepts, there must be 77,000 web pages were you can find the instructional material. Then come back and retract that statement and then perhaps we can move forward.
MileHigh
WHERE am I confused? MileHigh?
Quote from: MileHigh on May 12, 2012, 10:58:57 AM
You are still confused.
Please review the concepts, there must be 77,000 web pages were you can find the instructional material. Then come back and retract that statement and then perhaps we can move forward.
Do you want me to state the fatuously self-evident qualification that it is 16.5 seconds per every 100 seconds. Or are you trying to imply that it can be accurately determined over a mere 10 seconds of each switched cycle? IF you wish to contradict this then GET SPECIFIC.
Rosie Posie
QuoteAnd in the face of MileHigh's expletives - let me continue with my own simplistic understanding of things.
Your basic 'watt' represents a unit of energy based on the product of volts and the amps. It is determined by the amount of volts x amps that is delivered over time. IF, as I've mentioned 'ad nauseum' this varies over time - then a fair and representative sample of volts x amps over time - divided by the number of samples over that time period - then gives the CORRECT value of watts. Else - if it does not vary over time - then the product of volts times amps WOULD be a CORRECT and representative value of instantaneous wattage.
Joules is a value of the WORK that is either done or can be done - based on that UNIT of WATTAGE. Therefore Joules is correctly a product of watts over time. And it can either be sitting in a capacitor or in a battery - as WORK POTENTIAL - or it can be dissipated as heat over the circuit or circuit components or over element resistors or sundry work loads as DISSIPATED ENERGY. Watts determine the rate at which those JOULES are applied. Again. It's that simple folks.
And regarding watts per second and joules per second - IF there is a difference it is that the calculation of watts - being the RATE PER SECOND at which the energy is dissipated or delivered or even 'stored' - is then applied as a product over time. And the distinction is that this PRODUCT is represented as Joules - based on that UNIT of applied wattage. And this is MOST ASSUREDLY the correct application. When it comes to the finer definitions of amps and volts and the rest. Then that's best handled by the likes of Groundloop and sundry EXPERTS.
You are doing much better here. You errors are highlighted but otherwise you are on the right track. Now please go and review TK's discussion and retract your statement.
MileHigh
QuoteWHERE am I confused? MileHigh?
The concept of "watts per second" is borderline nonsensical and you have to eliminate it from your prose.
Review the material 50 times so that it becomes second nature. Please retract your comments about TK's discussion and let's move forward.
MileHigh
My dear MilesOutOfTouch
Quote from: MileHigh on May 12, 2012, 11:10:27 AM
You are doing much better here. You errors are highlighted but otherwise you are on the right track. Now please go and review TK's discussion and retract your statement.
MileHigh
I have NOTHING to retract. TK has been trying to promote the argument that 0.32mA x battery voltage gives 20 WATTS. It is stated unambiguously - SPECIFICALLY and REPEATEDLY. It was WRONG. It still IS WRONG. It does NOT represent watts. It is NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Rosie Posie
And MAY I ADD. Your applied unit of watts is applied PER SECOND over time TO GIVE THE PRODUCT AS JOULES. AGAIN. However it is that one determines that RATE of applied watts - it is then applied as A RATE PER SECOND in order to compute that Joules value. The applied wattage rate is ALWAYS IN TERMS OF TIME. Both first to determine that rate and then to determine the quantity of the energy
You have to retract the statements you made about these comments by TK:
QuoteA Joule is a quantity of ENERGY. There is NO TIME INVOLVED, just as there is no time involved in a "mile" or a "quart" or a "rock" or a "mosfet" or a "bag of peanuts". POWER IS A RATE, not a quantity. There is TIME involved in POWER. That same JOULE of energy could be dissipated very quickly or dragged out over a long time. You can eat a bag of peanuts all at once (one bag per minute for one minute), or you can eat one nut per day for many weeks (one one-hundredth of a bag per day for one hundred days). The WATT is the RATE at which JOULES are dissipated. A WATT is one Joule PER SECOND. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If you dissipate ONE JOULE very quickly you have a HIGH POWER LEVEL. if you dissipate that SAME ONE JOULE very slowly, you have a LOW POWER LEVEL. One Joule can be turned into KILOWATTS of power for a brief instant or it can be turned into microWatts of power for a much longer interval. One WATT, though... is ALWAYS one Joule PER SECOND. If I go through a tenth of a Joule of energy per a tenth of a second, the power is ONE WATT during that tenth of a second (0.1/0.1 = 1). If I dissipate 1000 Joules of energy per 1000 seconds, the power is ONE WATT for that entire time of 1000 seconds. Observe: (1 watt) x (1000 seconds) == 1000 Wattseconds.... aka 1000 JOULES. Note the technical use of the common words PER, indicating a division operation, and FOR, indicating a multplication operation. One WATT FOR 1000 SECONDS == 1 x 1000 == 1000 Joules. One thousand Joules PER 1000 seconds == 1000/1000 = 1 Joule PER second == one WATT. ENERGY, Joules, is CONSERVED. ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. POWER, Watts, is not necessarily conserved. A peak level of 1 kW input power can result in peak output power levels of hundreds of kiloWatts or more if the energy discharges are made FOR very short durations.
Here is the statement you have to retract:
QuoteAs is this entire paragraph. From beginning to end. It is self-evidently and ENTIRELY ridiculous.
MileHigh
This is awkward and obtuse and contains mistakes but you are still on the right track:
QuoteAnd MAY I ADD. Your applied unit of watts is applied PER SECOND over time TO GIVE THE PRODUCT AS JOULES. However one determines that RATE of applied watts - it is then applied as A RATE PER SECOND in order to compute that Joules value.
You have to review the material 50 times until it becomes second nature. You have to be able to express yourself without getting tripped up.
And Rosemary, what is this all about?
QuoteTK has been trying to promote the argument that 0.32mA x battery voltage gives 20 WATTS.
Isn't the battery voltage 62 volts in this example? I believe that the current is 320 milliamperes. I am also suspecting that's what you really meant to say in the quote above.
So 62 volts x 0.32 amperes = 19.84 watts = "20 watts."
So what is your problem here?
MileHigh
@milehigh
The problem is that she is still conflating rate and quantity, or at least using these terms interchangeably in calculations and discussions, whatever her internal mental state of understanding is.
She keeps saying "Watts PER second" when what she actually means is "Watt-seconds". Her use of PER is not as per the dictionary, for this use case. I think she's failing to grasp that Watts is a figure which is always normalised to mean an equivalent per-second rate, and is therefore routinely applied to any period.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 09:44:57 AM
mrsean2k,
Yes I agree.
But TK did say: "A Joule is a Joule even when it's sitting in a capacitor doing crossword puzzles or whatever they do in there and will be the same forever unless it leaks out." :-)
GL.
And he's right. What is it that strikes you as incorrect about that? I'm not having a go, I just want to understand what it is that seems odd - some misunderstanding I think that's easily cleared up.
You DEMANDED that I retract my statement? MileHigh? Why would I do that? Here's my answer to your challenge.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AM
A Joule is a quantity of ENERGY. There is NO TIME INVOLVED, just as there is no time involved in a "mile" or a "quart" or a "rock" or a "mosfet" or a "bag of peanuts".
Not actually. Joules represent the amount of energy that is delivered dissipated or stored - OVER TIME. It is always computed as a product of the unit of watts calculated over TIME. Outside of TIME one would not be able to compute Joules. Joules delivered or dissipated OR even stored - can ONLY be computed OVER TIME.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMPOWER IS A RATE, not a quantity.
Not actually. POWER IS NOT A RATE. POWER IS ENERGY. The two terms are interchangeable. To determine the QUANTITY of power - which is the object of any power analysis - ONE FIRST determines the rate of wattage applied per second over time. Which product is then represented as Joules. Which - IN TURN - gives one the QUANTITY of energy which is INDEED - the object of POWER analysis. Therefore Power is NOT a RATE as ALLEGED by TK. It is ONLY a QUANTITY. It is the sum of the product of watts per second over time - which PRODUCT or QUANTITY - is then represented as JOULES. THAT is the definition of POWER.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMThere is TIME involved in POWER. That same JOULE of energy could be dissipated very quickly or dragged out over a long time. You can eat a bag of peanuts all at once (one bag per minute for one minute), or you can eat one nut per day for many weeks (one one-hundredth of a bag per day for one hundred days). The WATT is the RATE at which JOULES are dissipated. A WATT is one Joule PER SECOND. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If you dissipate ONE JOULE very quickly you have a HIGH POWER LEVEL. if you dissipate that SAME ONE JOULE very slowly, you have a LOW POWER LEVEL. One Joule can be turned into KILOWATTS of power for a brief instant or it can be turned into microWatts of power for a much longer interval.
Not actually. Not even close. Here we have rampant and manifest confusions. One JOULE of energy is BY DEFINITION the amount of energy dissipated or delivered over time. If you dissipated ONE JOULE very quickly you would NOT - be dissipating a 'HIGH POWER LEVEL'. You would only be dissipating ONE JOULE. The Joule unit represents the amount of energy dissipated or delivered over one second. IF it was delivered faster than a second - then it is NOT self-evidently 1 JOULE. And HOW - in God's name - can ONE JOULE turn into KILOWATTS of power if 1 Joule is - by definition - based on 1 watt and 1 watt is based 1 volt x 1 amp x 1 second? The MOST than can be dissipated or delivered over a fraction of a second would STILL be 1 JOULE which is still only 1 watt. That's a given. It can't magically multiply it's quantity because it's delivered within a fraction of a second rather than over the full duration or period of 1 second. This is an ABSURD postulate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AM
One WATT, though... is ALWAYS one Joule PER SECOND. If I go through a tenth of a Joule of energy per a tenth of a second, the power is ONE WATT during that tenth of a second (0.1/0.1 = 1). If I dissipate 1000 Joules of energy per 1000 seconds, the power is ONE WATT for that entire time of 1000 seconds. Observe: (1 watt) x (1000 seconds) == 1000 Wattseconds.... aka 1000 JOULES. Note the technical use of the common words PER, indicating a division operation, and FOR, indicating a multplication operation. One WATT FOR 1000 SECONDS == 1 x 1000 == 1000 Joules. One thousand Joules PER 1000 seconds == 1000/1000 = 1 Joule PER second == one WATT.
This is just a whole lot of fatuous nonsense that - AT BEST - is simply waving that hand around with an undue emphasis on the term PER. Per is an IDENTIFIABLE UNIT - OF ANYTHING. And you can multiply those units or divide them - or store them or do anything at all. I've explained this before. PER - the term - strictly means 'for'. IT IS ALWAYS AND ONLY AN IDENTIFIABLE UNIT OF MEASURE OR OF REFERENCE.
Continued/...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMENERGY, Joules, is CONSERVED.
Not actually. JOULES is the measure of what may be delivered or dissipated or stored. ENERGY may be 'transferred'. But ENERGY is ALWAYS AND WHOLLY CONSERVED. Joules - not so much. LOL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. POWER, Watts, is not necessarily conserved.
Not actually. The terms POWER and ENERGY are synonymous and interchangeable. Therefore POWER like ENERGY is WHOLLY CONSERVED. Watts is NOT POWER. It is the measured UNIT of power delivered or dissipated or stored over time.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMA peak level of 1 kW input power can result in peak output power levels of hundreds of kiloWatts or more if the energy discharges are made FOR very short durations.
Not actually. I kW of INPUT power would ALWAYS be restricted to that same quantity of OUTPUT power. The only difference would be related to their rate of discharge. Unless of course TK is accessing free energy. And in my book there's no such animal. Bear in mind that a watt is based on a defined unit of measurement. It is applied in the computation of Joules at the rate of 1 watt per 1 second. But TK is referring to WATTS in his Kw INPUT analogy. NOT JOULES.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AMTake that paragraph to ANY PHYSICIST OR EE ANYWHERE ON EARTH -- or for that matter to 99 percent of the posters ON THIS FORUM -- and ask them to tell you what is right, and what is wrong with it. Go ahead, Ainslie... as you have said to me: I DARE YOU.
And again, MileHigh. WHY would I want to parade this nonsense in front of anyone at all - let alone our experts? I just do NOT see the point. It is simply a whole lot of FATUOUS pretentious nonsense - with terms that are bandied around outside of their standard context. It is ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY WRONG. FROM BEGINNING TO END.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 12:20:25 PM
And he's right. What is it that strikes you as incorrect about that? I'm not having a go, I just want to understand what it is that seems odd - some misunderstanding I think that's easily cleared up.
mrsean2k,
I was an attempt of humor. (Yes I know, my humor is dry like an old capacitor.) :-)
GL.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 12:16:58 PM
@milehigh
The problem is that she is still conflating rate and quantity, or at least using these terms interchangeably in calculations and discussions, whatever her internal mental state of understanding is.
She keeps saying "Watts PER second" when what she actually means is "Watt-seconds". Her use of PER is not as per the dictionary, for this use case. I think she's failing to grasp that Watts is a figure which is always normalised to mean an equivalent per-second rate, and is therefore routinely applied to any period.
Not actually mrsean. When I refer to watts per second it is in the context of computing JOULES. There is NO OTHER WAY TO COMPUTE THOSE JOULES. The calculation of WATTS is described in my post to you which you clearly CANNOT answer.
Rosie Pose
here's that post again for ease of reference.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 10:20:14 AM
Since you're now telling me what I think - then let me put in my tuppence worth. If you are varying the rate at which the energy is applied to that bucket of water then CORRECTLY you would take the first 10 watts and then - over the next 10 seconds of the test under review, you would increase that wattage by 1 watt per second. So that you would have 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 +18 +19 + 20 giving at total of 165 watts over a 10 second time period giving a total of 16.5 watts per second. And then if you extended that time period and simply and continually applied 20 watts per second - then THEREAFTER - you could talk about a continual applied wattage. At no stage during that 10 second period where you are adjusting that applied wattage can state that there is 10 watts of energy applied to that circuit.
To continue with this analogy. IF you applied this 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds - and then stalled the application for a further 90 seconds - and then reapplied that EXACT same quantity of energy - and so on - repeatedly. And you did this at each 100 second intervals, then the actual wattage would need be factored over that ENTIRE time period - being every 100 seconds. Because during the 90 seconds when no energy is being applied then the water would NOT be heating at the rate of 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds. If anything and without the required cladding to that bucket of water - IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE COOLING during 90 percent of that cycle. Therefore CORRECTLY the ACTUAL wattage APPLIED to that element - in that bucket of water - would need to be factored as 16.5 watts per second for every 10 seconds. And then zero watts for the next 90 seconds. Which gives 16.5 watts every 100 seconds. Which in turn makes the wattage delivered 0.165 watts per second and NOT 16.5 watts per second. To EVER try and represent the wattage as 16.5 watts is ENTIRELY incorrect.
Watts is first and foremost a UNIT OF POWER OR ENERGY. IF the term watt is defined as volts x amps - it is because that is correct. But if the voltage varies or the applied current flow varies over time, that there is NO steadily applied voltage and amperage - then that variation over time needs must be factored in. And therefore the analysis of wattage explicitly and implicitly requires TIME. Any attempt to determine wattage without factoring in TIME is also, by definition NOT therefore 'WATTAGE'. IT IS THAT SIMPLE FOLKS. Watts and the concept of watts is defined as THE RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated. And if you apply a switched cycle - then you most certainly have a voltage that is varying over time. And time is most certainly therefore required in the analysis of wattage. Instantaneous wattage analysis is ONLY appropriate to steady voltage and amperage values.
If you are saying that I'm CONFUSED about this mrsean, then I BEG TO DIFFER.
Regards,
Rosemary
added
Rosemary:
Most of the time when you are talking about power you actually mean energy. And you hung yourself. This was another heart-sinking moment.
However, there is a silver lining here. You actually have mastered Watts and Joules and do understand, we just need to run the translator in our heads.
MileHigh
MilesUpInTheClouds
Your poor heart. It must suffer so.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 12, 2012, 12:45:07 PM
Rosemary:
Most of the time when you are talking about power you actually mean energy. And you hung yourself. This was another heart-sinking moment.
ACTUALLY - POWER AND ENERGY ARE SYNONYMOUS. It is just that the term power is appropriate to the computation of electric energy - as a rule. The one term is entirely interchangeable with the other. Check it out. Look it up. Do with this information what you please. Hopefully it won't bring on a heart attack.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 12:41:54 PM
Not actually mrsean. When I refer to watts per second it is in the context of computing JOULES. There is NO OTHER WAY TO COMPUTE THOSE JOULES. The calculation of WATTS is described in my post to you which you clearly CANNOT answer.
Rosie Pose
""When I use a word, it means exactly what I mean it to mean, no more and no less." -- Humpty Dumpty
You are incorrect in every important respect.
Watts per second is a meaningless phrase, outside the definition which I handed to you on a plate, and which you've misunderstood. It is either "Watt seconds" or "Joules" if you are talking about energy, or "Joules per second" or "Watts" if you are talking about power.
Power and energy are not interchangeable in the way you keep stating. In the same way that "gallons of petrol" and "miles per gallon" are not interchangeable.
I wasn't aware there was a question in your post.
power = watts
energy = joules
You understand watts and joules and you know that they are not interchangeable. Therefore from above you can see that power and energy are not interchangeable. You simply had the wrong vision in your mind as to what power and energy mean.
I think I'm beginning to get GL's humor now. For example in that post where he actually did the derivation, the last part of his algebra went like this:
QuoteW = Coulomb/s * J/Coulomb gives W = J*s
Clearly.... Coulombs/seconds * Joules/Coulomb == (Coulombs*Joules)/(seconds*Coulomb). Right? So the Coulomb term cancels and we are left with the answer: W = Joules / second which in spoken English is said "Joules per second".
X/s * Y/X will always result in Y/s...... not Y*s. So by doing the derivation he came up with the right answer and sarcastically illustrated the absurdity of the wrong one by showing it is a mathematical contradiction.
I want to thank you both, GL and mrSean, for participating in this discussion and I commend GL for his intellectual honesty and his striving for knowledge. Good work, gentlemen.
Guys - mrsean and MileHigh are arguing that Power is NOT synonymous with energy. This is diametrically contradicted by the standard model and by the definition of power in WIKI. It is meaningless to continue this conversation when their denial is based on nothing more than denial. Denial has NEVER constituted an argument. They are both entirely wrong. Power is ENERGY. And it is represented as a QUANTITY. And it is always wholly and completely CONSERVED.
For those of you who may well be confused about this - may I propose that you look up wiki's definition. I'm simply too tired of this entire argument to bother with it further.
And mrsean. I absolutely have NOT said that a watt is calculated over a second. I have said that a watt is a unit that is applied in the computation of Joules. Which Joules are determined as the product of those WATTS applied 'per second' which is OVER TIME. You are now, together with MileHigh and TK making assumption as to my claims. I have attempted to set you right. Kindly take heed. Unless, of course, you too are here to enjoy the 'tar Rosemary Ainslie' campaign.
Regards,
Rosemary
Now, since Ainslie cannot accept that an input AVERAGE POWER LEVEL of, say, one kW can result in output PEAK POWER LEVELS in the hundreds or even thousands of kW range.... perhaps she would like to explain my TinselKoil, which plugs into an American wall outlet of 120 VAC, has a 10 amp input fuse on it, and puts OUT over 30,000 VAC p-p at peak currents of 10 amps or more.
Here's an early LOW POWER trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQAq0As9GQI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQAq0As9GQI)
And one with an improved resonator using the same circuitry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFDjZ_Va9xg
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:03:49 PM
Guys - mrsean and MileHigh are arguing that Power is NOT synonymous with energy. This is diametrically contradicted by the standard model and by the definition of power in WIKI. It is meaningless to continue this conversation when their denial is based on nothing more than denial. Denial has NEVER constituted an argument. They are both entirely wrong. Power is ENERGY. And it is represented as a QUANTITY. And it is always wholly and completely CONSERVED.
For those of you who may well be confused about this - may I propose that you look up wiki's definition. I'm simply too tired of this entire argument to bother with it further.
And mrsean. I absolutely have NOT said that a watt is calculated over a second. I have said that a watt is a unit that is applied in the computation of Joules. Which Joules are determined as the product of those WATTS applied 'per second' which is OVER TIME. You are now, together with MileHigh and TK making assumption as to my claims. I have attempted to set you right. Kindly take heed. Unless, of course, you too are here to enjoy the 'tar Rosemary Ainslie' campaign.
Regards,
Rosemary
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
And Guys, this is NOT spamming. I am simply addressing these points to the wider audience as it seems that our vigilantes are not prepared to answer these points. Clearly they CANNOT. Therefore this argument carries and is ENTIRELY VALID. It also goes to the heart of all that pretentious nonsense by TK with his rather amusing efforts related to power analysis.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
Spoke too soon.
I've been trying to think of an example where "Watts per second" would be a legitimate usage, both in everyday language and technical sense.
Imagine you have a heating element in a water-filled bucket, connected to variable power supply.
You start heating the water, with the dial set to 10 Watts. That's 10 Joules per second being converted from electrical energy into raising the temperature of the water. Every second, you bump the dial up by another 1 Watt division. So that's 10 Watts during second #1, 11 Watts during second 2, 12 Watts during second 3. And so on, and so on, until you hit the maximum setting on your dial.
During the time when you were able to turn the dial, you could legitimately say that the rate of power increase was 1 Watt per second. This is entirely different to a situation where a static value is applied. In that case, you are talking about a fixed quantity of energy in Joules being delivered in a fixed time period, usually a second. It is entirely incorrect to talk about 1 Watt per second. The energy transferred to the water is 1 Watt-Second. That is (1J / s) * 1 s = 1 J
Rosemary confuses these terms. It may be that she doesn't mean what she writes and expresses it poorly, but the way she applies these terms are not standard usage in either common parlance or in any technical sense.
Since you're now telling me what I think - then let me put in my tuppence worth. If you are varying the rate at which the energy is applied to that bucket of water then CORRECTLY you would take the first 10 watts and then - over the next 10 seconds of the test under review, you would increase that wattage by 1 watt per second. So that you would have 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 +18 +19 + 20 giving at total of 165 watts over a 10 second time period giving a total of 16.5 watts per second. And then if you extended that time period and simply and continually applied 20 watts per second - then THEREAFTER - you could talk about a continual applied wattage. At no stage during that 10 second period where you are adjusting that applied wattage can state that there is 10 watts of energy applied to that circuit.
To continue with this analogy. IF you applied this 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds - and then stalled the application for a further 90 seconds - and then reapplied that EXACT same quantity of energy - and so on - repeatedly. And you did this at each 100 second intervals, then the actual wattage would need be factored over that ENTIRE time period - being every 100 seconds. Because during the 90 seconds when no energy is being applied then the water would NOT be heating at the rate of 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds. If anything and without the required cladding to that bucket of water - IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE COOLING during 90 percent of that cycle. Therefore CORRECTLY the ACTUAL wattage APPLIED to that element - in that bucket of water - would need to be factored as 16.5 watts per second for every 10 seconds. And then zero watts for the next 90 seconds. Which gives 16.5 watts every 100 seconds. Which in turn makes the wattage delivered 0.165 watts per second and NOT 16.5 watts per second. To EVER try and represent the wattage as 16.5 watts is ENTIRELY incorrect.
Watts is first and foremost a UNIT OF POWER OR ENERGY. IF the term watt is defined as volts x amps - it is because that is correct. But if the voltage varies or the applied current flow varies over time, that there is NO steadily applied voltage and amperage - then that variation over time needs must be factored in. And therefore the analysis of wattage explicitly and implicitly requires TIME. Any attempt to determine wattage without factoring in TIME is also, by definition NOT therefore 'WATTAGE'. IT IS THAT SIMPLE FOLKS. Watts and the concept of watts is defined as THE RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated. And if you apply a switched cycle - then you most certainly have a voltage that is varying over time. And time is most certainly therefore required in the analysis of wattage. Instantaneous wattage analysis is ONLY appropriate to steady voltage and amperage values.
If you are saying that I'm CONFUSED about this mrsean, then I BEG TO DIFFER.
Regards,
Rosemary
added
And with reference to that post - you will recall how TK applied his computation of 20 watts to the power delivered during the 'on' time of that switched duty cycle. Self-evidently his knowledge related to the computation of power is sadly wanting.
Regards again
Rosemary
I laugh at you, Ainslie.
Your "theoretical understanding" of your topic has produced what? A device which sits there and makes pretty colored lines on an expensive oscilloscope.
And my theoretical understanding of the topic allows me to produce, among other things, the TinselKoil, which, measured and evaluated BY YOUR OWN "standard measurement" PROTOCOLS, would be so massively "overunity" that your COP>INFINITY circuit would look like a dead AAA battery in comparison.
My dear TK.
Is your refutation now based on a comparison of our technology with your tiselkoil? Whatever that is? Because as an argument - that is SADLY WANTING.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:19:12 PM
I laugh at you, Ainslie.
Your "theoretical understanding" of your topic has produced what? A device which sits there and makes pretty colored lines on an expensive oscilloscope.
And my theoretical understanding of the topic allows me to produce, among other things, the TinselKoil, which, measured and evaluated BY YOUR OWN "standard measurement" PROTOCOLS, would be so massively "overunity" that your COP>INFINITY circuit would look like a dead AAA battery in comparison.
My theoretical understanding of power analysis is self-evidently CONSIDERABLY more reliable and well founded than yours or sean's. You CANNOT even REFUTE it. And I'm not sure that we're in competition. I would be MOST reluctant to engage with you on any such basis. Or better put - on any basis at all. I'm only here to contradict your spin.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:03:49 PM
Guys - mrsean and MileHigh are arguing that Power is NOT synonymous with energy. This is diametrically contradicted by the standard model and by the definition of power in WIKI. It is meaningless to continue this conversation when their denial is based on nothing more than denial. Denial has NEVER constituted an argument. They are both entirely wrong. Power is ENERGY. And it is represented as a QUANTITY. And it is always wholly and completely CONSERVED.
For those of you who may well be confused about this - may I propose that you look up wiki's definition. I'm simply too tired of this entire argument to bother with it further.
And mrsean. I absolutely have NOT said that a watt is calculated over a second. I have said that a watt is a unit that is applied in the computation of Joules. Which Joules are determined as the product of those WATTS applied 'per second' which is OVER TIME. You are now, together with MileHigh and TK making assumption as to my claims. I have attempted to set you right. Kindly take heed. Unless, of course, you too are here to enjoy the 'tar Rosemary Ainslie' campaign.
Regards,
Rosemary
This is so easy. Do they have a different WIKI in the southern hemisphere, or what? Are they really standing on their heads down there?
From the WIKI entries on Power and Energy:
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
My dear TK.
Is your refutation now based on a comparison of our technology with your tiselkoil? Whatever that is? Because as an argument - that is SADLY WANTING.
My theoretical understanding of power analysis is self-evidently CONSIDERABLY more reliable and well founded than yours or sean's. You CANNOT even REFUTE it. And I'm not sure that we're in competition. I would be MOST reluctant to engage with you on any such basis. Or better put - on any basis at all. I'm only here to contradict your spin.
Rosie Pose.
You have been refuted over and over and over EVEN BY YOUR OWN REFERENCES.
Spin all you like. I DARE YOU TO TEST YOUR CLAIMS, any of them. This one for instance. Take your conception of energy and power to anyone of your choice...ANYONE.... and take MileHigh's or mine too. Let them compare and contrast, and REPORT YOUR RESULTS HERE.
Thanks for that link TK.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:30:28 PM
You have been refuted over and over and over EVEN BY YOUR OWN REFERENCES.
Spin all you like. I DARE YOU TO TEST YOUR CLAIMS, any of them. This one for instance. Take your conception of energy and power to anyone of your choice...ANYONE.... and take MileHigh's or mine too. Let them compare and contrast, and REPORT YOUR RESULTS HERE.
NOTA BENE Guys,
"...the more power, OR EQUIVALENTLY, the more electrical energy is used per unit time"
The emphasis is my own.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:30:28 PM
You have been refuted over and over and over EVEN BY YOUR OWN REFERENCES.
FAR from being refuted - you've actually ENDORSED my argument with that reference.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:30:28 PMSpin all you like. I DARE YOU TO TEST YOUR CLAIMS, any of them. This one for instance. Take your conception of energy and power to anyone of your choice...ANYONE.... and take MileHigh's or mine too. Let them compare and contrast, and REPORT YOUR RESULTS HERE.
I do NOT 'spin'. That's your job. You do it with that tarred feather duster of yours. And WHY would I take your ABSURD definitions of power to anyone at all? They're RIDICULOUS. Rather YOU try and get endorsement. It would be an impossible task TK. JUST COULD NOT BE DONE.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:34:50 PM
Thanks for that link TK.
NOTA BENE Guys,
"...the more[glow=green],2,300] power[/glow], OR EQUIVALENTLY, the more [glow=green2,300]electrical energy is used per unit time[/glow]"
The emphasis is my own.
Regards,
Rosemary
Observe, my friends: Polly Parrot refutes herself with her own references again because she parrots what she sees without understanding it.
The GREEN emphasis is my own.
TK that wiki entry explains the resurgence of the word "synonymous" in her posts - but her reading is too shallow for her to understand why she's kippering herself quoting it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:38:56 PM
FAR from being refuted - you've actually ENDORSED my argument with that reference.
I do NOT 'spin'. That's your job. You do it with that tarred feather duster of yours. And WHY would I take your ABSURD definitions of power to anyone at all? They're RIDICULOUS. Rather YOU try and get endorsement. It would be an impossible task TK. JUST COULD NOT BE DONE.
Rosie Pose
And yet everybody posting here appears to endorse ME and not YOU and nobody has come forward to endorse YOU in ... how long? And the whole INTERNET appears to agree with US, Polly, not YOU. Even your own references !
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 01:40:57 PM
TK that wiki entry explains the resurgence of the word "synonymous" in her posts - but her reading is too shallow for her to understand why she's kippering herself quoting it.
Yep. That and her lack of understanding of the technical use of the word "PER".
The woman has no algebra.
Rosemary,what level of credentials will it take for you to accept you're incorrect?
TKs "problem" is that he's qualified but anonymous. Mine is that I don't care about anonymity, but my 25+ year old A level isn't going to convince you.
So what level of non-anonymous qualified opinion would?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
My dear TK.
Is your refutation now based on a comparison of our technology with your tiselkoil? Whatever that is? (snip)
No, Polly, my refutation is based, as it always has been based, on the idea that your measurements and the conclusions you have drawn from them are spurious. And my example of the TinselKoil, whatever that is (did you watch the videos?) is used as a "black box".
If someone (anyone other than me, of course) came to you and said, "let's use your scope to measure my black box" and you found that it had TEN TIMES the "negative mean power" that you found on your NERD device, and then he showed it VAPORIZING COPPER right before your eyes, running on a battery that measured the same voltage before and after the test.... what would you conclude?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlS2Oxe5sjg
TK,
Can you check the attached drawing and see if I got this correct.
GL.
@mrSean2k:
Do you know that RA has frequently accused me of faking things in my videos?
I laugh and laugh and laugh.
:P
@GL: What you've got in the yellow box looks right to me.
You have to be careful though, because sometimes the letter "W" is used to mean WORK instead of WATTS, and of course the units of work are the same as the units of energy, not power. That adds to the confusion. Like the equation that Ainslie has parroted several times out of context and which appears in full context below, where the W means work and not watts.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:02:31 PM
@GL: What you've got in the yellow box looks right to me.
You have to be careful though, because sometimes the letter "W" is used to mean WORK instead of WATTS, and of course the units of work are the same as the units of energy, not power. That adds to the confusion. Like the equation that Ainslie has copied several times out of context and which appears in full context below, where the W means work and not watts.
TK,
Yes, I know. In the drawing the text states that I'm using Watt.
ADDED:
Shit, I forgot the "PER" in my drawing, well here is the PER used in a different setup. :-)
GL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:41:59 PM
And yet everybody posting here appears to endorse ME and not YOU and nobody has come forward to endorse YOU in ... how long? And the whole INTERNET appears to agree with US, Polly, not YOU. Even your own references !
My dear TK
There is NOTHING more entertaining to our readers than the kind of engagement which you and I endure. Your mission is to 'tar' my name and with it our technology. My mission is to deny you yours. NOW. The arena is this forum. I am the 'victim' and THAT status is MOST DESIRABLE. Because when our 'audience' witnesses this engagement - then they see me as that rather lonely voice - with your orchestrated entourage doing your very best to scatter hot tar. It is the forum equivalent of a Roman Arena - peopled with gladiators. But with the added zest of 1 against MANY. Specifically one rather hapless and confused old lady against MANY robust and vociferous vigilantes operating from an ENTIRELY immoral and even CRIMINAL platform. You are NOT required to exercise intellectual honesty. You are NOT required to reference FACTS. You can distort history - misquote me as you please - call me names - exercise all that 'CRUELTY' - and enjoy the benefits of an ENTIRELY unmoderated thread - and the odds are that I'll BUCKLE. It's inevitable. And IF I were heavily supported then we wouldn't have that same level of engagement. it would be a simple exercise in establishing science by CONSENSUS based on who does or does not support you or me. I prefer it that I'm a lonely voice. It makes it way more dramatic. Let's face it. I really should have 'caved' WAY back. As did MYLOW?
And nor does it really matter what you say. It doesn't even matter that you are very OBVIOUSLY wrong. And with you are picowatt and mrsean and FTC and PhiChaser and God knows who's yet to come into this. But you see my point. You're all of you nothing but a whole lot of unnamed faceless nobodies DEDICATED to defeating a well identified rather old woman who is already well into her dotage. Bullies and spoilsports - to a man. LOL. While I, on my own - and against all odds - stand up to you all - alone - and by myself - and in a minority of one. LOL One would, under usual circumstances, expect an early demise. HOWEVER. God in his wisdom equipped me with a rather excessive amount of self-esteem and enough logic to refute your best efforts. Nor do I care about your opinion. Nor do I care about anyone's opinion. Which also means that your best efforts are IRRELEVANT. You see this I trust. Unless you opinions MATTERED to me - they're entirely ineffectual. Which means that your arsenal is VOID. And all that tar? It does nothing but parade your lack of intellectual honesty and your criminal preference for calumny and traducement. Hardly the party that the self-respecting citizen wants to belong to.
Meanwhile - all those readers - and there are many - are THOROUGHLY engaged and THOROUGHLY entertained. And the subject of that entertainment is our technology. That is getting the FULL benefit on all your exposure. I keep telling you. I'm MOST grateful for this. And then. You can do us NO HARM. We'll CERTAINLY get our 'space in the sun'. We'll get our 'chance' to argue against you. And meanwhile - courtesy all your hard work - the NEWS IS SPREADING. What's still in abeyance - is ONLY the REQUIRED PROOF of our claim. God forbid that interest would wane before we actually LAUNCH our demos. That would be entirely COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. So you serve us all well. And my pride is well able to survive your best efforts. Indeed. It's rather reinforced by the sheer excess of your prodigal criminality and your entire lack of intellectual honesty.
Rosie Pose.
So that means you'll be showing some tests.... SOON?
Like when your scope gets back from the repair shop? Any day now?
I will be watching and waiting eagerly to see you refute ONE SINGLE POINT THAT I HAVE MADE with experiments, references, citations, or other people in support.
You cannot.
QuoteIt's rather reinforced by the sheer excess of your prodigal criminality and your entire lack of intellectual honesty.
One day you will be made to regret that you uttered that little libellous claim, Ainslie, along with the physical threats you have made against me. They are all recorded and you cannot edit my database.
Here's a description of the Ainslie circuit:
A mosfet or mosfet array is switched by a pulse generator, makes resonant oscillations, powers an inductive-resistive load, makes apparently anomalous heat, and appears to put out more power than is used to run it.
A claim of COP of INFINITY is made, without evidence other than instrumental readings. No unusual physical effects are noted except the warming of the load. The main claim is unsupported by any theoretical model except for Ainslie's.
Here's a description of the TinselKoil circuit:
A mosfet or mosfet array is switched by a pulse generator, makes resonant oscillations, powers an inductive-resistive load, makes apparently anomalous heat, and appears to put out more power than is used to run it.
A POWER AMPLIFICATION ratio of some large number is claimed, with instrumental and other physical evidence of extremely high power levels. The main claim is supported by multitudinous independent replications as well as Standard Electronic Physics, that is: Quantum ElectroDynamics.
QED.
Who you gonna call?
Oh.... sorry, I forgot that there IS physical evidence of high power levels in the Ainslie database.
Here it is: (original Ainslie filename, too)
Rosemary:
The Wikipedia entries explain the difference between power and energy. What is wrong with you?
You apparently don't understand how ridiculous you have made yourself look here. I just don't know what to do.
MileHigh
My dear TK
Regarding this statement...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
One day you will be made to regret that you uttered that little libellous claim, Ainslie, along with the physical threats you have made against me. They are all recorded and you cannot edit my database.
Bring it on TK. As you put it. I cannot tell how how much I'd enjoy this. You GROSSLY underestimate my commitment if you think that I would avoid a legal confrontation with you. If I had by now established you IP address you'd have physical proof of this. You have NO IDEA how I long for it. If your thread here serves our purposes - how much more so would a COURT ACTION. It would be a considerably more public arena for us to demonstrate our apparatus. And it would have the advantage of expert and credentialed OPINION rather than those of your 'team'. And then there would be the very real advantage of making you entirely accountable for your criminal levels of slander and traducement. Long overdue. If you want to serve the first shot - then PM me and I'll send you a service address.
And the pity of your data base is that YOU most CERTAINLY have edited it. I see evidence of it in those multiple references you make to our work.
Rosie Pose
QuoteAnd the pity of your data base is that YOU most CERTAINLY have edited it. I see evidence of it in those multiple references you make to our work.
PROVE IT. With references of course.
You cannot. Did I edit THIS, for example?
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
Now, if 1 watt = one Joule, and if 1 Joule = 1 watt per second...and the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE, THEN AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER, that means that you could substitute the Watt for the Joule in any equation, like this:
1 Watt = 1 Watt Per Second.
Got that, Polly?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 03:12:49 PM
My dear TK
Regarding this statement...
Bring it on TK. As you put it. I cannot tell how how much I'd enjoy this. You GROSSLY underestimate my commitment if you think that I would avoid a legal confrontation with you. If I had by now established you IP address you'd have physical proof of this. You have NO IDEA how I long for it. If your thread here serves our purposes - how much more so would a COURT ACTION. It would be a considerably more public arena for us to demonstrate our apparatus. And it would have the advantage of expert and credentialed OPINION rather than those of your 'team'. And then there would be the very real advantage of making you entirely accountable for your criminal levels of slander and traducement. Long overdue. If you want to serve the first shot - then PM me and I'll send you a service address.
And the pity of your data base is that YOU most CERTAINLY have edited it. I see evidence of it in those multiple references you make to our work.
Rosie Pose
Please note everybody: I am being physically threatened -- AGAIN -- by a madwoman from South Africa.
Now, I really think we should get back to the topic of the thread, which Polly Parrot is trying to derail, which is Testing the
TK Tar Baby.l.
Ainslie made this claim, in a response to PW, I believe:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK responded thusly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc
Compare, contrast, conclude.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 03:47:18 PM
Please note everybody: I am being physically threatened -- AGAIN -- by a madwoman from South Africa.
::) tu stultus es! it is more than obvious via the context of the whole paragraph that she is referring to legal action as 'physical evidence'... troll, you are exhibiting signs of extreme paranoia, take your meds...
Ainslie REFUSES to perform any experiment that has the potential to prove her wrong. Just the _potentiality_ is enough to scare her off, squawking like a parrot fleeing a cat.
She has REFUSED to print out MH's or my simple paragraphs along with her own, to take to ANYONE for an outside opinion. I'm not afraid to do the same thing with mine and hers.... at all. If I'm wrong I lose nothing but a chocolate Stetson. If she's wrong, though.... she loses everything she's worked on for the past twenty years or more.
And look how she reacted to GL's simple little experiment. She FREAKED OUT, questioned his and my sanity for ever wanting to do such a crazy and time-wasting thing as to ACTUALLY EXAMINE SOME DATA and see if it is reproducible. And of course she tried her best to distort and "spin" the results and conclusions.
And look at how she responds to suggestions of a Dim Bulb test or any other state-of-charge tests of her conveniently SEALED lead-acid batteries.
Folks, Ainslie will NEVER perform any test that has the potential for disproving her claims. You will not be seeing any Dim Bulb tests, or third-party comparisons of word salads, from Ainslie at all.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 12, 2012, 03:58:35 PM
::) tu stultus es! it is more than obvious via the context of the whole paragraph that she is referring to legal action as 'physical evidence'... troll, you are exhibiting signs of extreme paranoia, take your meds...
Ahh the Master Troll comes out from under the bridge.
So... then you are prepared to act as a witness for Ainslie in the upcoming LEGAL ACTION that Ainslie is threatening me PHYSICALLY with? Good.
Maybe you can defend her now, as well.
What is a Watt, Wilby?
What is a Joule?
Is it possible that the things I've said and claimed about Ainslie could hurt her professionally in any way? More so than the things she herself has said and claimed?
Is it possible that the things SHE has said and claimed ABOUT ME could hurt me professionally in any way? More so than the things I myself have said and claimed?
I mean, I've called her a liar, and proven it time and time again, by posting the links to her lies. Like for instance the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" lie.
She's called me a criminal psychopath.... but she hasn't posted a link to my police record or psychiatric history.
I've called her a scrawny wench, and posted a link to her "self portrait hello from SA" video of herself in the mirror.
She's called me a shorter version of Adolph Hitler.... but she hasn't posted a mugshot comparing me to Der Fuhrer.
I've called her uneducated and ignorant, and posted links to her own words which support my contentions, MANY TIMES.
She's called me..... dot dot dot, and so on, all without evidence at all.
DO you see where this is going? This is why her "threats" of legal action are just bloviation and hot air. She's been doing the EXACT SAME THING, making the same silly empty pot-kettle-black threats for many years and hasn't sued anyone yet.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Ahh the Master Troll comes out from under the bridge.
So... then you are prepared to act as a witness for Ainslie in the upcoming LEGAL ACTION that Ainslie is threatening me PHYSICALLY with? Good.
Maybe you can defend her now, as well.
What is a Watt, Wilby?
What is a Joule?
Is it possible that the things I've said and claimed about Ainslie could hurt her professionally in any way? More so than the things she herself has said and claimed?
Is it possible that the things SHE has said and claimed ABOUT ME could hurt me professionally in any way? More so than the things I myself have said and claimed?
nice red herring... ::) what does any of what you posted have to do with you claiming she was physically threatening you? nothing.
tu stultus es... Q.E.D.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 12, 2012, 03:06:53 PM
The Wikipedia entries explain the difference between power and energy. What is wrong with you?
You apparently don't understand how ridiculous you have made yourself look here. I just don't know what to do.
The point of contention revolves around TK's entirely erroneous computation of wattage based on a small sample range of current flow during a small period of a duty cycle. In order to SALVAGE attention from that error he has engaged his 'team' in a philosophical exercise related to power analysis. I claim and will live and die by it - that power and energy are entirely synonymous terms as indicated in that WIKI extract. This is based on the standard model requirement that NO amount of power can be made available to a system that is NOT first made available from a supply source. In the same way that NO amount of energy can be made available to a system that is not first associated with the material from its source. This conforms to Kirchhoff's requirements that the QUANTITY of POWER made available to a system also represents the AMOUNT or the QUANTITY that may not be exceeded. In the same way that a given QUANTITY of ENERGY cannot be created but can only be TRANSFERRED - so it is that POWER cannot be created but can only be transferred.
POWER IS related to the rate of the transfer of that electric energy as is the measure of KINETIC energy or ANY FORM OF ENERGY is related to its rate of transfer. This applies to all energy. In whatever form. And all energy and all power can ONLY be MEASURED in terms of their rate of transfer. But ALWAYS with explicit or implicit reference to the material available for transfer in the first instance. How else could one MEASURE IT? BUT. That amount of energy or that RATE OF TRANSFER is actually only a PART of the equation. All energy and all power is only known by THAT measurement. And that MEASUREMENT first requires a potential - or a quantity - before one can determine any kind of quantity at all. And in the case of POWER - that QUANTITY is determined by 'watts' which are the FOUNDATIONAL UNITS of that POWER MEASUREMENT. BUT NOTA BENE - to determine WATTS it is first required to compute the product of the quantity of power available at the SUPPLY VOLTAGE with the rate of current flow. This is the UNIT which relates to the quantity that CAN be transferred - and then to rate at which it IS transferred. But without reference to the quantity available - then it would be impossible to determine that rate and thereby impossible to determine anythijng at all about that actual POWER.
There is NO PART of any amount of POWER that is TRANSFERRED that can be DIVORCED from the AMOUNT of POWER MADE AVAILABLE. The POWER measured in the transfer of energy from a battery supply source to a circuit is RELATED TO the rate at which that power was transferred - the amount of power that was dissipated and to the amount of power that was and is available at the supply. You cannot complete that equation without consideration of all parts of that equation. It is not enough to determine that the petrol in my tank can give me 520 kilometers to the gallon unless I know the QUANTITY of the petrol that the tank can hold. IF the wiki definition of POWER is the measure of the rate of transfer - and if that definition EXCLUDES the amount transferred and IGNORES the potential available in the quantity at its supply - then that WIKI definition is WRONG. But it is NOT wrong. It specifically states '...the more power OR EQUIVALENTLY the more electrical ENERGY is used per unit time'. Those are QUANTITIES and they're an inviolate requirement to the COMPUTATION OF POWER. And POWER IS therefore a QUANTITY - which is - then - most assuredly - measured in terms of its rate of transfer. Therefore Power is NOT exclusively the rate of transfer. It specifically INCLUDES the quantity of power available from that source. And it is always given as a QUANTITY being the sum of the Joules that are transferred over time.
And TK - that 'W' in that equation that I referenced most certainly DOES NOT relate to WORK. It represents WATTS. And Poynty - I don't give a tuppeny damn if Wiki or you or anyone at all tries to claim that the W in that equation is WORK. It is NOT work. It is WATTS. WORK is represented as JOULES and it is a represented as a product over time. Watts relate to the UNIT of work and it is determined OVER time. We've already established that.
Rosie Posie
Guys some much needed editing. My computer stopped co-operating with me. I think it needed a rest. 8)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 04:27:48 PM
And TK - that 'W' in that equation that I referenced most certainly DOES NOT relate to WORK. It represents WATTS.
Rosie Posie
Rosemary,
What does Wiki actually say? See the highlighted text.
Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
Glendower:
Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command
The devil
Hotspur:
And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devilâ€"
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.
--Wm. Shakespeare
@.99:
I think her computer must not be able to display images or something. Videos or spreadsheets either.
@Ainslie: try to use your conception of power and energy to explain my TinselKoil results. Just THINK about it for a moment, stop reacting.
How do you explain that I am drawing 3 or 4 amps at 120 VAC from the wall supply, yet I am making 30,000 VAC minimum at peak currents exceeding 10 amps, so hot it vaporizes COPPER and literally burns the very air gases in the plasma?
Rosemary,
Wikipedia makes reference to power and energy being synonymous by way of demonstrating that it is a common layman's fallacy to do so; that the term is used interchangeably in a way that is unacceptable when discussing these different concepts in a technical discussion.
The entry goes on to make that very point in the very next paragraph.
So I ask again, on that specific point, what level of non-anonymous qualification will you accept that they are not synonymous in the context of this current discussion?
@tk
The whole power vs energy discussion is a distraction anyway now though, isn't it?
Her rhetorical tics aside, I think that when she concentrates shed be able to follow how the energy is integrated through the course of the run she claims shows COP > whatever. It doesn't really matter that she doesn't really get it or employ terms in their commonly acknowledged way.
That in itself - with some generous approximations concerning the temperature of the water - is enough to show the claims are baseless?
@s2k
Really? Do you think so?
Here is how she calculated from the data in the experiment described in Blog Posts 117 and 118, which I hope you've read.
The blog:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html)
And her calculation of the results from that experiment:
Quote
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Perhaps you'd like to "do the math" and check her result and the claim made as a consequence of the result. ;) Here's a little quiz: How many batteries were used?
Here's another one, perhaps a "tad" less egregious:
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
And yet another one showing the continual confusion of units and the effect it has on conclusions, not to mention conversations, and also showing that there isn't the slightest bit of sanity-checking of results. Her calculator says 22 x 220 is 2200 and she believes it because it's digital and digital equipment never errs and of COURSE Ainslie herself never errs, and simply seeing, as any eight-grader would, that 220 times TEN is 2200 is beyond her ability.
QuoteLet's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms. The source voltage is 220 volts. The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you. While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.
Yes, these are all UNEDITED by me, except cropping the ends back to get to the bones.
According to MY Texan calculator, 220 volts x 22 amps is 4840 Watts, not 2200, just to start off with.
And a Watt is a Joule per second, so ... 4840 Joules per second TIMES 60 seconds PER minute TIMES 60 minutes PER hour TIMES 6 hours is... an even more staggering 104,544,000 JOULES. And yes, you are charged by the ENERGY USED, so that is what you will have to pay for. But we pay in units of kWh, which is just a lot of Watt-seconds... that is, Joules... all bunched together. So you don't need to go all the way to Joules to find out your energy cost. Just to the kiloWatt-hours. So you are using 4840 Watts continuously for 6 hours. That is 4840 x 6 = 29040 Watt-hours or 29 kWh.
Here in Texas we are billed for electricity by the kilowatt-hour. And a kWh costs something like 6 cents. So, Ainslie claims
47 520 000 watts of ?power? or ?what? times 6 hours is 285120000 ?watt-hour? or 285120 kiloWhaat-hours, at 6 cents per kWh... that makes about seventeen THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of oxtail soup. GIGO , iow.
But knowing what a Watt and a Joule are, 29 kWh costing .06 dollars per kWh is only a dollar and seventy four cents worth of ENERGY, which was dissipated at a RATE of 4840 Watts... or 4840 Joules PER second, every second for the whole six hours.
@tk
Ha, well, maybe I'm being very optimistic. I'd only really registered the calculation that was out by a very obvious factor of 60 from your previous dissection, and hadn't realised there were so many other howlers.
But looking at the content of her posts, as time goes on, it looks as if she's making some sort of attempt to gain a slightly deeper understanding of the objections. I don't know that the algebra or mathematics would improve, but some of the apparent errors of comprehension have faded a bit.
Maybe not enough to calculate the energy balance accurately herself, but perhaps enough to follow someone else's correct calculation and accept it?
Rosemary,
Last on this particular point I think.
Wikipedia isn't an infallible, automatic, electronic source of knowledge; it's a meat based computer, the product of the efforts of many, many fallible human beings. The entry you lean on to describe power and energy as synonymous is no exception.
Looking at the Wikipedia article where they are described as "synonyms" I've traced back through the history and find that that particular nugget of information was added to the article on 7th April 2011, by user PaulTanenbaum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy&diff=422793403&oldid=421132955
I've asked him what he intended to illustrate or convey when he added that paragraph to the article. If I get an answer, I'll reproduce it here, if it doesn't disrupt any other actual test-related posts too much.
I can't imagine it's possible for you to object to the author as the canonical source to resolve any ambiguity on how his own post should be interpreted and applied.
You see, Ainslie, the UNITS are important. Several of us have stressed this but you don't understand it. Not just numbers are treated algebraically for cancellation and multiplication and division, the UNITS have to follow the same rules.
So when you want to convert, say, from miles per hour to feet per minute, you include the units and make sure they cancel properly and that you are left with the correct units in your answer. So if our input is in MILES per HOUR and our output is in FEET per MINUTE, those units must obey the same algebraic rules during the computation as the numbers themselves do
So, (MILES/HOUR) x (FEET/MILE) == FEET/HOUR... the units of "miles" cancel. And (FEET/HOUR) x (HOUR/MINUTES) == FEET/MINUTE and again, the units of "hours" cancel and we are left with only the correct units in our answer.
(This is how GL was able to track down his error, an admirable exercise and a really significant one. You, Ainslie, would benefit greatly from studying what Groundloop did and how he did it.)
So, 10 Miles per hour x 5280 feet per mile == 52800 feet per hour.
And 52800 feet per hour x 1 hour per 60 minutes = 880 feet per minute. (see, I make math errors too, but I correct them, I had a different figure here at first).
And to CHECK OUR WORK we work backwards. 880 f/min x 60 min/hr = 52800 feet per hour , which is how I caught my original error which is now corrected.
And 52800 feet/hr divided by 5280 feet/mile == 10 miles/hour. Numbers check out, units check out, so I'm _probably_ right, until someone proves me wrong with a better calculation.
Now... please do the same thing with your electrical calculations. When you put a number into an equation, also put in the units and make sure that the units are consistent throughout the calculations. This will prevent a lot of errors, please take my word for it.
@mrS2K...
you said,
" I can't imagine it's possible for you to object to the author as the canonical source to resolve any ambiguity on how his own post should be interpreted and applied."
Heh... you probably weren't around when she was telling PowerCat what HIS posts really meant. There was a page of argument where HE was telling her what he meant, directly, and SHE was telling him no, that wasn't what he meant at all.....
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316104/#msg316104 in and around there.
Believe me, she is not above arguing with a physics professor about what he just said and is still written on the blackboard, much less with a wikipedia author or an ''anonymous" forum poster.
Now, I really think we should get back to the topic of the thread, which Polly Parrot is trying to derail, which is Testing the
TK Tar Baby.
Ainslie made this claim, in a response to PW, I believe:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK responded thusly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
Compare, contrast, conclude.
Of course... since we are now discussing the high heat mode that sometimes makes those strange scopeshots with no current flow even though there is a +12 volt signal to the gate of Q1....
or is there really?
The two papers, which ostensibly describe the same apparatus and the same set of experiments, give 2 significantly different schematics as the one used for the experiments. In the first one, a positive signal from the FG's positive probe winds up at the gate of the single Q1 mosfet on a light heatsink. But in the second diagram, a positive voltage signal from the FG's positive probe winds up at the gates of the 4 parallel Q2 mosfets on heavy heatsinks.
This won't affect the oscillations much, but it WILL make a significant difference in the durability of the circuit and its ability to handle high currents.
With the Q1 mosfet on the RIGHT, as in Paper 1 and as Tar Baby is currently configured, the single Q1 will have to carry all the current when the FG's signal to its gate is HI (12 volts, as shown in many of Ainslie's scope shots.) And with a 72 volt battery pack and a 12 volt gate drive signal, the mosfet will be passing close to its absolute maximum current, and it is on an inadequate heat sink. Therefore it is likely to fail, and indeed the "anomalous" scopeshots that we have worried about are easily explained by a blown or missing or miswired mosfet. Other explanations are lacking.
However, if the Q1 mosfet is on the LEFT, as shown in the Paper 2 schematic, the positive 12 volt FG signal is now delivered to the gates of the Q2 "gang of four" which of course can easily handle the current since they share it and are on those heavy heatsinks. And there is enough wire for the Q1 to oscillate normally during the LO (offset below zero) level of the gate drive pulse from the FG.
Tar Baby can be placed in either of these configurations, as well as others, simply by rearranging its mosfets in their sockets. But are we even clear about which schematic to use for any "replication" attempt? I know that I have my own doubts..... and as far as I can tell Ainslie has never come right out and said, "The schematic in Paper 1 is correct and all other schematics are being removed as errors" or anything remotely like that. Instead, when asked, she says something closer to "I've already answered you and this is growing tedious bubba so go away and I'm going to stop up my ears because you are bullying me and I'm going to sue you and your co-conspirators as soon as I find out your IP address."
Anyhow, I've got all of them and Tar Baby can be set up in moments to use any of them, but still... just for the sake of Science... it would be nice to know, once (or twice even ) for all. I mean, I have no problem with them using both versions in the two different modes, just TELL US if that's what they did. Using the different schematics, OK, weird but OK. NOT telling us about it, if that's what they did, is a cardinal sin.
The two different schematics:
Dearest Rosemary,
I've been reading this TarBaby thread for what is now over 125 highly fascinating pages. Your travails with expert and highly credible correspondents has been, quite frankly, incredible.
I have never before seen on the internet such a prolonged yet decisive battle between uniquely equipped combatants. There has also been a great deal of high level discussion on precise scientific and technical points, yet I digress from my primary message .
All can see that TarBaby exists simply as a type of tribute to your unique claims and persistence. A tribute indeed and what follows in its wake is an indelible record and testimony of your contribution to a completely new form of science ...
At every turn you have evaded direct and valid questions related to your technology. Skillful maneuvering in the field.
You have successfully avoided any practical testing of your device as required for discussion. Brilliant tactical delay.
When your technical knowledge and credibility has been called into question on focus of pristine point you have misdirected and asserted an opposing viewpoint, without basis. Simply remarkable.
These are your primary virtues. Not to be overlooked, when faced with an overwhelming opponent to your views you have insulted and libeled in text book fashion. The nuclear option. This approach usually silences the weak willed who have no true right to proffer a valid argument or dissenting opinion.
You have in fact blazed a trail here in opposition to the accepted values of the Open Source community. Yours is a new and innovative protocol ...
As other prizes and accolades are now out of reach, we have decided that an important step be taken. On behalf of the Committee, myself and the extended TarBaby family we would like to present you with:
The La Mancha Prize
Credo and Quotation -
"And so, to sum it all up, I perceive everything I say as absolutely true, and deficient in nothing whatever, and paint it all in my mind exactly as I want it to be." Miguel de Cervantes - The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (Volume 1, Chapter 25, pg. 157)
Congratulations on your accomplishments which will never be forgotten.
In the service of science, ever sincerely,
ReFried
As another loyal supporter and follower of Rosemary Ainslie's commitment to her cause, I wish to commend Stefan for being a champion, and allowing her to continue to consistantly provide hard evidence, and a daily reminder, of the need for mental health awareness.
TK,
I never got around to take a picture of my test setup. Now I did
and here it is. This version has a 9 volt battery connector with
a 10K series resistor. Later versions uses a FG input instead.
My next test will be testing how much BIAS current the bias
power supply will source or sink when driving the circuit
from a 24 Volt power supply. I will use the attached circuit
drawing configuration while testing. There will be a moving
iron amp meter in series with the 50 Ohm resistor.
GL.
@GL: Cool!
That looks like an actual low-inductance CVR. May I suggest something?
You are actually adding significant inductance with those long wires. These may be needed on the gate and drain for oscillations but they defeat the purpose of using a noninductive shunt. I'd suggest that you peel back the insulation on the leads right at the body and try clipping your current-monitoring scope probe or filtered DMM right up as close as possible to the body of the resistor. You can compare waveforms taken there, with waveforms taken with the longer wires you've shown now.
Good hunting !!
(I've also used little screw-type terminal blocks for mosfet sockets... they work really well because you can get good clamping pressure on the leads. That way you can reconfigure, swap mosfets, compare different types, without soldering, and you'll get just as good a connection as soldering if you clamp down tightly.)
Is that the super heavy duty military-grade 9volt battery clip? I've never seen one that ...er... sturdy looking before.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 12, 2012, 04:57:13 PM
Rosemary,
What does Wiki actually say? See the highlighted text.
Hi Poynty. I've answered you in my edited post. But just as a guide. Watts are determined OVER time - where WORK is determined as a PRODUCT of time.
We've already discussed this. Wiki therefore 'errors' - certainly on this point.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 11:46:07 PM
Hi Poynty. I've answered you in my edited post. But just as a guide. Watts are determined OVER time - where WORK is determined as a PRODUCT of time.
We've already discussed this. Wiki therefore 'errors' - certainly on this point.
Rosie Pose
So their _words_ in WIKI explaining the equation you parrot are wrong... but the equation itself, with different meanings assigned by you to the letters, is correct and proves your point.
Right?
No, don't bother answering. You are ineducable and incorrigible as well as being ignorant and arrogant.
But I would like to know this: You frequently use the term "relates to" when you are talking about these computations. What does that mean? Proportional to, equal to, the same as, inversely varies with, correlates with.... just what do you mean when you keep saying something "relates to" something else? I don't find it in my Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics.
ReFried:
Awesome posting. The La Mancha Prize for Rosemary it is! Perhaps she curtseys at Zipons?
QuoteTilting at windmills is an English idiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom) which means attacking imaginary enemies. The word “tiltâ€, in this context, comes from jousting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting). The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications.
Groundloop:
It looks like a nice little setup. If you get the negative oscillation mode going it will be interesting to see what average DC current you measure.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 05:24:41 PM
@.99:
I think her computer must not be able to display images or something. Videos or spreadsheets either.
@Ainslie: try to use your conception of power and energy to explain my TinselKoil results. Just THINK about it for a moment, stop reacting.
How do you explain that I am drawing 3 or 4 amps at 120 VAC from the wall supply, yet I am making 30,000 VAC minimum at peak currents exceeding 10 amps, so hot it vaporizes COPPER and literally burns the very air gases in the plasma?
I have already told you this TK. I am not at ALL interested in anything that you claim about anything at all, LEAST of all related to this tinsecoil thing. I have NO idea what it is. And I have NO intention of finding out. It would BORE me - at BEST. And TK. My name is ROSEMARY or ROSIE or ROSIE POSE or ROSIE POSIE. My name is NOT Ainslie. I am NOT your 'pal' or your 'colleague' that you can be that familiar with my family. Persist if you must - but then you extend this quarrel of ours to a FAR, FAR, wider platform. I'm not sure that you're fully aware of its extent. And I seriously caution you that it takes your calumny to new levels of abuse together with a far wider circle that will clamour for your retraction. But suit yourself.
Rosie Pose
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 05:24:41 PM
I think her computer must not be able to display images or something. Videos or spreadsheets either.
Not actually TK. Our spreadsheet analyses are 500 000 data points long. I'm not sure you'd like me to post that here. And the images it displays are just fine. It is a given that I can't always see those images but that's because I'm somewhat visually challenged. But there's nothing that doesn't become apparent with the use of a good magnifying glass. MUCH NEEDED. 8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 05:24:41 PMtry to use your conception of power and energy to explain my TinselKoil results. Just THINK about it for a moment, stop reacting.
I've covered this point. It hardly bears mention.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 11:45:57 PM
@GL: Cool!
That looks like an actual low-inductance CVR. May I suggest something?
You are actually adding significant inductance with those long wires. These may be needed on the gate and drain for oscillations but they defeat the purpose of using a noninductive shunt. I'd suggest that you peel back the insulation on the leads right at the body and try clipping your current-monitoring scope probe or filtered DMM right up as close as possible to the body of the resistor. You can compare waveforms taken there, with waveforms taken with the longer wires you've shown now.
Good hunting !!
(I've also used little screw-type terminal blocks for mosfet sockets... they work really well because you can get good clamping pressure on the leads. That way you can reconfigure, swap mosfets, compare different types, without soldering, and you'll get just as good a connection as soldering if you clamp down tightly.)
Is that the super heavy duty military-grade 9volt battery clip? I've never seen one that ...er... sturdy looking before.
TK,
Since most of my testing is with DC, I doesn't worry much about inductance. Yes, the RSHUNT is a 0,25 Ohm 25 Watt
no-inductive resistor (or very low inductance) with a tolerance of 1%. I agree that measuring close to the pins of the resistor
is needed when oscillating the circuit.
The 9 volt battery clip is homemade from a drained and used Duracell 9 volt battery. I take out the top and use the
bottom as cover for the wires. Did use some hot glue to keep it together. :-)
GL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
PROVE IT. With references of course.
You want me to PROVE this? That you misrepresent and misquote my work? You do this with EVERY post where you do not reference its context or its date and thereby reserve the right to present statements OUT OF CONTEXT. And you do it every time you represent anything at all about your tar baby technology when you ALLEGE that it relates to our own circuit apparatus. It's technology is to ours what a toddlers best running performance is to an Olympic athlete's. LOL
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 03:33:20 PMYou cannot. Did I edit THIS, for example?
Now, if 1 watt = one Joule, and if 1 Joule = 1 watt per second...and the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE, THEN AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER, that means that you could substitute the Watt for the Joule in any equation, like this:
1 Watt = 1 Watt Per Second.
Got that, Polly?
Nothing wrong with that reference. '1 watt = 1 Joule and if 1 watt per second...?' WAIT A MINUTE. Have you left something out? Have you AGAIN attempted to misrepresent my quote? Golly. Who would have thought? Didn't you just mention that you NEVER represent me - from that data base of yours? :o 8) ??? ::)
That reference is OLD, INAPPROPRIATE and NOR is it WRONG. We've just covered ALL aspects of my argument and that would most certainly be the ONLY appropriate reference. Don't give me that 'I never misrepresent anything'... bit
Rosie Pose.
@All,
Here is my BIAS current test so far:
TEST OF BIAS CURRENT
Input Power Supply was adjusted to 24.00 Volt and measured to 24.00 Volt.
The BIAS power supply was measured to 13.74 Volt.
Simulating the function generator positive pulse:
With positive BIAS the current through the circuit was 1.74 Ampere.
The BIAS current measured through the moving Iron ampere meter was
barly visible on the 1 ampere scale. I estimate approx. 0,05 Ampere.
Digital multimeter did show 0,09 Ampere BIAS current.
Simulating the function generator negative pulse:
With negative BIAS the current through the circuit was 0.17 Ampere.
The BIAS current measured through the moving Iron ampere meter was
on the 1 ampere scale approx. 0,19 Ampere.
CONCLUSION
With a positive function generator pulse simulation the BIAS current
was very small, approx. 0,05 ampere at 13.74 Volt. Gives 0,687 Watt.
The input current was very high at 1.74 ampere at 24 Volt. Gives 41,76 Watt.
With a negative function generator pulse simulation the BIAS current
was a little higher, approx. 0,19 ampere at 13.74 Volt. Gives 2,6106 Watt.
The input current was very low at 0.17 ampere at 24 Volt. Gives 4,08 Watt.
With a negative function generator pulse simulation then the circuit did
oscillate at 1.050 MHz. And the AC oscillation o-scoped at the MOSFET drains was 96 Vpp.
GL.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 12, 2012, 01:40:57 PM
TK that wiki entry explains the resurgence of the word "synonymous" in her posts - but her reading is too shallow for her to understand why she's kippering herself quoting it.
Hello again sean. I see that you're the locum while picowatt's holidaying. It explains the paucity of your posting numbers.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Groundloop on May 12, 2012, 02:06:16 PM
Yes, I know. In the drawing the text states that I'm using Watt.
ADDED:
Shit, I forgot the "PER" in my drawing, well here is the PER used in a different setup. :-)
GL.
Hello Groundloop. Interesting post and really interesting drawing that followed. I take it that this is with reference to this?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:43:18 PM
Yep. That and her lack of understanding of the technical use of the word "PER". The woman has no algebra.
Golly. 'With friends like this who needs enemies?'... as the saying goes. And TK my knowledge of algebra is CLEARLY greater than yours. You're still trying to argue that a small representative sample of voltages in a switch cycle can be representative of watts. You are STILL PROFOUNDLY WRONG.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 12:56:16 AM
Hello Groundloop. Interesting post and really interesting drawing that followed. I take it that this is with reference to this?
Golly. 'With friends like this who needs enemies?'... as the saying goes. And TK my knowledge of algebra is CLEARLY greater than yours. You're still trying to argue that a small representative sample of voltages in a switch cycle can be representative of watts. You are STILL PROFOUNDLY WRONG.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
Trying to be funny about my misunderstanding of the "PER". :-)
(Not all people understand my dry humor.)
Any comments to my BIAS current testing?
GL.
QuoteYou're still trying to argue that a small representative sample of voltages in a switch cycle can be representative of watts. You are STILL PROFOUNDLY WRONG.
This is tedious nonsense. TK doesn't disagree with the point you are trying to get across. So please stop this right now.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
Do you know that RA has frequently accused me of faking things in my videos?
I laugh and laugh and laugh.
:P
It IS laughable. You do well to laugh there TK. And laugh and laugh and laugh - as you put it. It is my opinion that you are trying very hard to make fools of us all with your videos. They're a parody of science. And, indeed a parody of any kind of filming effort. In fact, it is my opinion that they're the most absurd piece of visual misrepresentation that has ever been managed by anyone at all on the entire internet with the added qualification that this is determined within the limited scope of my knowledge of all those videos. They are a priceless sample of 'how not do do things'. And yet they are hugely diverting - in every sense of the word.
Rosie Pose
Groundloop:
The bias current when the bias signal is high should be microamperes DC. You should do more investigation and double-check the current measurement with a digital multimeter.
MileHigh
@All,
Attached is my radio frequency interference measurement when the circuit oscillates.
My pick up antenna is a 1 meter distance from the circuit. As you can see, this circuit
is a very good radio transmitter. I do not dare to run it for a long time due to the RFI.
The frequency scan is from 0 to 10MHz.
GL.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 13, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Groundloop:
The bias current when the bias signal is high should be microamperes DC. You should do more investigation and double-check the current measurement with a digital multimeter.
MileHigh
MH,
The meter I'm using has a 1 ampere range and is a moving Iron Ampere meter.
But it gives a fairly accurate indication. I will check with a digital multimeter.
Added: My digital multimeter did show 0,09 Ampere BIAS current when testing in the positive function generator simulator mode.
This is in agreement with my moving iron ampere meter. I estimated 0,05 Ampere but did estimate wrong.
GL.
Quote from: ReFried on May 12, 2012, 10:33:44 PM
Dearest Rosemary,
I've been reading this TarBaby thread for what is now over 125 highly fascinating pages. Your travails with expert and highly credible correspondents has been, quite frankly, incredible.
I have never before seen on the internet such a prolonged yet decisive battle between uniquely equipped combatants. There has also been a great deal of high level discussion on precise scientific and technical points, yet I digress from my primary message .
All can see that TarBaby exists simply as a type of tribute to your unique claims and persistence. A tribute indeed and what follows in its wake is an indelible record and testimony of your contribution to a completely new form of science ...
At every turn you have evaded direct and valid questions related to your technology. Skillful maneuvering in the field.
You have successfully avoided any practical testing of your device as required for discussion. Brilliant tactical delay.
When your technical knowledge and credibility has been called into question on focus of pristine point you have misdirected and asserted an opposing viewpoint, without basis. Simply remarkable.
These are your primary virtues. Not to be overlooked, when faced with an overwhelming opponent to your views you have insulted and libeled in text book fashion. The nuclear option. This approach usually silences the weak willed who have no true right to proffer a valid argument or dissenting opinion.
You have in fact blazed a trail here in opposition to the accepted values of the Open Source community. Yours is a new and innovative protocol ...
As other prizes and accolades are now out of reach, we have decided that an important step be taken. On behalf of the Committee, myself and the extended TarBaby family we would like to present you with:
The La Mancha Prize
Credo and Quotation -
"And so, to sum it all up, I perceive everything I say as absolutely true, and deficient in nothing whatever, and paint it all in my mind exactly as I want it to be." Miguel de Cervantes - The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (Volume 1, Chapter 25, pg. 157)
Congratulations on your accomplishments which will never be forgotten.
In the service of science, ever sincerely,
ReFried
My dear ReFried, It is not that OFTEN that my talents are lauded. Certainly not on this forum. Or in fact on any forum. Or, in fact, anywhere at all ... come to think of it. :-[ I feel that my 'light' has been 'hidden under a bushel'... so to speak. But being a senior citizen - which I am - and being therefore both frail and mentally arthritic - I am only able to hobble along as best I can. Therefore - while I'm delighted that you applaud these poor efforts of mine - I'm afraid that my innate 'modesty' is such that I would rather not have these efforts equated to those of TK's. His genius is to AVER that he KNOWS EVERYTHING. I - on the other hand - accept that I am a mere mortal. He, like MileHigh, claims to know the 'real truth'. I am obliged to confess that I am NOT that omnipotent. He catapults science into dimensions that have NOTHING to do with the standard model. I am hobbled by that model with ALL its attendant requirements. TK can perform miracles of measurement without reference to TIME. I cannot. He can deduce measurements without making them and can draw conclusions without concluding them. He can show one thing and ALLEGE another and IMPLY yet another and INFER YET another. I simply CANNOT. My science - unfortunately - depends on measured results.
So. Any perceived similarity between us - is certainly NOT based on the fact. Which really means that I must also, sadly, but in the interests of the 'real truth', decline that award of yours and recommend that you pass it to TK - as the 'really truly' quixotic genius of the two of us.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 13, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
@All,
Attached is my radio frequency interference measurement when the circuit oscillates.
My pick up antenna is a 1 meter distance from the circuit. As you can see, this circuit
is a very good radio transmitter. I do not dare to run it for a long time due to the RFI.
GL.
Yes, I can easily pick Tar Baby up on my FM radio tuned to the low end of the frequency range. I think it might be interacting with the radio's IF stage. It sounds like a...well, a noise block or feedback squeal with modulation that depends on the FG setting.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 01:39:49 AM
My dear ReFried, (snip)I simply CANNOT. (snip)
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
There, Polly Parrot Ainslie, I have edited out the irrelevant and untrue material from your post, so that others don't waste their time on you.
Did you edit out this part? TK? Didn't you earlier state that you NEVER misrepresent my work? Are you again CONTRADICTING yourself? And WHY would you decline to acknowledge this extraordinary level of tribute I've paid you? I am FLABBERGASTED.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 01:39:49 AM
My dear ReFried, It is not that OFTEN that my talents are lauded. Certainly not on this forum. Or in fact on any forum. Or, in fact, anywhere at all ... come to think of it. :-[ I feel that my 'light' has been 'hidden under a bushel'... so to speak. But being a senior citizen - which I am - and being therefore both frail and mentally arthritic - I am only able to hobble along as best I can. Therefore - while I'm delighted that you applaud these poor efforts of mine - I'm afraid that my innate 'modesty' is such that I would rather not have these efforts equated to those of TK's. His genius is to AVER that he KNOWS EVERYTHING. I - on the other hand - accept that I am a mere mortal. He, like MileHigh, claims to know the 'real truth'. I am obliged to confess that I am NOT that omnipotent. He catapults science into dimensions that have NOTHING to do with the standard model. I am hobbled by that model with ALL its attendant requirements. TK can perform miracles of measurement without reference to TIME. I cannot. He can deduce measurements without making them and can draw conclusions without concluding them. He can show one thing and ALLEGE another and IMPLY yet another and INFER YET another. I simply CANNOT. My science - unfortunately - depends on measured results.
So. Any perceived similarity between us - is certainly NOT based on the fact. Which really means that I must also, sadly, but in the interests of the 'real truth', decline that award of yours and recommend that you pass it to TK - as the 'really truly' quixotic genius of the two of us.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
Rosemary,
Do you have any comments or thoughts to my bias current test on page 127 post 1899?
GL.
No, Polly Spammer Parrot.
I just quote you, mostly. But sometimes you do chatter on, don't you.
QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse. Somehow?
I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba. They're getting too tedious. And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.
Rosemary
QuoteLet's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms. The source voltage is 220 volts. The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you. While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Quote
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 12:03:05 AM
QuotePW says: "...will be dissipated in the 50R and to a lesser degree in the left side body diode and in the right side drain to source resistance. "
Right side drain? Source resistance? What are you talking about? If you mean the drain or source legs of Q1 or Q2 then say it. If you are referring to the drain or source rail of the battery then say it. This entire phrase is entirely undefined. It is the simple 'rule' of science that terms must be defined and clearly expressed. Anything less and we're NOT talking science.
QuoteThere is no way the scope can be used improperly. A setting is a setting.
QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours. Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this. It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours. Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
QuoteJust had a diagnosis. 2 of the MOSFETs blown. Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation. Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required. I'll let you know. They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279934/#msg279934
See what happens when I quote you in full? I should think that you would be happy that I don't, since the more I do, the stupider you look.
I am really interested to know what Ainslie thinks about this video, that she keeps trying to bury.
Especially since it directly refutes another of her inanities.
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
But please answer Groundloop's question first, if you would be so "kind".
Quote from: Groundloop on May 13, 2012, 02:30:42 AM
Do you have any comments or thoughts to my bias current test on page 127 post 1899?
GL.
Not actually Groundloop. I've yet to fully understand the purpose of your tests. Isn't that 50 Ohm resistor in series with the INPUT rail as you term it - from the function generator's probe? And not it's terminal? So it would be on the labeled INPUT rail and not the OUTPUT? I HAVE attached the schematic. Getting quite good at this. :) Sorry if those are the wrong terms but that's how MileHigh advised it should be referenced. And I'm not sure that it even makes much difference. But I'd need to know. And where are you taking the amp reading measurements? In series with the negative rail of the battery supply? Or in series with either the INPUT or OUTPUT as you put it. I just don't know.
THEN. I take it that you're using that same inductive resistor that you used in your tests on our COP>17 replication. Did you ever manage to get that distinctive oscillation? I seem to recall that IF you did - you reported on a zero evidence of any energy efficiencies. Either that or you didn't get that distinctive oscillation? I can't quite remember. Well. We know now that IF you use an element resistor that we're now using - then - surprisingly - there's very little evidence of RF. I know this because IF I turn on my radio when our NERD circuit is running - there's not much evident static. But when I turned on the radio with the use of our COP>17 wire wound number - there was CERTAINLY evidence of RF. Lots of it. Which means that I'm still stuck on the relevance of this test of yours. Because they effect the oscillation in entirely different ways. We account for this by the added mass related to the element resistor that is NOT available from that earlier wire wound number.
THEN. Is that circuit oscillating? I take it that it is. In which case can you show us that oscillation? Perhaps a scope shot across the CSR?
THEN. Finally, I'm not sure about that ammeter of yours. Is an IRON ammeter the same as an analogue meter? I'll down load a picture of one - IF I can manage it. In which case it will be out by up to and even greater than 30%. We know this because we've actually applied both this and variations of the analogue number - including clamp probes directly over the wire. They are really useful little meters apparently. But they have a major drawback. They simply don't measure accurately at high frequencies. So. If there is that typical oscillation and IF it is oscillating within it's usual frequency range - then that current reading may very well NOT be correct. But that again depends on where that ammeter is positioned. Is it on either the probe or terminal rail directly. Or is it on the negative rail of the battery supply? If the former it MAY be correct. But I'm not sure because the 'bias' current is also effected by that oscillation to a certain extent. But I'm not sure of the frequency of your signal. And IF the latter then it will most certainly NOT be correct. Not as a reflection of the amount of current that is flowing between the output and input of those probes.
I'm a plodder Groundloop. And unless these things are clearly specified then I simply CAN'T comment. But I don't mind 'assuming' if that's what I'm meant to do.
Rosie Pose
I've downloaded FIRST your schematic and THEN the ammeter... I hope.
Hello again TK -
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2012, 02:30:43 AM
No, Polly Spammer Parrot.
I just quote you, mostly...
See what happens when I quote you in full? I should think that you would be happy that I don't, since the more I do, the stupider you look.
I ALWAYS know that I've hit that HOME RUN - as I've mentioned before. It's when you fill a page with utterly irrelevant statements of mine without any reference to DATES and thereby taken ENTIRELY out of context. It's diverting. I've also mentioned THAT before now. But I do understand the need. Without this our readers may be engaged by the occasional post I manage to squeeze in between yours and your team of vigilantes.
Ever rosy
And as for this? I am under NO obligation to answer any question that you put to me. EVER. If you want co-operation TK - then apologise PROFUSELY for your legal transgressions. And then follow this up with an attitude of professional respect. LOL. Then I'll give you LOT's of attention.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2012, 02:35:20 AM
I am really interested to know what Ainslie thinks about this video, that she keeps trying to bury.
Especially since it directly refutes another of her inanities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
But please answer Groundloop's question first, if you would be so "kind".
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 03:32:16 AM
Not actually Groundloop. I've yet to fully understand the purpose of your tests. Isn't that 50 Ohm resistor in series with the INPUT rail as you term it - from the function generator's probe? And not it's terminal? So it would be on the labeled INPUT rail and not the OUTPUT? I HAVE attached the schematic. Getting quite good at this. :) Sorry if those are the wrong terms but that's how MileHigh advised it should be referenced. And I'm not sure that it even makes much difference. But I'd need to know. And where are you taking the amp reading measurements? In series with the negative rail of the battery supply? Or in series with either the INPUT or OUTPUT as you put it. I just don't know.
THEN. I take it that you're using that same inductive resistor that you used in your tests on our COP>17 replication. Did you ever manage to get that distinctive oscillation? I seem to recall that IF you did - you reported on a zero evidence of any energy efficiencies. Either that or you didn't get that distinctive oscillation? I can't quite remember. Well. We know now that IF you use an element resistor that we're now using - then - surprisingly - there's very little evidence of RF. I know this because IF I turn on my radio when our NERD circuit is running - there's not much evident static. But when I turned on the radio with the use of our COP>17 wire wound number - there was CERTAINLY evidence of RF. Lots of it. Which means that I'm still stuck on the relevance of this test of yours. Because they effect the oscillation in entirely different ways. We account for this by the added mass related to the element resistor that is NOT available from that earlier wire wound number.
THEN. Is that circuit oscillating? I take it that it is. In which case can you show us that oscillation? Perhaps a scope shot across the CSR?
THEN. Finally, I'm not sure about that ammeter of yours. Is an IRON ammeter the same as an analogue meter? I'll down load a picture of one - IF I can manage it. In which case it will be out by up to and even greater than 30%. We know this because we've actually applied both this and variations of the analogue number - including clamp probes directly over the wire. They are really useful little meters apparently. But they have a major drawback. They simply don't measure accurately at high frequencies. So. If there is that typical oscillation and IF it is oscillating within it's usual frequency range - then that current reading may very well NOT be correct. But that again depends on where that ammeter is positioned. Is it on either the probe or terminal rail directly. Or is it on the negative rail of the battery supply? If the former it MAY be correct. But I'm not sure because the 'bias' current is also effected by that oscillation to a certain extent. But I'm not sure of the frequency of your signal. And IF the latter then it will most certainly NOT be correct. Not as a reflection of the amount of current that is flowing between the output and input of those probes.
I'm a plodder Groundloop. And unless these things are clearly specified then I simply CAN'T comment. But I don't mind 'assuming' if that's what I'm meant to do.
Rosie Pose
I've downloaded FIRST your schematic and THEN the ammeter... I hope.
Rosemary,
The purpose of this test was to find out how much current the bias input will provide to the circuit during the
DC (no oscillation) phase and the AC (oscillation) phase. In earlier posts I have theoretical predicted that
the bias input will provide some power to the circuit and this test confirm this.
Yes, that is a 50 Ohm series resistor at the bias input and my Ampere meter is in series with that resistor.
I did use a fixed power supply to simulate the function generator so that resistor was needed. So this was
a simulation of what a function generator will do if connected to the circuit.
The Ampere meter used to measure the bias current is fairly accurate. This Ampere meter has a moving
iron connected to the needle to show current. Cheap Ampere meter usually have a moving coil instead.
I also did cross check the bias current with my digital Ampere meter so the values reported is a good
indication of the bias power into the circuit.
Yes, I'm using the same 10 Ohm wire wound resistor that I did use before. The RFI measurement I did
came from a frequency scanner that have a calibrated dBm scale. This scale is fairly accurate when the
pick up antenna is 1 meter away from the circuit. This measurement was to show that the circuit did
put out RFI. The level of radio waves energy was upwards to -30dBm so it can be compared with
the levels that a small transmitter (garage port opener) is putting out. So it is not bad. Just and indication
that the oscillation is there. The circuit IS oscillating when the bias is negative. (Just like the negative pulse
of the function generator.) I have used my o-scope also to see the oscillation and did report that in my test report.
I have not begun to take many o-scope shots yet because it is not needed in this test other than confirming that
the oscillation did run when simulating the negative function generator pulse.
I do not know what a "plodder" is, but I assume you mean that you need to get things explained very detailed?
GL.
We, the guys, would like to make it clear to everyone that we do not support Rosemary's claim or work in any way whatsoever and we dislike the way she often uses the term guys when making her posts.
As most people are aware, Rosemary has no support anywhere. No one ever supports her claims anymore.
So, stop using the term guys to refer to your audience.
Groundloop:
There is still a problem somewhere, perhaps one of the MOSFETs is damaged? The maximum gate-to-source leakage current for Q2 is 100 nanoamperes. It's possible that Q1 has a drain-to-source leakage current problem. The leakage current should be less than 500 microamperes. Have you checked the direction of the current flow you are measuring? You need to measure the bias leakage current for each MOSFET separately to understand what is going on.
When you play with a circuit and you make a measurement that is way off you want to investigate in more detail. There is clearly a problem somewhere for the positive bias input mode.
MileHigh
Quote from: The guys on May 13, 2012, 07:59:00 AM
We, the guys, would like to make it clear to everyone that we do not support Rosemary's claim or work in any way whatsoever and we dislike the way she often uses the term guys when making her posts.
As most people are aware, Rosemary has no support anywhere. No one ever supports her claims anymore.
So, stop using the term guys to refer to your audience.
Hello The. That's an unusual name you've chosen. Or is your name 'guys'? Equally unusual. But don't please confuse my use of this term with you, or anything associated with you - for that matter. I am only speaking directly to the 'men' who either read here or are members of this forum. And it is in that 'not feminine' sense of the word that I use that term - or better put - term of address. It's a preference of mine. I've always found men to be reasonable, fair, courteous, kindly, upright - really excellent people. I'm rather fond of them. Definitely, in my view, the 'better' half of the two genders. So. it's an unfortunate truth that there are so few such who post on TK's thread. In fact I can barely count them on one hand. Actually I can barely even count them of four fingers. But math has never been my strong point.
And you're right. I do NOT apparently have that much support from the contributors to this thread. Thank you God. I suspect that they don't like to engage with all you women. Which is MORE than understandable. The more so when you lot are all so excessively petty. Men somehow rise above all that. Actually so do most women. You lot are a rare breed of animal. And I most certainly have support. Lots of it. Again. Thank you God.
Ever rosy
Rosie Pose
:-*
Rosemary:
QuoteAnd as for this? I am under NO obligation to answer any question that you put to me. EVER. If you want co-operation TK - then apologise PROFUSELY for your legal transgressions. And then follow this up with an attitude of professional respect. LOL. Then I'll give you LOT's of attention.
You are so full of shit. You are fully engaged and "defending" your proposition but when an experiment is done that clearly shows that current can flow right through the signal and ground connections of the function generator output, then you play your morally bankrupt "I am under no obligation" card. I will remind you again that that is exactly what was happening with your setup when you did your testing last year. I will also remind you that you and the entire NERD team were unaware that this was happening. Talk about hapless blind ignorance. The La Mancha Prize indeed.
Meanwhile, the whole energy/power/joules/watts debate shows just how skewed your understanding is and how belligerent you can be. We will have to try to work around your "word salad" descriptions of these terms in an effort to get you to do your dim bulb testing.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 13, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
Groundloop:
There is still a problem somewhere, perhaps one of the MOSFETs is damaged? The maximum gate-to-source leakage current for Q2 is 100 nanoamperes. It's possible that Q1 has a drain-to-source leakage current problem. The leakage current should be less than 500 microamperes. Have you checked the direction of the current flow you are measuring? You need to measure the bias leakage current for each MOSFET separately to understand what is going on.
When you play with a circuit and you make a measurement that is way off you want to investigate in more detail. There is clearly a problem somewhere for the positive bias input mode.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
No, there is not any problem. Both my MOSFETS is brand new and OK.
I'm measuring a bias current to be 0,09 Ampere at 13,75 Volt when simulating the FG positive pulse.
The input voltage was 24 Volt current was 1,74 ampere. I use a 10 Ohm RLOAD. My Rds(on) is 1,6 Ohm. My RSHUNT is 0,25 Ohm.
I have not checked the direction of the current flow I'm measuring. I have no more time today to test.
GL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 11:46:07 PM
Hi Poynty. I've answered you in my edited post. But just as a guide. Watts are determined OVER time - where WORK is determined as a PRODUCT of time.
We've already discussed this. Wiki therefore 'errors' - certainly on this point.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
Wiki is in agreement with the highly-esteemed "Hyperphysics" website as to what the "W" represents in that equation:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pow.html
Groundloop
Quote from: Groundloop on May 13, 2012, 12:49:07 AM
@All,
Here is my BIAS current test so far:
TEST OF BIAS CURRENT
Input Power Supply was adjusted to 24.00 Volt and measured to 24.00 Volt.
The BIAS power supply was measured to 13.74 Volt.
Simulating the function generator positive pulse:
With positive BIAS the current through the circuit was 1.74 Ampere.
The BIAS current measured through the moving Iron ampere meter was
barly visible on the 1 ampere scale. I estimate approx. 0,05 Ampere.
Digital multimeter did show 0,09 Ampere BIAS current.
Simulating the function generator negative pulse:
With negative BIAS the current through the circuit was 0.17 Ampere.
The BIAS current measured through the moving Iron ampere meter was
on the 1 ampere scale approx. 0,19 Ampere.
CONCLUSION
With a positive function generator pulse simulation the BIAS current
was very small, approx. 0,05 ampere at 13.74 Volt. Gives 0,687 Watt.
The input current was very high at 1.74 ampere at 24 Volt. Gives 41,76 Watt.
With a negative function generator pulse simulation the BIAS current
was a little higher, approx. 0,19 ampere at 13.74 Volt. Gives 2,6106 Watt.
The input current was very low at 0.17 ampere at 24 Volt. Gives 4,08 Watt.
With a negative function generator pulse simulation then the circuit did
oscillate at 1.050 MHz. And the AC oscillation o-scoped at the MOSFET drains was 96 Vpp.
GL.
I'm not entirely sure where all this is leading Groundloop - but with the caveat that your amps are a correct reading - then frankly - I'd support any of your findings. But that's only because I'm entirely satisfied that you're skills related to switched circuits are unparalleled.
By the way - my confusions were related to your Q1 Q2 references. But since we ourselves initially misrepresented this - then your own representation is more than justified. And I'm still not sure where your current reading was taken. But I'm assuming directly on the bias INPUT.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 03:46:26 AM
And as for this? I am under NO obligation to answer any question that you put to me. EVER. If you want co-operation TK - then apologise PROFUSELY for your legal transgressions. And then follow this up with an attitude of professional respect. LOL. Then I'll give you LOT's (sic) of attention.
Rosie Posie
You are indeed under an obligation whether you acknowledge it or not. Open source research, remember? Overunity prize.. oh that's right you've withdrawn your prize claims and in fact ALL your claims, haven't you. So.. .what are you even doing here?
You are actively trying to suppress and censor ME.
And I have actually requested that YOU
NOT BE BANNED from this site, because I WANT YOU TO TEST YOUR CLAIMS.
However you have a mission, it appears, to suppress the real truth about you and your claims and your inane statements.
Whether or not I put the "date" on my quotations does not change the fact that they are YOUR OWN WORDS and if they contain errors, which they all do, the errors are YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT. And if I should uncover your lies and contradictions and post those references without dates, anyone can still find them.
Anyone who cares can find the original posts very easily, if you haven't tossed them down the Memory Hole.
Observe.
Get the picture? You can't bury anything if you EVER put it on the internet.
Rosemary,
The following is a very good 3 minute explanation of Work, Power, and Energy, and it affirms the fact that "W" represents "Work" in that PAVG equation:
http://youtu.be/pDK2p1QbPKQ (http://youtu.be/pDK2p1QbPKQ)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 01:06:41 AM
It IS laughable. You do well to laugh there TK. And laugh and laugh and laugh - as you put it. It is my opinion that you are trying very hard to make fools of us all with your videos. They're a parody of science. And, indeed a parody of any kind of filming effort. In fact, it is my opinion that they're the most absurd piece of visual misrepresentation that has ever been managed by anyone at all on the entire internet with the added qualification that this is determined within the limited scope of my knowledge of all those videos. They are a priceless sample of 'how not do do things'. And yet they are hugely diverting - in every sense of the word.
Rosie Pose
No, Polly Parrot. You are the only one being made a fool of by my videos. Just you. Because most of my videos lately have been direct, repeatable by anyone, comprehensive and irrefutable REFUTATIONS of claims that you have made, like the various inanities you spew about function generators. However, you yourself are unqualified to evaluate my videos... because you haven't even watched most of them and apparently you don't have the attention span or the prerequisite knowledge to follow them, even though I have lowered the pitch level from 10th grade to 8th grade, since you have no algebra at all.
By the way.... what is the function generator you used in the experiments described in the papers?
@Groundloop:
Good work, especially the confirmation of the RF radiation. Tar Baby of course howls in RF.
But Ainslie claims none.... we shall see, if she ever allows real testing.
The data sheet I have for the IRFPG50 says the Rdss is 2.0 Ohms, but that is using a 10 volt gate drive. How do you account for your 1.6 Ohm measurement here? Is it due to the 12 volt gate drive?
I also have questions about the bias current measured during the "on" or gate HI signal. Theoretically it should be quite low. I don't remember if I've checked that on Tar Baby or not. But... I will do so as soon as I'm able to, later today.
Data sheet attached.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 13, 2012, 09:44:18 AM
Rosemary,
Wiki is in agreement with the highly-esteemed "Hyperphysics" website as to what the "W" represents in that equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pow.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pow.html)
You don't seriously think that Ainslie will be able to understand something that has TRIG FUNCTIONS in it do you?
COS? I don't have any cousins. What's that funny circle thing? Why can't you use standard terminology or at least define your terms? That post has nothing to do with SCIENCE. I'm just an old blind woman, don't bully me. Golly.
(Isn't it interesting? A lot of those references that show Ainslie is wrong, also just toss around the use of the word "PER" as if people actually mean DIVISION by it. Of course... Ainslie has told us that "PER never means divide". So therefore all those websites and references and graphics are wrong. All of them, because "PER NEVER MEANS DIVIDE".)
That's an excellent little video you linked, .99. Very clear and concise, a good speaker, and I like the production values.
I see that there are lots of other videos on the same topics, and all of them I've looked at are in broad agreement.... with NOT_Ainslie.
(NOT_Ainslie is of course the logical inverse of an Ainslie). Many of them involve complicated math like multiplication and.... horrors... division. Some, like that graphic you posted above, even have trig in them, whatever that is.
One of the better ones is made by a group of children. They must be early teens at most. And they get it right, right down the line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9R8UEXKYqA&feature=related
I wonder what Jessica would say to Ainslie.
At this point, I'd suggest that the onus is on Rosemary to find a reference that supports her contention that W when used in that specific equation represents Watts (power) and not Work (energy)
I would think that a link to a credible website, an image of a page of a textbook with the ISBN, or an Amazon preview, or a public domain PDF would do it.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 13, 2012, 11:23:39 AM
At this point, I'd suggest that the onus is on Rosemary to find a reference that supports her contention that W when used in that specific equation represents Watts (power) and not Work (energy)
I would think that a link to a credible website, an image of a page of a textbook with the ISBN, or an Amazon preview, or a public domain PDF would do it.
She's been challenged like this many many times before and has NEVER managed to do it. And of course she won't do it now, because she cannot. She can't even come up with somebody who is willing to make an anonymous forum post on the internet who will support her contentions. She can and does link to things that she re-interprets, like the Wiki equation, but they also refute her, whether she believes it or not.
Even her pet troll Wontbesober can't defend her arguments any more, because even if he doesn't have opposable thumbs, he's still smarter than your average rock.
From the posting on Rosemary's blog at
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/265-sample-of-typical-posting-at.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/265-sample-of-typical-posting-at.html)
Here's a small fragment of her summary of complaints directed at this post:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316571/#msg316571 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316571/#msg316571)
these read, in part, that TK:
. Asks her to believe that PER signifies ‘division’
. When it actually represents a base unit of measurement
. That can be used in any mathematical context required
. Including addition, subtraction and multiplication
old news to most following I'm sure, but this I've only just twigged that not only does this render the descriptions and calculations of her own tests ambiguous at best, it would also fatally compromise her previous interpretation of almost any other calculation involving a ratio in one way or another.
Now increasingly convinced she may be a decent Turing test entry.
Ainlsie speaks a language that sounds and looks a lot like English.
It even uses a lot of the same words, and has almost the same grammar as the English we all, more or less, speak and understand on this thread, even if it isn't our first language for some of us.
Texan, which is a rather strange dialect of English, uses words like "y'all" and "ice house" and "per" and "for" and "power" and "energy" and "Joule" and "Watt" in what I nevertheless thought was well-understood and proper, if slightly accented, sentences that have definite meanings. And if one has a Texan dictionary, one can see that these meanings don't change with the wind direction or the d(troll)/dt rate.
And mathematics, which is supposed to be some kind of "universal scientific language", appears not to have penetrated as far as South Africa yet. Here in Texas, by the time a child exits from the eighth grade and is about to matriculate at high school, she already has some competency in basic algebra and understands the subtopic "ratio and proportion" very well, or she will not be able to join her cohort in their freshman geometry and pre-calculus classes.
But I've never been to South Africa. Things must be really different there. Are there any aeroplane manufacturers building airliners in South Africa? I think I'd rather just walk.
A Turing Test entry? Hah. She's human, I am one hundred and ten percent (sic) positive. No machine could possibly have that large a vocabulary of words and yet be so very ignorant at the same time.
Not unless.... a lot of its mosfets are blown.
I've been looking at some of the graphics I've put up and which Ainslie has buried or ignored.
Ainslie continues to accuse me of somehow "ignoring" inductance in my calculations, not presenting data, not even DOING calculations based on data, having insufficient sample counts, and all the rest of her clear "calumnies and traducements".... that are really just plain simple lies.
I did in fact compute the mean power values for Tar Baby at its oscillation frequency and I compared the power curve data using several different values for the CVR's AC reactance and total impedance. And of course since that value occurs in the math as a SCALING VALUE, it has no effect on the shape of the instantaneous power curve or its zero-crossings... only in the computed amplitudes.
Here's a graphic I posted some weeks back, a screengrab from the spreadsheet that she can't find, showing the result from using the two most extreme values I calculated with: the simple uncorrected DC resistance of 0.25 Ohms, and an extreme AC total impedance of 16 Ohms.
Note that the shape of the graph is identical in both cases, and the Negative Mean Power Product also survives, albeit in a rather debilitated state. But it remains negative. How could it be otherwise, considering how it is obtained?
Therefore, I conclude that the precise impedance of the "shunt", as long as it is low, will not affect the SIGN of the mean power product obtained by the Ainslie method.
In the spreadsheet, which has been posted here several times, I show _all_ the raw data samples I used to get this product. They are taken from a scopeshot on my analog scope: the shot is in the spreadsheet and all the data points are marked on it, so ANYONE can check to see if I did it right or not, and without wading through a half a million meaningless and unverifiable samples to do it.
Or tell me IF INCREASING THE SAMPLE COUNT COULD ALTER THE RESULT.
Anyone who can find and open the spreadsheet, that is.
When I posted it I asked to be notified if anyone caught an error, SO I COULD CORRECT IT (sorry to shout, it's a long way to SA). Nobody has pointed out anything wrong yet; maybe Ainslie buried it so successfully under Ainslie-piles that nobody noticed it.
(I have calculated Tar Baby's CVR total AC impedance at its oscillation frequency to be about 1.62 Ohms, but I am willing to be corrected by anyone who can show a more accurate calculation and support it logically.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2012, 10:42:29 AM
@Groundloop:
Good work, especially the confirmation of the RF radiation. Tar Baby of course howls in RF.
But Ainslie claims none.... we shall see, if she ever allows real testing.
The data sheet I have for the IRFPG50 says the Rdss is 2.0 Ohms, but that is using a 10 volt gate drive. How do you account for your 1.6 Ohm measurement here? Is it due to the 12 volt gate drive?
I also have questions about the bias current measured during the "on" or gate HI signal. Theoretically it should be quite low. I don't remember if I've checked that on Tar Baby or not. But... I will do so as soon as I'm able to, later today.
Data sheet attached.
TK,
I have the F and you have the G. :-)
GL.
TK,
I did measure 0,09 Ampere BIAS current @ 13,75 Volt when the circuit was in DC mode (not oscillating).
MileHigh did say that this was too high. What can the reason be for that relative high current? The DC input
voltage to my circuit was 24 Volt. I did calculate that in order to get that current the BIAS voltage input must
"see" a resistance of 91 Ohm.
ADDED: Drawing of the DC mode.
Does this mean that the internal diode in Q1 has a resistance of approx. 40 Ohm?
ADDED: I have solved why the bias current is 0,09 Ampere.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 13, 2012, 03:32:59 PM
TK,
I have the F and you have the G. :-)
GL.
Hi all,
Some strange things here from
"Vishay" Siliconix on the n-channel mosfet .....
It appears we have two (2) PDF's with different manufacturing electrical data.
( 900 volt, 1.6 ohm, 6.7 amp ) IRFPF50.pdf
( 1000 volt, 2.0 ohm, 6.1 amp ) IRFPG50_91254.pdf
The
"International Rectifier" n-channel mosfet .....
( 1000 volt, 2.0 ohm, 6.1 amp ) irfpg50.pdf
NICE ....... ???
FTC
;)
Quote from: Groundloop on May 13, 2012, 03:48:29 PM
TK,
I did measure 0,09 Ampere BIAS current @ 13,75 Volt when the circuit was in DC mode (not oscillating).
MileHigh did say that this was too high. What can the reason be for that relative high current? The DC input
voltage to my circuit was 24 Volt. I did calculate that in order to get that current the BIAS voltage input must
"see" a resistance of 91 Ohm.
GL.
Thanks for the PF50 data sheet. I didn't realize there was such a thing.
But Ainslie is still using PG50s? It doesn't really matter I guess, because I've already confirmed that it works even with IRF830as -- much cheaper, lower Rdss -- and makes a fine negative power product with them too. And she herself has said that the type of mosfet doesn't matter.... and yet she found time to criticise me when I wasn't using them.
I don't know what the explanation is for the high bias draw during the gate HI signal but as you can see from my videos Tar Baby experiences this too (the loading is happening on both the HI and LO portions of the FG signal, just not as much on the HI part.)
Perhaps it is due to the Zener body diodes. I haven't had time to look at the issue in detail yet.
Right now I'm out in the backyard observing this massive sunspot that seems to be ready to emit a flare. It's the biggest most complex sunspot I've ever seen and it even looks like there is some vorticity to it. I'm trying to get a photo, and attempting to perfect my solar photo technique for the upcoming Transit of Venus in early June.
GL, I'm not quite following that last diagram. In the mosfet, the zener diode is between the drain and the source, and as far as I can tell the gate drive input shouldn't be passing any measurable DC current at all to the rest of the circuit. It's as if there's a small capacitor (the gate capacitance) just after your 50R in the +13 volt gate voltage input. When that cap is full the DC stops flowing, and the mosfet turns on from the electric field ( field effect transistor ) in the cap. Only AC should be able to pass power across this cap to the rest of the circuit.
But I'm still trying to figure out the role of the _other_ mosfet's Zener in all of this.
What happens if you pull out the Q2 mosfet and repeat the Q1 bias current test?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2012, 05:12:51 PM
GL, I'm not quite following that last diagram. In the mosfet, the zener diode is between the drain and the source, and as far as I can tell the gate drive input shouldn't be passing any measurable DC current at all to the rest of the circuit. It's as if there's a small capacitor (the gate capacitance) just after your 50R in the +13 volt gate voltage input. When that cap is full the DC stops flowing, and the mosfet turns on from the electric field ( field effect transistor ) in the cap. Only AC should be able to pass power across this cap to the rest of the circuit.
But I'm still trying to figure out the role of the _other_ mosfet's Zener in all of this.
What happens if you pull out the Q2 mosfet and repeat the Q1 bias current test?
TK,
Hard to see yes. There is a current path through the Q1 internal diode. (I referring to my circuit drawing Q1).
My Q2 is fully on conducting current. So the drawing represent what is happening. If I pull Q2 then the 1,6 Ohm
RdsOn will disappear and the bias current must go another route. Have not theoretical looked at that yet.
I do not have the test rig up and running right now so I can't test this. I think I see a paradox in the posted
drawing. The 24VDC is "seeing" a RdsOn of 1,6 Ohm, but the 13,75VDC bias current is "seeing" a RdsOn
of 30,39 Ohm at the same time. Is that even possible?
GL.
You can do a quick and dirty mosfet test using a DMM with a diode forward voltage check function.
Use a bit of wire to short all the mosfet pins together briefly. Set the meter to the diode fwd voltage function (diode check), then touch ONLY the pins in the following order.
Touch the positive lead from the DMM to the mosfet Source pin and the Negative lead to the mosfet drain. You should read the fwd voltage drop of the Zener, around 0.5 volts. If you read OPEN or SHORT the mosfet is bad.
Now reverse the DMM leads touching the positive to the Drain and the negative to the Source. The mosfet should read OPEN, very very high resistance, on my Fluke 83 this is ".OL". If it reads SHORT or a very low voltage drop the mosfet is _probably_ bad.
-- IF and only if it reads SHORT or a low drop on this part of the test, leave the Positive DMM lead on the Drain and touch the negative DMM lead to the GATE pin briefly. Then go back to the Source with the DMM lead. If it still reads SHORT the mosfet is bad.
Now, leaving the NEGATIVE lead of the DMM on the source pin, briefly touch the POSITIVE lead of the DMM to the GATE, then go QUICKLY back to the Drain. The DMM should read a low voltage drop, my PG50s read 0.002 volts here (but it will increase fast as the gate charge leaks away). If it reads OPEN or a consistent high voltage drop, the mosfet is probably bad.
Now set your DMM to the resistance measurement range and look from the Gate to the other pins, using both polarities.
There should NEVER be continuity or anything except "infinite" resistance between the gate and either other pin when measured by the DMM in this way. If the gate-to-drain or gate-to-source resistance is anything other than OPEN, the mosfet is bad.
OPEN of course means open circuit, the opposite of SHORT circuit.
This is probably old news, but it's Sunday, a slow news day.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2012, 05:36:24 PM
You can do a quick and dirty mosfet test using a DMM with a diode forward voltage check function.
Use a bit of wire to short all the mosfet pins together briefly. Set the meter to the diode fwd voltage function (diode check), then touch ONLY the pins in the following order.
Touch the positive lead from the DMM to the mosfet Source pin and the Negative lead to the mosfet drain. You should read the fwd voltage drop of the Zener, around 0.5 volts. If you read OPEN or SHORT the mosfet is bad.
Now reverse the DMM leads touching the positive to the Drain and the negative to the Source. The mosfet should read OPEN, very very high resistance, on my Fluke 83 this is ".OL". If it reads SHORT or a very low voltage drop the mosfet is _probably_ bad.
-- IF and only if it reads SHORT or a low drop on this part of the test, leave the Positive DMM lead on the Drain and touch the negative DMM lead to the GATE pin briefly. Then go back to the Source with the DMM lead. If it still reads SHORT the mosfet is bad.
Now, leaving the NEGATIVE lead of the DMM on the source pin, briefly touch the POSITIVE lead of the DMM to the GATE, then go QUICKLY back to the Drain. The DMM should read a low voltage drop, my PG50s read 0.002 volts here (but it will increase fast as the gate charge leaks away). If it reads OPEN or a consistent high voltage drop, the mosfet is probably bad.
Now set your DMM to the resistance measurement range and look from the Gate to the other pins, using both polarities.
There should NEVER be continuity or anything except "infinite" resistance between the gate and either other pin when measured by the DMM in this way. If the gate-to-drain or gate-to-source resistance is anything other than OPEN, the mosfet is bad.
OPEN of course means open circuit, the opposite of SHORT circuit.
This is probably old news, but it's Sunday, a slow news day.
TK,
My MOSFET transistors are brand new. I did put two new ones in the circuit before testing the bias current.
The circuit operates in accordance with my theoretical calculations. I also did test the MOSFET with
my Ohm meter. Looks OK to me. When you have the time could you check what bias current you get
for your setup when the circuit is in DC mode?
GL.
@GL: I sure will. Probably have to wait until after dark, though !
ETA: I see one source of my confusion. In the schematics I have been using, a Positive signal from the FG's Positive output goes to the Gate of Q1, not Q2. Most of the discussion in the thread to this point has been assuming this schematic, I think. But in your schematic the positive signal goes to the gate of your Q2. Hmm.
No matter, all I have to do is flip the designations in my head when I look at your diagrams, I think. But it might be helpful if we could standardise things.
The Ainslie diagram with the designations I have been using is below. A positive gate signal emitted by the FG positive terminal goes to Q1 gate and Q2 sources. I think in your diagram a positive signal goes to Q2 gate and Q1 source.
I am getting very confused. This looks like the "negative bias mode" but with the Q2 fully on instead of oscillating.
Ah.. I think this now. To properly simulate the DC "negative bias mode" that I've been exploring lately.. that makes oscillations and uses a strict negative bias current.... the "shunt" resistor should be connected to the negative side of the battery on one side and to the POSITIVE bias voltage input, not the negative one, on the other side. This puts the bias supply and the main battery in series. The way you've got it the bias supply and the main battery are "fighting" each other's voltage. I think. So if you just moved that shunt lead up to the other bias wire that would do it. And that is also why the bias supply must be floating wrt the other main supply.
Here's the negative DC supply schematic that I've been using.
I'm no longer sure just what we are discussing now. If we can agree on the mosfet designations and the bias polarity hook ups, I'll try do repeat the tests you've done and suggested. I'll use the same voltages that you use if I can arrange it with my batteries and supplies.
Your diagram is clear. I'll have to see what it will take to do it that way with Tar Baby. But any explanation about mosfet designations and so on will be very helpful to me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2012, 06:00:03 PM
@GL: I sure will. Probably have to wait until after dark, though !
ETA: I see one source of my confusion. In the schematics I have been using, a Positive signal from the FG's Positive output goes to the Gate of Q1, not Q2. Most of the discussion in the thread to this point has been assuming this schematic, I think. But in your schematic the positive signal goes to the gate of your Q2. Hmm.
No matter, all I have to do is flip the designations in my head when I look at your diagrams, I think. But it might be helpful if we could standardise things.
The Ainslie diagram with the designations I have been using is below. A positive gate signal emitted by the FG positive terminal goes to Q1 gate and Q2 sources. I think in your diagram a positive signal goes to Q2 gate and Q1 source.
I am getting very confused. This looks like the "negative bias mode" but with the Q2 fully on instead of oscillating.
TK,
It is not that complicated. If you put a positive bias voltage into my 50 Ohm bias resistor then:
1. My Q1 will shut off and no current could flow through that transistor.
2. You can now remove the Q1 but leave the internal Q1 diode in the analyze drawing.
3. The Q2 transistor will turn fully on conducting current.
4. So you can remove Q2 and use a 1,6 Ohm resistor in the analyze drawing.
5. The internal diode of Q2 in this DC mode will not have any effect so you can remove that also from your analyze drawing.
6. The circuit is in pure DC mode so you can use Ohms law to do the analyze.
I did use 24 Volt on my input. With Q2 fully on I got 1,74 Ampere flowing. The bias voltage was 13,74VDC and I did
measure 0,09 Ampere bias current. For 0,09 Ampere bias current to flow the bias load must be 91 Ohm.
Now, looking at the input points for the 24 volt we see 10 Ohm + 1,6 Ohm + 025 Ohm = 11,85 Ohm. This gives
a theoretical current of 2 Ampere. In real life I got 1,74 Ampere.
Now look at the bias part. The theoretical analyze says: 50 Ohm + Resistance of Q1 internal diode + RdsOn.
The Q1 internal diode has a voltage drop of 1,8 Volt so the theoretical resistance should be approx. 20 Ohm.
So we get 50 + 20 + 1,6 = 71,6 Ohm. This is far from what the measurement says. The measurement says
that the bias resistance must be close to 91 Ohm. But what RdsOn is the bias circuit seeing? If we use the
0,09 Ampere through the RdsOn then we can find the voltage drop over the RdsOn as seen from the bias.
You find the voltage over the 50 Ohm and voltage over the 20 Ohm (Q1 diode resistance) and then I found
that the RdsOn that the bias is seeing is not 1,6 Ohm but 30,93 Ohm. Now if I add up I got 90,93 Ohm as
total resistance for the bias. And that is in agreement with the measured result.
Now the paradox, how can the RdsOn be 1,6 Ohm for the 24 volt path, but 30,93 Ohm for the bias path?
ADDED: I'm discussing the bias input current in the DC mode with a positive bias input when the circuit is NOT oscillating.
GL.
"ADDED: I'm discussing the bias input current in the DC mode with a positive bias input when the circuit is NOT oscillating."
OK.... but in the schematic I've been using, the one that supposedly has been "approved", a positive bias input that doesn't make the circuit oscillate goes to the gate of Q1, not Q2.
Take a look at the diagram below. I've removed the bias source altogether, and labelled the "input" points according to the colors of the Ainslie FG (and both my F43 and WaveTek FGs ) output leads: red for the inner conductor ("+") and black for the outer conductor ("--"). Note the mosfet designations... my Q2 and presumably Ainslie's is on the left side.
So, in your tests that you are describing, what is the polarity of the voltage that you are applying to the "red" and "black" points, using this schematic's mosfet designations?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2012, 08:11:14 PM
"ADDED: I'm discussing the bias input current in the DC mode with a positive bias input when the circuit is NOT oscillating."
OK.... but in the schematic I've been using, the one that supposedly has been "approved", a positive bias input that doesn't make the circuit oscillate goes to the gate of Q1, not Q2.
Take a look at the diagram below. I've removed the bias source altogether, and labelled the "input" points according to the colors of the Ainslie FG (and both my F43 and WaveTek FGs ) output leads: red for the inner conductor ("+") and black for the outer conductor ("--"). Note the mosfet designations... my Q2 and presumably Ainslie's is on the left side.
So, in your tests that you are describing, what is the polarity of the voltage that you are applying to the "red" and "black" points, using this schematic's mosfet designations?
TK,
How you label the components doesn't change the fact that this circuit has two modes of operation:
1. The circuit is in a DC mode and there is NO OSCILLATION.
2. The circuit is in a AC mode and there IS OSCILLATION.
So for the circuit you posted in the above post, the bias at red is + and - to the black.
This makes your circuit go into DC mode where your Q1 will be fully on conducting current.
Your Q2 will be off with NO oscillation.
So I want you to test the bias current on your circuit when your Q1 is ON and there is NO OSCILLATION in your circuit.
GL.
Here I post another page from Ainslie's blog. It makes some remarkable statements.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/230-some-examples-of-that-misdirection.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/230-some-examples-of-that-misdirection.html)
I know this is English. But it makes claims that are manifestly untrue in the English that I speak. Are the mosfets in the Q2 array not in parallel? Is there something magic about them that makes a mosfet or mosfets able to carry 5 amps at a resistance of 2 ohms and not get warm in the slightest? And are not the "resistors" forming the "shunt" in parallel? And if this is a typo meant to say "transistors" are not the mosfets of Q2 in parallel? And what magic keeps them from being subject to the same problems that all paralleled mosfet arrays are subject to?
I dunno. Sometimes I think somebody isn't really being completely straightforward with the facts. Other times I think that somebody just doesn't know what she's talking about and is making stupid, but ultimately innocent, mistakes. And then still other times I know that she's deliberately lying to string this out and garner as much attention, positive or negative, as possible.
The links referred to in the blog post are : the first two to the same IEEE paper on the danger to mosfets in parallel arrays from parasitic oscillations, or some such irrelevant garbage, the third is to a .pdf on the same topic from Advanced Power Technology, a major manufacturer of power mosfets, written by their chief engineer. And the fourth is to the famous "Hate Blog" which I love.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1645505 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1645505)
http://www.sz-sunny.com/APT/application%20note/apt0202.pdf (http://www.sz-sunny.com/APT/application%20note/apt0202.pdf)
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ (http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/) which has changed, but the new link is on the page referred to by this link.
A fine example of misdirection indeed. Note that she insults half the people on the planet in her last sentence. "LOL". But after all... half the people on the planet ARE below average, aren't they.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 13, 2012, 11:38:51 PM
TK,
How you label the components doesn't change the fact that this circuit has two modes of operation:
1. The circuit is in a DC mode and there is NO OSCILLATION.
2. The circuit is in a AC mode and there IS OSCILLATION.
So for the circuit you posted in the above post, the bias at red is + and - to the black.
This makes your circuit go into DC mode where your Q1 will be fully on conducting current.
Your Q2 will be off with NO oscillation.
So I want you to test the bias current on your circuit when your Q1 is ON and there is NO OSCILLATION in your circuit.
GL.
OK, that is clear, thank you. I agree that the "labelling" doesn't make a difference in how the components behave -- as long as there is only One of Each. When Q2 becomes a stack of 4 then it matters on which side it is because the 4 can clearly carry more current without overheating.
But if we are to understand one another we should agree on the labelling at least.
I will remove all but one of my Q2s, and I will use 24 volts for the battery, which should give me some time before the single Q1 mosfet heats too much, and a 13 volt input from the power supply, polarity as you have it, 50R in series, and I'll measure the current with the inline DMM which should be good, right? It has an inline resistance of 1.8 ohms which should be added to the total gate circuit resistance.
Since there are no oscillations the simple DC measurement should be adequate, I hope.
Give me an hour or so.
OK... to be perfectly clear... this is the setup that GL is requesting that I examine. Right? Last chance for corrections !!
I've put in Tar Baby's component values so that the currents expected can be calculated and compared to GL's results. Don't forget we have different Rdss mosfets and slightly different other values, and my inline DMM milliammeter will have 1.8 Ohms of its own internal resistance.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 12:17:44 AM
OK... to be perfectly clear... this is the setup that GL is requesting that I examine. Right? Last chance for corrections !!
I've put in Tar Baby's component values so that the currents expected can be calculated and compared to GL's results. Don't forget we have different Rdss mosfets and slightly different other values, and my inline DMM milliammeter will have 1.8 Ohms of its own internal resistance.
TK,
Sorry for the delay, a storm is passing and my mains went out.
Yes, that is what I want you to test.
And when you are done testing and found the bias current then you can do a theoretical
analyze and see if the current you got agrees with your theory.
GL.
Groundloop:
That looks excellent. It looks like you have explained the very high current when the gate voltage on Q2 is high. (Referencing your schematic.)
Now it seems very obvious. I, and perhaps others, was fooled by my preconception that there should be no current flow. I didn't even think about the diode in Q1.
Current from the +13-volt bias source flows through the 50-ohm resistor and then leaks through the diode in Q1 and then flows through Q2 and then back to the +13-volt bias voltage source.
This is a separate current loop independent of the main current loop driven by the +24-volt source. This "extra" current loop causes a kind of negative 'feedback' on the main current loop and reduces the current flow in that loop very slightly.
So that was fun. It shows the investigative process in action, and you figured out the mystery.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 01:38:28 AM
Groundloop:
Now it seems very obvious. I, and perhaps others, was fooled by my preconception that there should be no current flow. I didn't even think about the diode in Q1.
So that was fun. It shows the investigative process in action, and you figured out the mystery.
MileHigh
Yes you did. ;) Oh my. ;D
And yes it does. ;) Oh dear. ;)
Mags
Groundloop, TK:
What's interesting is that it's not trivial to calculate for the two unknown currents, i1 and i2, in Groundloop's simplified schematic.
The 'smart' way to solve for the two unknown currents would be to do some simple linear network analysis. You have two unknowns and provided you can develop two equations that describe the behaviour of the circuit (which you can) then you should be able to solve for i1 and i2.
The other way would be to use numerical analysis methods and iterate on the solution.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 01:38:28 AM
Groundloop:
That looks excellent. It looks like you have explained the very high current when the gate voltage on Q2 is high. (Referencing your schematic.)
Now it seems very obvious. I, and perhaps others, was fooled by my preconception that there should be no current flow. I didn't even think about the diode in Q1.
Current from the +13-volt bias source flows through the 50-ohm resistor and then leaks through the diode in Q1 and then flows through Q2 and then back to the +13-volt bias voltage source.
This is a separate current loop independent of the main current loop driven by the +24-volt source. This "extra" current loop causes a kind of negative 'feedback' on the main current loop and reduces the current flow in that loop very slightly.
So that was fun. It shows the investigative process in action, and you figured out the mystery.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
I got almost the same result in simple simulation. So if .99 is reading this maybe he could do a Spice sim also?
I'm looking forward to see what TK gets with his measurement.
NB: A big storm is passing right now and my mains keep failing. So I do not know
how long I has the Internet connection up and running.
GL.
OK, please let's be careful about Q1 and Q2. It is the diode in my Q2 that seems important to me. The diode in whichever mosfet is NOT being turned on by the gate signal.
Here are my results. I had to use a 54.3 ohm resistor for the series resistor, so correct for that in the math. And also my ammeters are 1.8 ohm internal resistance.
And I am referencing the mosfets by the designations in the diagram below.
So I measured 2 conditions: Total main current and total bias current with Q2 IN, and total main current and total bias current with Q2 OUT.
So... with all Q2s OUT, and the hookup as below, I set the bias power supply to 13.02 volts. Total Main current through Q1 (inline ammeter at battery negative as usual) was 1.95 Amperes and the main battery voltage, running, was 23.8 V. And the bias current was zero, zip, zilch, nada, nichts, nichego. Zero, in other words, below the detectability of my ammeter. Mosfet warming, load heating well.
And...with one Q2 IN, I set the bias power supply to 12.92 volts. Total main current through... Q1 and ? was 1.78 Amperes and the battery voltage, running, was 23.8 V. And the bias current started at 90 mA and rose steadily to about 130-140 mA as ...something? heated up?... Q1 mosfet warming, load heating well.
And I tried all different mosfets in all positions, and there was a slight variation in this bias current but not significantly much.
I'm too tired to do the math tonight but I'd be happy to watch while somebody else does it.
The diagram showing the connections and my mosfet names. I think I'll call them Moses and Festus from now on.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 02:42:37 AM
OK, please let's be careful about Q1 and Q2. It is the diode in my Q2 that seems important to me. The diode in whichever mosfet is NOT being turned on by the gate signal.
Here are my results. I had to use a 54.3 ohm resistor for the series resistor, so correct for that in the math. And also my ammeters are 1.8 ohm internal resistance.
And I am referencing the mosfets by the designations in the diagram below.
So I measured 2 conditions: Total main current and total bias current with Q2 IN, and total main current and total bias current with Q2 OUT.
So... with all Q2s OUT, and the hookup as below, I set the bias power supply to 13.02 volts. Total Main current through Q1 (inline ammeter at battery negative as usual) was 1.95 Amperes and the main battery voltage, running, was 23.8 V. And the bias current was zero, zip, zilch, nada, nichts, nichego. Zero, in other words, below the detectability of my ammeter. Mosfet warming, load heating well.
And...with one Q2 IN, I set the bias power supply to 12.92 volts. Total main current through... Q1 and ? was 1.78 Amperes and the battery voltage, running, was 23.8 V. And the bias current started at 90 mA and rose steadily to about 130-140 mA as ...something? heated up?... Q1 mosfet warming, load heating well.
And I tried all different mosfets in all positions, and there was a slight variation in this bias current but not significantly much.
I'm too tired to do the math tonight but I'd be happy to watch while somebody else does it.
The diagram showing the connections and my mosfet names. I think I'll call them Moses and Festus from now on.
TK, thank you for taking time to do the bias current test. Yes, that confirms my findings. Without the other MOSFET
in the circuit there is no path for the bias current and you get zero current and a little higher total circuit current.
When you plug in the other MOSFET you get a path through the internal diode and you main circuit currents drops.
This is consistent with a negative feedback as MileHigh did say. You test 100% confirms my theory and also my
testing.
Thanks,
GL.
This circuit cracks me up, man.
You could go crazy following the current paths around in the various conditions of operation. The battery and the power supply wind up in anti-series, with one current loop from the ps going through the zener in Festus, around backwards and upstream through Moses back to the power supply,while Moses is carrying the main current going the other way, and the other current loop going around the other way goes up through the load and back to the main battery. Or something. And in the other condition, negative bias oscillations, the bias is in aiding series with the main battery so that the load actually experiences more voltage than the battery supplies alone and some of the current sneaks past the CVR without being noticed and the load heats like a whale eats: by straining through a mouthful of whalebone. It's as complicated as the circulatory system of a hopping green amphibian.
No wonder RA is nuts. This circuit both is a product and a cause of her madness.
@GL: did you notice the bias current starting at 90 mA and increasing on up to 130 or even higher over the space of ten or twenty seconds or so? I thought that this was so strange that I tried some new, unused PG50s as Q2 and they behaved the same way, with maybe a few mA difference...
Uh..oh.
I just noticed something.
We have feedback oscillations, call them parasitic or resonant or whatever, they are the same thing as the squeal on a PA system when the mic is too close to the speakers.
And we have negative feedback, a different thing that is causing the main current to decrease when the Q2 is in, during the positive bias mode.
And we have negative bias, a different other thing that causes the oscillations to happen in the first place during the negative bias mode.
And we thought that the confusion between power and energy was bad.............
:-\
This circuit cracks me up, I'm telling you. I can hardly keep a straight face.
@GL, you are welcome, I'm glad I could oblige. Can you explain the significance of our findings?
Also, I hope you will continue on and explore the negative voltage bias mode with oscillations and without Q1 turning on, too. I already measured this mode using the oscilloscope last week and I found a small AC ripple on top of the usual 180 mA main DC current or so that I like to run at. In this mode it seems to me that the bias ammeter and the main ammeter will read the same, I think, and the current is DC but with that little ripple on top from the oscillations. This mode seems to put the bias supply voltage in series with the main battery voltage, I think.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 03:23:47 AM
@GL: did you notice the bias current starting at 90 mA and increasing on up to 130 or even higher over the space of ten or twenty seconds or so? I thought that this was so strange that I tried some new, unused PG50s as Q2 and they behaved the same way, with maybe a few mA difference...
TK,
Yes, I did notice that the current did go up as my heat sink did get warmer. But I'm
using a fairly large heat sink so it flattens out over time.
GL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 03:40:45 AM
@GL, you are welcome, I'm glad I could oblige. Can you explain the significance of our findings?
Also, I hope you will continue on and explore the negative voltage bias mode with oscillations and without Q1 turning on, too. I already measured this mode using the oscilloscope last week and I found a small AC ripple on top of the usual 180 mA main DC current or so that I like to run at. In this mode it seems to me that the bias ammeter and the main ammeter will read the same, I think, and the current is DC but with that little ripple on top from the oscillations. This mode seems to put the bias supply voltage in series with the main battery voltage, I think.
TK,
Yes, that is my next thing to check, the oscillation mode, or AC mode as I call it.
But it has to wait until the weekend. I may find time before that. Don't know yet.
GL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 03:29:06 AM
Uh..oh.
I just noticed something.
We have feedback oscillations, call them parasitic or resonant or whatever, they are the same thing as the squeal on a PA system when the mic is too close to the speakers.
And we have negative feedback, a different thing that is causing the main current to decrease when the Q2 is in, during the positive bias mode.
And we have negative bias, a different other thing that causes the oscillations to happen in the first place during the negative bias mode.
And we thought that the confusion between power and energy was bad.............
:-\
This circuit cracks me up, I'm telling you. I can hardly keep a straight face.
TK,
I think the reason for oscillation is that the circuit will be an Colpitts oscillator when you have
the 50 Ohm function generator at the Source of the MOSFET. When the function generator
is at the negative pulse then we pull the Source negative, thus getting a positive bias for
the Gate, relative, since the Gate is grounded. I think I explained this earlier in this thread
by some drawings. The negative feedback needed to keep the oscillation going is through
the Drain Source capacitance. The LC tank circuit needed is the RLOAD and in the wires.
GL.
TK,
Here is my analyze of the TK setup when NOT in oscillator mode.
Current through circuit from the +24VDC to minus = 24 / (10,3 + 2,0 + 0,2) = 1,92 Ampere.
This is without the BIAS current calculation.
BIAS current:
The current measured was 0,09 Ampere.
Now voltage drops to find the voltage over RdsOn:
Rmeter = 1,8 Ohm. Rdiode = 1,8 / 0,09 = 20 Ohm. Rfg = 50 Ohm.
Volt Rmeter = 0,162 Volt.
Volt Rdiode = 1,8 Volt.
Volt Rfg = 4,5 Volt.
Volt over RdsOn = 13 -(0,162+1,8+4,5) = 6,462 Volt.
RdsOn Ohm = 71,8 Ohm.
Total bias load = 71,8 + 1,8 + 20 + 50 = 143,6 Ohm.
Check: 13 Volt / 143,6 Ohm = 0,09 Ampere.
Main current with bias current taken into consideration:
The current measured was 1,78 Amperes and the battery voltage, running, was 23,8 Volt.
How to explain the current reduction when the bias current also was running through RdsOn?
I have no idea right now. And we still have a paradox going. The main current sees a
RdsOn of 2 Ohm but the bias current sees a RdsOn of 143,6 Ohm. So .99 if you are
reading this, can you explain this?
GL.
Groundloop:
The reduction of the main loop current is because when you have bias current running through the Q2 MOSFET, that causes a voltage drop across the Q2 MOSFET. That voltage drop looks like counter-EMF to the 24-volt main supply, and works against the main supply. Therefore the current in the main loop is reduced.
To the main supply, the Rds looks like (6.462/1.78) = 3.63 ohms. To the bias supply, the Rds looks like (6.462/0.09) = 71.8 ohms.
In reality the Rds of Q2 is less than 3.63 ohms. In both cases there is a counter-EMF effect taking place because of the voltage drop across the Q2 drain to source resistance.
Take the example of the bias supply current loop. Let's say that the real Q2 Rds is 3.5 ohms. What the +13-volt bias supply 'sees' for the Q2 MOSFET drain-to-source voltage drop is ((3.5 ohms x 0.09 amps) + (3.5 ohms x 1.78 amps)). The second term is the counter-EMF generated by the main current of 1.78 amps flowing through the same MOSFET.
So this added counter-EMF created in the bias current loop caused by the main current loop will act to reduce the current flowing in the bias current loop. That makes the Q2 Rds appear to be higher. It's not actually higher, you just have to imagine that there is an extra voltage source 'inside' the Q2 MOSFET that is working against the +13-volt bias supply.
So the apparent resistance of the Q2 Rds is approximately equal to ((3.5 ohms x 0.09 amps) + (3.5 ohms x 1.78 amps))/0.09.
This stuff would have to be checked with some measurements and calculations but I think it's right.
What happens is each of the currents act to reduce the other current because of this counter-EMF effect. That's why I said determining i1 and i2 is not trivial. i1 affects i2. That change in i2 affects i1, and it goes in circles.
MileHigh
Needless to say this is another "surprise" for Rosemary and the NERD team. All of this stuff is just basic circuit analysis. You measure your currents and voltages in the circuit and then understand and explain them so that you can get a basic understanding of how the circuit actually operates.
This measurement and subsequent analysis was clearly outside the capabilities of Rosemary and the NERD team. It's likely that the function generator output current was never measured by them when they had their setup running and they were never aware that this was happening.
If I was on the bench I would have checked the function generator output current when the output was high. I would have been expecting to measure microamperes at the most. Seeing milliamperes was a surprise so you go and do your investigation. After the investigation is done you realize that it wasn't a surprise after all, and the circuit was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing.
This 'unexpected' current flow is simply the result of what the circuit really is - an accidental miswiring of some MOSFETs. All of the hot air for the past year has it's origin in this accident.
MileHigh
Just a few thoughts about the negative oscillation mode to ponder. I am just speculating about the operation, but this would have to be investigated on the bench to be sure.
You know that the Q2 array (back to the original Ainsley reference schematic) is acting like an oscillator. All of the wiring is like an inductor, and when the Q2 array switches off in the cycle then all of the inductive energy stored in the wiring starts to discharge. The "blocking point" for the discharge of the energy stored in the wiring is the switched-off Q2 array. So it's likely that the Cds capacitance in the Q2 array gets charged up to a high potential.
Once you hit the peak voltage the current flow reverses direction and discharges back though the main loop.
This could be a key to understanding the overall timing. Once the discharge of the energy stored in the Q2 array capacitance is done then the EMF from the main battery supply takes over and the current starts to flow clockwise again.
The discharge of the Q2 array capacitance could be part of the explanation for the high potential you see on the battery terminals.
All of this would be operating synchronous with the root cause of the Q2 array oscillator, the negative feedback caused by the 50-ohm resistor inside the function generator.
What this ultimately means is this: Battery energy charges up the capacitance in the Q2 array. When the voltage hits the peak, the current reverses direction and spits this same energy back at the battery. It's like throwing a ball against a wall. You put energy into the ball when you throw it at the wall. Then the ball changes direction at it's maximum compression point (like the maximum voltage in the Q2 array capacitance) and most of the energy is then coming back at you. So the battery gets a short pulse of return current. There is a very good chance that the battery can't really react to a short pulse stream like this and in fact just burns off the return energy. So the battery acts like a resistor in this case. I am not a battery expert but that's what I suspect.
You can see that there is a reduced heating efficiency because of this possible effect. The battery outputs a nugget of energy. Some of the nugget of energy is thrown back at the battery instead of going to the load to create useful heat. The nugget of energy that is thrown back of the battery might recharge the battery, but there is a good chance that most of that energy is burned off as heat.
Hence, while the battery is powering the circuit, it's burning off more energy internal to the battery as compared to just driving the load with straight DC current.
MileHigh
I just woke up so I'm still having my first coffee.
I think MH is describing in clear terms what I facetiously described in my "cracks me up" post. In the positive bias mode the bias supply polarity is anti-series : the negative polarity of the bias is hooked to the negative polarity of the main battery. Part of the circuit sees the main voltage, part sees the bias voltage, and part sees (main-bias) voltage.
On the other hand when in "AC" mode, negative bias mode, the bias supply is in strict, aiding series with the main battery, plus of bias to minus of main. So part of the circuit sees main voltage, part sees bias voltage, and part sees (MAIN + BIAS) voltage.
And to top it all off, the NERD apparently preferred mode of operation is a mixed mode, where the gate HI time is the positive bias mode and the gate LO time has enough negative excursion due to the FG's offset, to make the AC or negative bias oscillation mode. And you cannot do this with a simple 555 timer driven from the main battery only.
But I have to stress that the "AC" mode isn't really AC as far as the bias current goes. When you look at the Bias Current in this mode you will find (or at least I found) that the current is DC and has a small oscillation ripple on top. It would look like AC on a scope if you "AC" coupled the channel, but with DC coupling you can see that this current never reverses sign, therefore it is not AC. The main current is "mostly" AC, that is, it does change sign within the oscillations.... but wait...
IS this the main current providing the heat in the load? Could the current path heating the load be helped by the OTHER path, not the drain-to-source path in Q2, but going through the zener of "off" Q1 when the oscillations are happening on Q2.
So if this hypothesis is right, when in "AC" mode, negative bias, oscillations.... we already know that pulling Q1 (Moses) will not hurt the oscillations themselves....... but what about the current through the load itself? What about the actual load heating during this phase? I know that I haven't really checked these things directly when in AC mode and Q1 is missing ...yet.
What seems clear, still, is that there is no apparent explanation for the zero main current in those several NERD shots that show a definite positive 10 or 12 volts to the Moses (Q1) gate--- other than that the mosfet is open or missing.
Going back to the elevated battery voltage, this can tie into the AC impedance of the batteries. PW suggested making an AC impedance measurement a month ago.
When the capacitance in the Q2 array is at it's maximum voltage, what does the set of batteries look like to the capacitors about to discharge?
The battery set looks like an inductance in series with a resistance - at a given frequency.
The inductance of the battery set is likely much higher than the inductance of the load resistor. Perhaps more critically, the effective resistance of the battery set at a given high frequency might be quite high. In other words, for the brief instant (say a microsecond) when you want to pulse current into the battery set, it looks like a 100-ohm resistor (for example.)
So when the Q2 array capacitance is about to discharge, the overall impedance of the battery set could be quite high as compared to the overall impedance of the load resistor. Therefore the battery set will show a high voltage. i.e.; there will not be too much of a voltage drop across the load resistor. The high voltage seen at the Q2 array capacitance is also (mostly) seen at the battery set.
MileHigh
What would happen to the DC mode, the positive bias, no oscillation mode.... if the main battery voltage and the bias supply had the same voltage? (under 15, I guess, to prevent damage to the mosfets).
And same question for the AC mode, the negative bias, yes oscillation mode..?
QuoteWhat would happen to the DC mode, the positive bias, no oscillation mode.... if the main battery voltage and the bias supply had the same voltage?
It should be quite similar. The biasing loop has the 50-ohm resistor so it will always contribute less current.
MileHigh
Here's the scopeshot from RA's blog post #50. Note the high current even at the relatively low positive gate signal. In this shot the Q1 mosfet is working ( or the Q2s... who really knows what schematic she was using then). Contrast this with the last shot from 118, for example.
NOTE: Here is another example of HIGH HEAT MODE with a 48 volt battery pack. Why is she removing a battery for these high heat mode experiments? I think I know.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 10:36:09 AM
It should be quite similar. The biasing loop has the 50-ohm resistor so it will always contribute less current.
MileHigh
If you take a 0.25 ohm resistor and hook it between two nine-volt batteries, so that the negative of one is hooked to the negative of the other through the resistor, what voltage will you read between the two positive terminals?
In the days leading up to the demo video, she was posting some strange looking scopeshots. Is her FG just not keeping up at the high pulsation frequencies in these trials?
Note that third one, SCRN0226. This is the last screenshot in her blog, before the first one (SCRN0253, the fourth below) that doesn't show current when a +10 volt signal is on the gate of Q1.
TK:
The voltage read between the two positive terminals will be zero volts. I am not sure how that applies but the switched-on MOSFET will pull the voltage at the drain low enough such that the bias voltage source and the main voltage source (both at same potential) will output some current. As we know, each current influences the other current and the two currents arrive at a quiescent point.
QuoteIS this the main current providing the heat in the load? Could the current path heating the load be helped by the OTHER path, not the drain-to-source path in Q2, but going through the zener of "off" Q1 when the oscillations are happening on Q2.
I think that's possible but it would have to be verified with careful measurements. Here is the point: Assuming we are getting the current reversal because the Q2 array capacitance is discharging (Q1's capacitance is also discharging BTW) then once the capacitors have fully discharged, wouldn't you know it, you have energy stored in the inductance of the wires again. That would keep the current flowing counter-clockwise, and it would flow through the zener diode in Q1. So it's in theory possible that the diode in Q1 comes into play to "kill the LC resonator" made up of the wire inductance and the MOSFET drain-to-source capacitance.
Of course, every thing I am saying is speculative. I keep on thinking about the main battery supply and how it may "drown out" these effects.
But in looking at the attached reference schematic, you can at least envision the possibility of something interesting. When the Q2 array switches back on and the current starts to flow clockwise again, it's possible that the "tail end" of the inductive discharge from the energy stored in the wiring will indeed flow through the Q1 zener diode.
That would be pretty cool if it could be captured on the scope - clockwise current going through the main loop with the Q2 array, and at the same time, a little bit of remaining counter-clockwise current flowing through the Q1 zener diode. If my speculations are even correct.
MileHigh
TK:
QuoteNote that third one, SCRN0226. This is the last screenshot in her blog, before the first one (SCRN0253, the fourth below) that doesn't show current when a +10 volt signal is on the gate of Q1.
The cyan is the gate voltage, correct? Roughly 20 uSec "high" and 20 uSec "low" with the superimposed oscillations. The "high" is really bad and resembles an exponential decay. I am at a loss to explain that.
The gate voltage in this capture is pretty gross. 20 uSec is a relatively long time so you wonder what is going on during the "high" phase.
Honestly, in seeing that weird gate waveform I would have investigated it further. I am assuming that Rosemary and the NERDs just stared at the screen and made the capture and did nothing beyond that.
I can't really venture an explanation for what is going on there beyond stating that we know that when the gate voltage is high we should see current flow. When we don't see current flow we should assume that something is amiss. I think that "kindest as always" Rosie Posie did battle with PW over that one. That was an irrational fight, poor Posie Posie should have simply acknowledged the issue.
MileHigh
MilesAsEverOffCentre
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 12:11:55 PM
The cyan is the gate voltage, correct? Roughly 20 uSec "high" and 20 uSec "low" with the superimposed oscillations. The "high" is really bad and resembles an exponential decay. I am at a loss to explain that.
The gate voltage in this capture is pretty gross. 20 uSec is a relatively long time so you wonder what is going on during the "high" phase.
Honestly, in seeing that weird gate waveform I would have investigated it further. I am assuming that Rosemary and the NERDs just stared at the screen and made the capture and did nothing beyond that.
I can't really venture an explanation for what is going on there beyond stating that we know that when the gate voltage is high we should see current flow. When we don't see current flow we should assume that something is amiss. I think that "kindest as always" Rosie Posie did battle with PW over that one. That was an irrational fight, poor Posie Posie should have simply acknowledged the issue.
Poor Rosie had to point out that the READING that PW was making was based on the DC coupled value. He concluded that the the LeCroy had bombed or the MOSFET had blown. He was wrong on both counts.
I've sent you a PM MileHigh. You need to do some rather elementary corrections to one of your posts. It'll spare you some embarrassment.
Rosie Pose
:-*
Just some more musings. The heart of this issue is the apparent recording of more power being returned to the battery than supplied to the battery - "COP infinity."
The root of the problem is that Rosemary and the NERDs never tried to investigate this further. They never tried measuring the net current flow with a digital multimeter - as basic a measurement as that. Instead, they put too much reliance on the DSO itself. Also, it's readily apparent that they did not have the knowledge, experience, or skill set to investigate what was going on. This is not a simple pulse motor, this is an oscillator that runs in the megahertz frequency range. At this frequency and looking at the size of the setup and the lengths of the interconnect wires, inductive and capacitive effects come into play that you normally don't have to deal with when you are working with a pulse motor.
Anybody that has followed the Dr. Stiffler clips knows that he often makes reference to keeping lengths of wires short, etc. This is not a place for newbies to be playing. Figuring out exactly what is going on when you are playing in the 1 MHz to 10 MHz frequency range is not trivial. The actual full bandwidth of the signal (say 90% of the power) probably extends out to 50 MHz.
The simple DC current flow measurement showing clockwise current is allowing you to infer that the batteries are discharging. So you can do a simple dim bulb test with smaller batteries to avoid all of the complications of understanding the dynamics of the two-megahertz oscillator and see what the 'real truth' is.
MileHigh
P.S.: Rosemary I read your PM and I have nothing to change.
QuoteI've sent you a PM MileHigh. You need to do some rather elementary corrections to one of your posts. It'll spare you some embarrassment.
Oh really? How is that Dale Carnegie course coming along?
Rosie:
QuotePoor Rosie had to point out that the READING that PW was making was based on the DC coupled value. He concluded that the the LeCroy had bombed or the MOSFET had blown. He was wrong on both counts.
The LeCroy is always supposed to be DC coupled for all of your signals, and it's critical for the current sensing to be DC coupled. So your point doesn't make sense. The reasons for the missing current flow can be speculated upon, as was done by PW and others.
I know that you had some kind of strange fight over AC vs. DC coupling and it's another one of those cases where there is no issue. I don't remember the details because I was 'filtering' myself. :)
MileHigh
@MH: I recommend that we use the color-code of the NERD device to indicate where the bias supply (FG or 555 or battery or whatever) connects. In the video, the FG's RED alligator clip, the center conductor, the "positive" or "probe" as Ainslie calls it, is shown connected to the gate of Q1 and the sources of Q2. And the BLACK alligator clip, the outer conductor, the "negative" or "terminal(?)" as Ainslie sometimes calls it, in the VIDEO was connected to the common ground bus BUT in the "approved" schematic we have been using is on the transistor side of the CVR.
Right?
As shown in the first diagram below. OK?
Now, for the negative bias situation, the FG or other bias source has effectively switched polarity and is supplying a (relatively) Positive voltage to the BLACK input point (which is really held at "ground" potential, but voltages are always relative to some reference.) As in the second diagram below. Right?
The _relative_ positive voltage at the BLACK input point causes the RED input point to become "even more negative" than the negative pole of the main battery supply, thus biasing Q2 (Festus) into the linear response region and passing some DC current and some AC current too. Oscillations happen. But.... look at the zener in Q1 (Moses), with respect to the polarity of the Bias Supply. I don't know if there is any other "end" to this current path or if it contributes to load heating, but I can think of some easy ways to find out.
Certainly in the Positive bias mode the "opposite" transistor's zener plays an important role, as GL has demonstrated both theoretically and confirmed by several experiments independently replicated. I am not that much of a theoretician.... so I'll just test, vary variables and hold constants constant, and record the results whatever they might be. It's wonderful not to be burdened by the necessity to prove a "thesis" of some kind... rather, I examine the data and draw conclusions based on it. In stark contrast to collecting only data that could support my idee fixe of a "thesis".
NOTE: With a scope attached as shown in the second diagram below DO NOT TRY TO TAKE OTHER READINGS, because here the scope is using a different REFERENCE than usual. Other readings require the reference at the negative rail, and most oscilloscopes have all their probe ground leads connected together inside the instrument.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 01:36:23 PM
The LeCroy is always supposed to be DC coupled for all of your signals, and it's critical for the current sensing to be DC coupled. So your point doesn't make sense. The reasons for the missing current flow can be speculated upon, as was done by PW and others.
Not actually. Each channel can be coupled as required. As we'll demonstrate. In due course. I never realised this. I just always set everything to DC. But then I'm an amateur - is my excuse.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 01:36:23 PMI know that you had some kind of strange fight over AC vs. DC coupling and it's another one of those cases where there is no issue. I don't remember the details because I was 'filtering' myself. :)
'filtering'? 'strange fight?'. Strange terms you're using there MilesOffThePoint. No idea what filtering means and I have never had a 'strange fight' with anyone. And the case was certainly NOT devoid of issue. It was, as ever IGNORED. That's par for the course.
Rosie Pose
More thoughts on this:
QuoteThe simple DC current flow measurement showing clockwise current is allowing you to infer that the batteries are discharging.
I am being 'nice' here by using the term 'inference' because of the DSO data.
However, thinking about it a bit more you in fact can conclusively state that the batteries are discharging because of the measured current flow. It goes back to the chemical reactions inside the batteries. The 'potential pump' in the batteries is pushing electrons out of the negative terminal and into the positive terminal. This current flow is caused by a net one-directional chemical reaction. Therefore net current flow in one direction means net chemical reactions in one direction - the two things are tied together. So net chemical reactions in one direction by definition means that the batteries are discharging.
MileHigh
I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt (maybe I read it in WIKI, even) that if it is raining and I look outside, the sidewalk in front of my house will be wet and there will be droplets of water falling from the sky.
Right? I mean, this is the very definition of rainfall and its result on the environment. Isn't it?
So... I'm getting to go walk the wild beasts and I take a glance out my soiled, dirty tiny window, and I see that the tiny corner of my sidewalk is indeed wet, and there sure are droplets of water falling from the sky.
Therefore, I can reliably conclude that it is raining........... RIGHT?
So I proclaim to all the world on my blog that I have discovered that it is RAINING in South Texas for the first time in DAYS... and I run and get my umbrella and galoshes and put the canidae in a big plastic sack and go outside..... where I notice that the sun is shining brilliantly from a cloudless sky and the next door neighbor's kid is watering their lawn. And my sidewalk. And she is squirting water up to see how high she can get it.
Post hoc, non propter hoc. And the distinction between Modus ponens and Modus tollens.
If A, then B. Observe A.... then conclude B. Duh. If the premise is true the conclusion is true because this is a tautology.
Observe NOT A... maybe B, maybe not. Something else besides A might be able to do B. To conclude NOT B from NOT A is a fallacy.
If A, then B. Observe B.... maybe A, maybe not. Something else might be doing the B that you observe. To conclude A from observing B is a fallacy.
Observe NOT B..... then you can be CERTAIN... NOT A. Of course your observations have to be not only Precise... but also ACCURATE.
Note carefully: the only thing you can be sure of is either a NEGATIVE or a TAUTOLOGY.
TK:
QuoteNow, for the negative bias situation, the FG or other bias source has effectively switched polarity and is supplying a (relatively) Positive voltage to the BLACK input point (which is really held at "ground" potential, but voltages are always relative to some reference.) As in the second diagram below. Right?
The _relative_ positive voltage at the BLACK input point causes the RED input point to become "even more negative" than the negative pole of the main battery supply, thus biasing Q2 (Festus) into the linear response region and passing some DC current and some AC current too. Oscillations happen. But.... look at the zener in Q1 (Moses), with respect to the polarity of the Bias Supply. I don't know if there is any other "end" to this current path or if it contributes to load heating, but I can think of some easy ways to find out.
Indeed, you can see the same potential for current to leak through the "opposite" MOSFET (Moses) in negative bias mode. So a very similar phenomenon could be taking place.
This current path will not contribute to load heating. It's another independent current loop that will not circulate though the load resistor. It just happens to overlap with the main oscillation current loop during part of its path.
Here is a funny one: It would now appear that if you substituted the function generator for a nice beefy bench power supply, there is a chance that the "opposite" MOSFET for both positive and negative bias voltages would go "Boom!" ;D
So it appears that Team NERD was "saved by the 50-ohm resistor!" (Again?)
MileHigh
Rosemary:
There is no reason that I can think of to set your channels to AC coupling in this circuit and there isn't really anything to discuss. You select the channel coupling as you want depending on what you want to do.
'Filtering' in my head - I filter out some of the stuff I read.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 02:13:25 PM
More thoughts on this:
I am being 'nice' here by using the term 'inference' because of the DSO data.
However, thinking about it a bit more you in fact can conclusively state that the batteries are discharging because of the measured current flow. It goes back to the chemical reactions inside the batteries. The 'potential pump' in the batteries is pushing electrons out of the negative terminal and into the positive terminal. This current flow is caused by a net one-directional chemical reaction. Therefore net current flow in one direction means net chemical reactions in one direction - the two things are tied together. So net chemical reactions in one direction by definition means that the batteries are discharging.
MileHigh
That's right. The overwhelming evidence from the NERD data in the scopeshots is that, during the positive gate pulse mode when there is a functioning mosfet, there is significant current flow, depending on the battery voltage, of anywhere from about 2 amps (48 volt battery) to quite a bit higher with the 72 volt battery.
Since this current magnitude is directly related to the battery voltage.... and since there is no other explanation offered for this current flow.... and since conventional circuit analysis predicts this current flow with the battery as its source... and when the battery is "removed" or disconnected as Ainslie calls it during the LO portion of a gate drive pulsation.... this current stops flowing...
the hypothesis that this current is NOT coming from the battery is not supported by the data and is in fact falsified. This current comes from the battery! And there still might be some admixture from the bias supply too.
To use any of this scope data as support for a battery non-discharge claim is untenable. All the data shows is that the battery DOES discharge.
Ainslie has even OBSERVED a voltage drop during an experiment and reported it on this forum.
(She also appears to have confirmed that the FG used was an Isotech (also branded INSTEK) FG with the correct part number.)
if you look at the foundation of your sciences you will find tautology there as well... they just call them axioms. ::)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 12:22:24 AM
I have already told you this TK. I am not at ALL interested in anything that you claim about anything at all, LEAST of all related to this tinsecoil thing. I have NO idea what it is. And I have NO intention of finding out. It would BORE me - at BEST. And TK. My name is ROSEMARY or ROSIE or ROSIE POSE or ROSIE POSIE. My name is NOT Ainslie. I am NOT your 'pal' or your 'colleague' that you can be that familiar with my family. Persist if you must - but then you extend this quarrel of ours to a FAR, FAR, wider platform. I'm not sure that you're fully aware of its extent. And I seriously caution you that it takes your calumny to new levels of abuse together with a far wider circle that will clamour for your retraction. But suit yourself.
Rosie Pose
Rosie Pose
I agree that
"POSE" is a great choice ... we all can agree on.
"POSE" is something that guests and members viewing any of Rosemary's postings signed as "POSE" will know it's nothing more than word salads that Ainslie serves daily, and can be easily chewed or eaten with nicotine stained wooden dentures.
That's it ....
"POSE" .... a winner of hers finally !! ::)
:P
She's ashamed to be called by her surname? Astounding. Does she sign her "paper" submissions "Rosie Poseur"? Perhaps she should.
I refuse to call someone who hates my guts and wouldn't piss on my face if my beard was on fire.... by her cute little nickname.
Among Koalas, since we all have the same surname, it doesn't matter if you call us Koala, or by the baptismal name. Tinsel, in my case. I'll bet you didn't know that many Koalas are Catholic. Look around you, the next time you go to evening Mass. Look carefully.... the person sitting next to you just might be a Koala. In drag, of course.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 04:02:44 PM
She's ashamed to be called by her surname? Astounding. Does she sign her "paper" submissions "Rosie Poseur"? Perhaps she should.
I refuse to call someone who hates my guts and wouldn't piss on my face if my beard was on fire.... by her cute little nickname.
how quickly you forget post hoc, ergo propter hoc when it suits you... ::) again, tu stultus es! nowhere has she claimed she is "ashamed to be called by her surname". ::) reasons were given that have nothing to do with shame... you can read and comprehend can't you? this is just more of you and yours continued ridiculous hyperbole.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 14, 2012, 03:15:54 PM
if you look at the foundation of your sciences you will find tautology there as well... they just call them axioms. ::)
Ah... the Witless for the Prosecution stirs from under his bridge.
What do you call a Watt, and what do you call a Joule, WontbeSober? In the interests of legal discovery, of course.
And perhaps you'd like to give an example of a foundational axiom of my sciences where a tautology is found. I'm not saying there aren't any... I'm just saying that, as usual, your posts are contentless and insignificant.
Regarding the two bias conditions and the resulting circuit currents, I hope the attached drawing answers most if not all questions.
Neither case shown was with oscillation present.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 04:07:26 PM
Ah... the Witless for the Prosecution stirs from under his bridge.
ahh the usual logical fallacy... ad hominem. imagine that!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 04:07:26 PM
What do you call a Watt, and what do you call a Joule, WontbeSober? In the interests of legal discovery, of course.
how does this address my words that you quoted? it does not. thus, another logical fallacy; red herring.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 04:07:26 PM
And perhaps you'd like to give an example of a foundational axiom of my sciences where a tautology is found. I'm not saying there aren't any... I'm just saying that, as usual, your posts are contentless and insignificant.
perhaps you would like to refute me? go ahead and PROVE me wrong...
by demonstrating that not a single one of the axioms that are the foundations of your sciences are tautologous ::) your opinion is noted and duly round-filed. and again, tu stultus es!
Poynt:
Thanks for the sims. You can see how for the positive bias mode that the zener diode in Q2 is doing a very decent job of clamping the Vgs of Q1. That might be another mystery because haven't we seen NERD captures with Vgs of Q1 a full 10 volts? That's something worth checking on the bench to see how the real parts work.
You can see the potential to prevent Q1 from switching on fully, keeping it in the linear region and acting like a resistor. Ouch.
It's worth mentioning that any extra currents loops represent power supplied by the function generator being burned off as heat inside the MOSFET(s). Not very elegant.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2012, 04:12:32 PM
Regarding the two bias conditions and the resulting circuit currents, I hope the attached drawing answers most if not all questions.
Neither case shown was with oscillation present.
Thanks.. I understand the second case after yesterday's experimentation I think.
But why weren't there oscillations present in your first case? Isn't that, except for the missing Moses mosfet, the same as the "negative gate bias" oscillation mode?
Is the Q1 mosfet (Moses) really irrelevant, as I have been thinking, in your first mode? Does its internal capacitances and Zener have any role in allowing or making or participating, whatever... _relating to_ ... the oscillations?
Would it be of benefit to trace those current paths out on an approved Ainslie schematic? I mean, I know and you know the topologies are the same, but it might be easier to see if they were given on one of the diagrams from the NERDs themselves.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 04:54:49 PM
Poynt:
Thanks for the sims. You can see how for the positive bias mode that the zener diode in Q2 is doing a very decent job of clamping the Vgs of Q1.
Are you sure? It appears to me that Q2's diode is outside the VGS loop for Q1.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
Thanks.. I understand the second case after yesterday's experimentation I think.
But why weren't there oscillations present in your first case? Isn't that, except for the missing Moses mosfet, the same as the "negative gate bias" oscillation mode?
Two reasons it doesn't oscillate in my simulation:
1) 50 Ohm RGEN is too high.
2) 24V supply is too low.
Poynt:
QuoteAre you sure? It appears to me that Q2's diode is outside the VGS loop for Q1.
Talking positive bias mode:
The 152 mA current flow will cause cause a big drop across the 50-ohm Rgen. Q1 switches on, pulls the Q1 drain low. That causes the Q2 zener to switch on, the 152 mA of current starts to flow, and that pulls Vgs down to 4.37 volts.
Does that make sense? That looks like potential for another negative feedback mechanism.
Interestingly enough, TK pointed out a DSO capture today where we see the the positive bias at the gate start high and then undergo what resembles an exponential decay. So that could be the effect in action. It takes about 10-15 uSec to do this though, which my gut feel is telling me is too slow. Another interesting test. Do a setup where you try to test for this effect. Adding capacitance here and there should slow it down, which would be interesting.
MileHigh
So getting back to GL's original problem... Poynt99's second case drawing indicates that if we move the "bias" current measuring point to the gate leg of Q1 (Moses) only, we will see only the 1pA leakage current (once the gate is charged of course, in a tiny fraction of a second). This will confirm that all that 90-150 mA measured current is going through the Zener in Festus. Sorry, Q2. Right?
I've moved the meter in the drawing below.
(Obviously (I hope) I'm just trying to cover all the bases. Here we hope to show that no DC passes the gate of the Q1 mosfet other than the 1pA leakage which is undetectable by our present instruments and methods.)
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 05:22:57 PM
Poynt:
Talking positive bias mode:
The 152 mA current flow will cause cause a big drop across the 50-ohm Rgen. Q1 switches on, pulls the Q1 drain low. That causes the Q2 zener to switch on, the 152 mA of current starts to flow, and that pulls Vgs down to 4.37 volts.
Does that make sense? That looks like potential for another negative feedback mechanism.
MileHigh
This was what I thought you meant, the first time you said "negative feedback" . That's why I listed it separately from the "oscillation feedback" which happens in the negative bias mode. And I think maybe you are right.
TK:
I agree with your statement and the ammeter in the new position should show zero current.
The mystery gate signal. The truth is out there....
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 05:22:57 PM
Poynt:
Talking positive bias mode:
The 152 mA current flow will cause cause a big drop across the 50-ohm Rgen. Q1 switches on, pulls the Q1 drain low. That causes the Q2 zener to switch on, the 152 mA of current starts to flow, and that pulls Vgs down to 4.37 volts.
Does that make sense? That looks like potential for another negative feedback mechanism.
It makes sense yes, but the diode is not really doing anything special. In fact the circuit works essentially the same with the Q2 diode shorted. Pull Q2 out and the FG current goes to zero of course.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 07:23:45 PM
The mystery gate signal. The truth is out there....
There were some really weird overall envelopes from around that time too but I can't find them now. They may be in the old forum threads. They are the ones with tapering, sideways turnip-shaped envelopes instead of nice rectangular ones, I'm sure you remember them. I cannot figure out how they were made.
But I do recall that there was some problem at some point with the FG and it had to be replaced. Am I recalling that correctly? I can't find the reference right now.
It sure would be nice if YKW would do as some have suggested: make the whole set of scopeshots, spreadsheet data and so on available in one place.
You know, it's very ironic. Going over those old threads, I see people like evolvingape, humbugger/cheeseburger, .99, MH, and...yes... even TK, telling her exactly the same things we've been telling her now, and with as little effect.
And I finally found where her "pickle" obsession came from: Wontbesober told cheesburger to hold the pickle. And the eternally polite moderator/censor Pirate made a sexual innuendo out of it. Then Pirate banned some people just for asking the hard questions.... like, where is the battery draw down test? And since "she" thinks that I am cheeseburger, she started making "pickle" jokes at me.
A musical interlude...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYHGh6lmSbo&ob=av2e
8)
I see that there are a lot of people lurking, as usual. I hope we are providing you all with some amusement. It is better than reality TV but probably not as much fun as National League Hockey.
@neptune..... if you are out there, I must congratulate you on your early perspicacity. It's too bad that YKW didn't deign to answer your questions about the use of the 555 timer.
I can assure you that your surmises about the 555 timer not being able to make the bipolar pulses, as well as your thoughts about extended continuous oscillations or very slow switching using, e.g. relays, are also perfectly correct and on the money.
The scope shots shown in this forum post are interesting. Look at them in chronological order (the bottom one comes first) NOT the way she implies at the top of the post. The BOTTOM one,SCRN0235, comes first in the time sequence.
Compare, contrast, discuss. Attack, bloviate, bury.
I think we are witnessing a mosfet being tortured to death. It's too bad the Drain trace is.... mentioned in the "caption".... but not shown on the traces.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278651/#msg278651 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278651/#msg278651)
So... If the circuit is being operated sometimes with a bad Q1, as it seems from some of the scopeshots, where is the high load heat coming from if the "off" or Gate LO oscillations don't pass much current and the DC current is nil during the "on" or Gate HI periods?
TK:
I assume that you took that picture. Very impressive. I would have poked a hole in a piece of cardboard. ;D
I've never been a fan of Rosemary's scope captures. It looks like Q1 MOSFET is not switching on in some of the captures. You can also see robust gate drive signals that are high in voltage and flat. So who knows? What the specific setup was for each capture is possibly unknown. Personally I don't know if much reliable information can be extracted from them. For example, you have captures with a robust gate signal and captures with a very corrupted gate signal and there is no attempt to explain that. It's just like the 'missing' CVR current when Q1 is supposed to be on.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 09:07:33 PM
TK:
I assume that you took that picture. Very impressive. I would have poked a hole in a piece of cardboard. ;D
MileHigh
Thanks... yes, I took it yesterday or the day before, it's all kind of blurry lately.
I'm trying to get my solar technique down for the Transit of Venus on the 5th of June. If I can make a timelapse of that I will be very happy indeed.
It looked a lot better in the eyepiece, and that image is just a single frame, not heavily processed and stacked from multiple frames like most of my AP work. I just haven't had time to work on it, but I'm sure I can get a better final image from the 50 or so frames that I shot. I put a video on my YT channel showing the "observayurt" and the telescope/camera. The video was shot just before I took the images of the sunspot.
Actually, if you can get the right kind of hole in your cardboard, you can make a quite good solar viewer out of a big cardboard box, using the 'pinhole camera' layout. A tiny teeny hole in thin opaque material, with perfectly round edges. You could try heating up a pin and poking it gently through a bit of black plastic, then putting that "hole holder" into a larger hole in the cardboard box, and project against a white screen on the other side of the box, and provide a viewport (facing AWAY from the SUN and towards the screen on the rear of the box. Or you could even use a piece of tracing vellum and make a "rear projection" solar pinhole camera. I might try that !
(This is why I lol and lol whenever YKW complains about my lousy photography. I actually do understand a little about the subject, and when it's important to me, I can take properly exposed, high resolution, absolutely stable images, videos, timelapse, highspeed.... you name it, if it's important I can do it. Do you need high speed high contrast Schlieren video photography of 3000m/sec underwater shockwaves? I can do that. Do you need air-to-air aerial photography of your new aerobatic airplane flying upside down? I can do that. Do you need an extreme blow up of a grainy monchrome microdot showing your enemy's dirty underwear? Sure, no problem. Long exposure deep sky astrophotography is a piece of cake compared to some of the photography I can do...if it's important enough. But shooting impromptu documentation of demonstrations designed to entertain a small audience and to educate an even smaller one... heck. I'll hold the camera under my chin, dim the lights to encourage hallucinations, reduce the HD originals to .flv, show the dog and the NERD preventer, all of that. If someone doesn't like it, they really should take the issue up with whoever it is that forces them to watch my videos. And if they fail to Get The Message, they only have their early educational choices and experiences to thank for that.)
TK:
Here is a goodie for the space transit fetishists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foBUaOKsIZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foBUaOKsIZM)
P.S.:
QuoteBut shooting impromptu documentation of demonstrations designed to entertain a small audience and to educate an even smaller one... heck. I'll hold the camera under my chin, dim the lights to encourage hallucinations, reduce the HD originals to .flv, show the dog and the NERD preventer, all of that. If someone doesn't like it, they really should take the issue up with whoever it is that forces them to watch my videos.
"Mr. Pregnant - Do Not Watch My Videos" - say no more. >:(
Here, Rosemary, this is for you.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2012, 04:12:32 PM
Regarding the two bias conditions and the resulting circuit currents, I hope the attached drawing answers most if not all questions.
Neither case shown was with oscillation present.
Poynty that diagram of yours is not right. Your reference to that 'Q2' MOSFET shows the bias supply in series with the main supply. Which is correct. As is your Q1 MOSFET reference where you show the bias supply is in parallel to the main supply. Here's where you 'error'.
. The body diode of your reference Q1 is NOT connected to the supply source or to the circuit's negative drain rail.
. It is ONLY connected to the terminal of the function generator's probe.
. It is floating - together with the your referenced Q1 Source.
. Therefore it CANNOT conduct current from the battery supply source -
. Even if that battery supply exceeded that diode's 'zener knee' voltage level
If you want to argue that the battery supply source can discharge current through your referenced Q1 you'll have to argue it against it's actual connections.
Regards,
Rosie
And may I add - IF that diode could conduct current from the battery supply while the bias supply is in parallel - then even more reason to suppose that it would do so while the bias supply were in series with the battery supply source. In which case there would be a continual battery discharge and the MOSFETs would NOT switch.
Guys here's an open admission to the extent of 'misdirection' our little TK is taking us.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 09:18:52 PM
But shooting impromptu documentation of demonstrations designed to entertain a small audience and to educate an even smaller one... heck. I'll hold the camera under my chin, dim the lights to encourage hallucinations, reduce the HD originals to .flv, show the dog and the NERD preventer, all of that. If someone doesn't like it, they really should take the issue up with whoever it is that forces them to watch my videos. And if they fail to Get The Message, they only have their early educational choices and experiences to thank for that.)
Which is PRECISELY why I don't bother to watch his videos. They're vulgar and gross and grossly vulgar. And they're a measure of TK's actual interest in this subject. I've mentioned it before. It has NOTHING to do with science. It is, nonetheless, amusing, to see him flail around for an explanation for what clearly are anomalous results.
Rosie Pose
Quotefor an explanation for what clearly are anomalous results.
Two months of hard work down the drain! Shucks! ;D
Now let me get this straight... you don't WATCH my videos... but you know precisely what is IN them.
I see.
And Poynty Point - sorry to quote myself here but I need to add this...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 09:50:07 PM
Poynty that diagram of yours is not right. Your reference to that 'Q2' MOSFET shows the bias supply in series with the main supply. Which is correct. As is your Q1 MOSFET reference where you show the bias supply is in parallel to the main supply. Here's where you 'error'.
. The body diode of your reference Q1 is NOT connected to the supply source or to the circuit's negative drain rail.
. It is ONLY connected to the terminal of the function generator's probe.
. It is floating - together with the your referenced Q1 Source.
. Therefore it CANNOT conduct current from the battery supply source -
. Even if that battery supply exceeded that diode's 'zener knee' voltage level
If you want to argue that the battery supply source can discharge current through your referenced Q1 you'll have to argue it against it's actual connections.
Regards,
Rosie
And may I add - IF that diode could conduct current from the battery supply while the bias supply is in parallel - then even more reason to suppose that it would do so while the bias supply were in series with the battery supply source. In which case there would be a continual battery discharge and the MOSFETs would NOT switch.
The reason that you DON'T get your sim to oscillate under this configuration is possibly and PRECISELY because you show a continual connection of your referenced Q1 Source to the battery supply source's negative rail. Under these circumstances there would be a continual discharge of the battery during both periods of each duty cycle.
Again,
Rosie
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 10:10:21 PM
Now let me get this straight... you don't WATCH my videos... but you know precisely what is IN them.
I see.
No TK I DID WATCH YOUR VIDEOS. I NO LONGER DO SO.
Rosie Pose
How vulgar and gross and grossly vulgar is THIS little video, Polly Parrot Ains-lie? Little Miss Pickle Measurer?
Ainslie said, stopping her ears with her fingers and squeezing her little eyes tightly shut:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK replied, shaking his pickle....er... camera at her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 10:10:45 PM
And Poynty Point - sorry to quote myself here but I need to add this...The reason that you DON'T get your sim to oscillate under this configuration is possibly and PRECISELY because you show a continual connection of your referenced Q1 Source to the battery supply source's negative rail. Under these circumstances there would be a continual discharge of the battery during both periods of each duty cycle.
Again,
Rosie
Facepalm. She has no clue what we have been talking about at all.
Word salad alert. Take your enzyme pills. 8)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 10:12:03 PM
No TK I DID WATCH YOUR VIDEOS. I NO LONGER DO SO.
Rosie Pose
THEN YOU NO LONGER KNOW WHAT IS IN THEM, DO YOU. So once again you have lied.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 10:16:42 PM
Facepalm. She has no clue what we have been talking about at all.
You can FACEPALM all you want TK. We will DEMONSTRATE this configuration and then we'll all see the level of your AUTHORITY. LOL
Rosie Pose
Any guesses as to which video is being referred to below?
That's right... the same one she SHOUTED that she DID NOT UPLOAD THAT VIDEO, and the same one she accused us of "rifling from her photobucket" I think was the way she put it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 10:19:25 PM
You can FACEPALM all you want TK. We will DEMONSTRATE this configuration and then we'll all see the level of your AUTHORITY. LOL
Rosie Pose
No, you won't be demonstrating anything at all. There is no "WE" behind you. You are sadly all alone. Your NERD RATs have long fled your floundering leaky boat.
But you will continue to lie and distort and bloviate and misunderstand what people are telling you. You will probably even argue with your undertaker when that time comes.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 10:17:00 PM
Word salad alert. Take your enzyme pills. 8)
Heh...
Hey MH, I hope you don't think my "take it up with whoever forces you to watch" mini-rant was directed at you !
>:( You scared me with that scowl.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 10:23:57 PM
No, you won't be demonstrating anything at all. There is no "WE" behind you. You are sadly all alone. Your NERD RATs have long fled your floundering leaky boat.
Not actually TK. The 'WE' that I reference applies to my collaborators.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 10:23:57 PMBut you will continue to lie and distort and bloviate and misunderstand what people are telling you. You will probably even argue with your undertaker when that time comes.
I DO love a good argument. You're right. I'm only sorry that this is restricted to the likes of Poynty Point and Groundloop. I keep reading this ever deteriorating thread in the hopes that I'll find MORE such good arguments. Sadly it's never going to happen. One would first need that level of their genius. You and MileHigh don't come close.
Rosie Pose
You know, hasn't Ainslie been saying that she has had _absolutely no evidence_ that her batteries are discharging while running and heating the load?
Well, I've already posted one place where she admits to seeing a voltage drop while running, and here's another. The "climb" in no-load indicated voltage after a heavy drain is absolutely normal for lead-acid batteries, of course. But the DROP in indicated voltage WHILE IN CIRCUIT and running in the high heat mode, coupled with the obvious current indications on the scope traces.... and coupled with the proper understanding of the schematic in use and the way it actually works.... I'd say that was pretty clear evidence that THE BATTERIES WERE DISCHARGING during that test.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 07:23:45 PM
The mystery gate signal. The truth is out there....
And here's another one. We are slowly collecting all her published shots, and fortunately she accepted the LeCroy default naming conventions so the "SCRN" numbers are in the correct chronological order and give some idea of the spacing and the amount of variation: TUNING : that happens during a typical "experimental" trial. How much of the big heat comes from TUNING, and then when she sees a scope trace she likes, she captures that. Clearly there are no LONG steady state trials recorded in the public data.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 10:15:19 PM
How vulgar and gross and grossly vulgar is THIS little video, Polly Parrot Ains-lie? Little Miss Pickle Measurer?
Ainslie said, stopping her ears with her fingers and squeezing her little eyes tightly shut:
And TK replied, shaking his pickle....er... camera at her:
TK? I nearly missed this. You and Humbugger share the same 'pickle'? EXTRAORDINARY. And that pickle is all of 72 INCHES LONG? That's big enough create seismic disturbances. Golly. If you shake it HARD - then I reckon that it'll impact on the only fault line in all of South Africa - which starts at about 7 kilometers from where I live. That means that we could all experience its shock wave. Ground moving - so to speak. In fact, since Eskom's nuclear power plants are ALSO located as close as dammit to that fault line - then that experience could result in a nuclear explosion and a nuclear fallout. NOW. How about it TK? There's a challenge for all your idle boasts. You could not only win your argument but you'd REALLY manage to silence me - together with a very large percentage of our Western Cape's population.
Rosie Pose
@MH: this, I believe, is the signature of a mosfet that is failing by shorting gate-to-source. It may be in the process of failing right in that scopeshot there.
Either that or there is really something wrong with the FG. Or maybe she's got it set to make a positive ramp, instead of a square pulse. Offset negatively of course.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 10:51:43 PM
TK? I nearly missed this. You and Humbugger share the same 'pickle'? EXTRAORDINARY. And that pickle is all of 72 INCHES LONG? That's big enough create seismic disturbances. Golly. If you shake it HARD - then I reckon that it'll impact on the only fault line in all of South Africa - which starts at about 7 kilometers from where I live. That means that we could all experience its shock wave. Ground moving - so to speak. In fact, since Eskom's nuclear power plants are ALSO located as close as dammit to that fault line - then that experience could result in a nuclear explosion and a nuclear fallout. NOW. How about it TK? There's a challenge for all your idle boasts. You could not only win your argument but you'd REALLY manage to silence me - together with a very large percentage of our Western Cape's population.
Rosie Pose
Do you see there? I have shown the origin of the PICKLE remark. Ainslie and her pet troll Wontbesober are ENTIRELY responsible for that particular bit of vulgarity... and once again I CAN PROVE IT all the way down the line. And like a widemouth bass rising to a plastic worm, she took the bait and PROVED her own vulgarity.
Haven't you ever seen a grown man shaking a pickle before? Don't come to any Texas barbecues, then.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 10:43:49 PM
You know, hasn't Ainslie been saying that she has had _absolutely no evidence_ that her batteries are discharging while running and heating the load?
Well, I've already posted one place where she admits to seeing a voltage drop while running, and here's another. The "climb" in no-load indicated voltage after a heavy drain is absolutely normal for lead-acid batteries, of course. But the DROP in indicated voltage WHILE IN CIRCUIT and running in the high heat mode, coupled with the obvious current indications on the scope traces.... and coupled with the proper understanding of the schematic in use and the way it actually works.... I'd say that was pretty clear evidence that THE BATTERIES WERE DISCHARGING during that test.
Not actually TK. The drop in voltage CAN occur during the running. CONFUSINGLY - the rise in voltage can ALSO occur during the running. Especially CONFUSING is that the rise in battery voltage was ALSO evident in that 'water to boil' test - where the last 10 minutes was evidently dissipating a runaway wattage - while the battery voltage climbed and the current discharge went to ZERO.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 10:51:43 PM
TK? I nearly missed this. You and Humbugger share the same 'pickle'? EXTRAORDINARY. And that pickle is all of 72 INCHES LONG? That's big enough create seismic disturbances. Golly. If you shake it HARD - then I reckon that it'll impact on the only fault line in all of South Africa - which starts at about 7 kilometers from where I live. That means that we could all experience its shock wave. Ground moving - so to speak. In fact, since Eskom's nuclear power plants are ALSO located as close as dammit to that fault line - then that experience could result in a nuclear explosion and a nuclear fallout. NOW. How about it TK? There's a challenge for all your idle boasts. You could not only win your argument but you'd REALLY manage to silence me - together with a very large percentage of our Western Cape's population.
Rosie Pose
Did you watch how that video completely demolished your petty little ignorant claim here? No...you are too obsessed with pickles. How long has it been since you've seen a pickle, Polly Parrot?
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc
Got your scope back from the repair shop yet, Polly, so you can start testing and PROVING ME WRONG?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 10:56:12 PM
Do you see there? I have shown the origin of the PICKLE remark. Ainslie and her pet troll Wontbesober are ENTIRELY responsible for that particular bit of vulgarity... and once again I CAN PROVE IT all the way down the line. And like a widemouth bass rising to a plastic worm, she took the bait and PROVED her own vulgarity.
Haven't you ever seen a grown man shaking a pickle before? Don't come to any Texas barbecues, then.
WHAT vulgarity? I am talking about the rather improbable CLAIM that a pickle can be 72 inches LONG. If any such were EVER found it would be in the Guinness Book of Records.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 10:56:38 PM
Not actually TK. The drop in voltage CAN occur during the running. CONFUSINGLY - the rise in voltage can ALSO occur during the running. Especially CONFUSING is that the rise in battery voltage was ALSO evident in that 'water to boil' test - where the last 10 minutes was evidently dissipating a runaway wattage - while the battery voltage climbed and the current discharge went to ZERO.
Rosie Pose
Your "water to boil" test didn't boil the water, and it failed the mosfet !! The proof is in your own description and scopeshots !!
Of course the current went to zero !
Rosemary:
The battery voltage rising business while under load has been covered many times. It means nothing.
And also, I have told you at least 10 times that battery voltages are unreliable and can't be used. It's the amount of energy that's in the battery that counts. Hence the dim bulb testing, which is a gauge of the amount of energy remaining in a battery.
Don't play the 'battery voltage' game. It's meaningless junk data.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 11:00:31 PM
Did you watch how that video completely demolished your petty little ignorant claim here?
NO
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 11:00:31 PMHow long has it been since you've seen a pickle, Polly Parrot?
Yesterday. I LOVE pickles.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 11:00:31 PMGot your scope back from the repair shop yet, Polly, so you can start testing and PROVING ME WRONG?
NO
Again, ever rosy
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 11:04:36 PM
Rosemary:
The battery voltage rising business while under load has been covered many times. It means nothing.
And also, I have told you at least 10 times that battery voltages are unreliable and can't be used. It's the amount of energy that's in the battery that counts. Hence the dim bulb testing, which is a gauge of the amount of energy remaining in a battery.
Don't play the 'battery voltage' game. It's meaningless junk data.
MileHigh
My dear MilesOfIncreasingAnxiety
I am NOT playing the 'battery voltage' game. I am simply commenting on the EVIDENCE. But we will CERTAINLY be 'checking on that evidence' in the very near future.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 11:01:25 PM
WHAT vulgarity? I am talking about the rather improbable CLAIM that a pickle can be 72 inches LONG. If any such were EVER found it would be in the Guinness Book of Records.
Rosie Pose
And just WHO and WHERE did somebody say that any pickle was 72inches long? Remember, I have the whole conversation recorded and I will post it all if you like. It makes you look quite petty, vulgar and stupid. Like this:
My 'satirical' references, which may I add exempts it from 'calumny and slander' are merely references to 'height and length'. WHY is that VULGAR?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 11:10:22 PM
And just WHO and WHERE did somebody say that any pickle was 72inches long? Remember, I have the whole conversation recorded and I will post it all if you like. It makes you look quite petty, vulgar and stupid. Like this:
Rosie Pose
:o >:( 8)
Remember when Ainslie shouted that SHE DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO, and that we -- or somebody -- rifled it from her photobucket account?
Here is how to rifle a video from someone's photobucket account. I'm sure many of our lurkers have been wondering about that.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2012, 04:12:32 PM
Regarding the two bias conditions and the resulting circuit currents, I hope the attached drawing answers most if not all questions.
Neither case shown was with oscillation present.
.99
Your analyze is not in agreement with actual measurements. Both TK and me got 0,09 Ampere bias current.
You also have just added the bias current to the main current. This is not correct and measurement shows
that this is not correct. Without the bias current running (removing the Q2) the overall circuit current is 1,92 Amp.
With the Q2 installed then the bias current is 90mA. But the overall current did drop to 1,78 Amp. Did you you Spice
simulator to get those numbers?
GL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 11:17:09 PM
My 'satirical' references, which may I add exempts it from 'calumny and slander' are merely references to 'height and length'. WHY is that VULGAR?
Rosie Pose
:o >:( 8)
You are the one who said it was vulgar, Polly, so why don't YOU explain?
I'm glad you can tell the difference between satirical references and calumny and slander. Because when I call you an arrogant uneducated ignoramus, I am only expressing a very widely held OPINION... which I can support with many facts and statements in your own words.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 11:20:18 PM
You are the one who said it was vulgar, Polly, so why don't YOU explain?
I'm glad you can tell the difference between satirical references and calumny and slander. Because when I call you an arrogant uneducated ignoramus, I am only expressing a very widely held OPINION... which I can support with many facts and statements in your own words.
TK you are not only as wrong as ever and hopelessly OFF TOPIC but you're getting WAY too boring. CONCENTRATE on Groundloops posts. They - at LEAST - could teach you something.
Rosie Pose
Quite apart from the general vulgarity of your rather 'dismal' invective - is that video - 'making out with a dog' boomp - boomp boomp. That should have been censored - LONG back - IN ITS ENTIRETY. And that's not even touching on your 'gross' vulgarity in 'name calling' that you seem to think is clever and simply parades your infantile emotional level of maturity.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Groundloop on May 14, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
.99
Your analyze is not in agreement with actual measurements. Both TK and me got 0,09 Ampere bias current.
You also have just added the bias current to the main current. This is not correct and measurement shows
that this is not correct. Without the bias current running (removing the Q2) the overall circuit current is 1,92 Amp.
With the Q2 installed then the bias current is 90mA. But the overall current did drop to 1,78 Amp. Did you you Spice
simulator to get those numbers?
GL.
I want to stress that the bias current I measured STARTED at 90 mA, quite consistently, but always quickly rose to 130-150 mA. I thought this was weird so I tried this with all the IRFPG50s that I have (except ironically the known bad one, I now realize), even two unused ones, and they all showed about the same behaviour, some faster some slower to rise up to the higher current.
So I'm wondering if this is just a characteristic of the particular mosfet (GL has the IRFPF50, I think) or what. How long did GL keep the measurment going? For me, in 5 or ten seconds the current started to rise from 90 heading up.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 09:50:07 PM
Poynty that diagram of yours is not right. Your reference to that 'Q2' MOSFET shows the bias supply in series with the main supply. Which is correct. As is your Q1 MOSFET reference where you show the bias supply is in parallel to the main supply. Here's where you 'error'.
. The body diode of your reference Q1 is NOT connected to the supply source or to the circuit's negative drain rail.
. It is ONLY connected to the terminal of the function generator's probe.
. It is floating - together with the your referenced Q1 Source.
. Therefore it CANNOT conduct current from the battery supply source -
. Even if that battery supply exceeded that diode's 'zener knee' voltage level
If you want to argue that the battery supply source can discharge current through your referenced Q1 you'll have to argue it against it's actual connections.
Regards,
Rosie
And may I add - IF that diode could conduct current from the battery supply while the bias supply is in parallel - then even more reason to suppose that it would do so while the bias supply were in series with the battery supply source. In which case there would be a continual battery discharge and the MOSFETs would NOT switch.
Rosemary,
.99 got the drawing correct. But my measurements does not agree with the numbers he got.
The Q2 body diode is in series with the function generator positive pulse input and is conducting
0,09 Ampere of current. The voltage drop over the diode is 1,8 Volt. The bias current going
through the Q1 MOSFET is effecting the overall current and is reducing the current.
You are correct in saying that the Q2 body diode can not conduct current from the main input battery.
The Q2 body diode is ONLY conducting current from the BIAS voltage input from the function generator.
GL.
TK:
It's possible that what you are observing is the heating up of the quasi-junction inside the MOSFET. Higher temp equals higher current transfer through a MOSFET, correct?
Assume that when the current is bleeding through the zener diode, that a fairly small volume inside the MOSFET represents the actual junction. So it becomes a kind of pin-point "hot reactor core" and it takes a while for the thermal equilibrium to take place.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 11:23:29 PM
TK you are not only as wrong as ever and hopelessly OFF TOPIC but you're getting WAY too boring. CONCENTRATE on Groundloops posts. They - at LEAST - could teach you something.
Rosie Pose
Quite apart from the general vulgarity of your rather 'dismal' invective - is that video - 'making out with a dog' boomp - boomp boomp. That should have been censored - LONG back - IN ITS ENTIRETY. And that's not even touching on your 'gross' vulgarity in 'name calling' that you seem to think is clever and simply parades your infantile emotional level of maturity.
Rosie Pose
You are definitely the most astounding hypocrite I have ever met, outside of politics.
YOU need to pay close attention to Groundloop's excellent work. More than that YOU need to pay attention to HOW he does it and HOW he accomplishes what he does. In addition, you should note that he has the integrity to examine his misunderstandings CAREFULLY and PROPERLY and to correct them when he discovers his errors.
He engaged in a textbook dimensional analysis that, once again, Proved You Wrong about your ridiculous ideas about power and energy and their unit definitions and usages.
PAY ATTENTION TO GROUNDLOOP, Polly Parrot. He is setting an example that you must learn to emulate if you really want to swim with the sharks of scientific publishing.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 14, 2012, 11:34:16 PM
Rosemary,
.99 got the drawing correct.
Not so sure about this. I'll check this out again and get back here.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 14, 2012, 11:34:16 PMBut my measurements does not agree with the numbers he got.
The Q2 body diode is in series with the function generator positive pulse input and is conducting
0,09 Ampere of current. The voltage drop over the diode is 1,8 Volt. The bias current going
through the Q1 MOSFET is effecting the overall current and is reducing the current.
You are correct in saying that the Q2 body diode can not conduct current from the main input battery.
The Q2 body diode is ONLY conducting current from the BIAS voltage input from the function generator.
GL.
Groundloop I can't argue this. You're dealing with the data from your experiment. I'll sit tight and see where this argument goes.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
ADDED
I've just checked. Sadly - Poynty's not with us at the moment. I'll wait for his answer to you Groundloop.
as ever,
R
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 11:25:31 PM
I want to stress that the bias current I measured STARTED at 90 mA, quite consistently, but always quickly rose to 130-150 mA. I thought this was weird so I tried this with all the IRFPG50s that I have (except ironically the known bad one, I now realize), even two unused ones, and they all showed about the same behaviour, some faster some slower to rise up to the higher current.
So I'm wondering if this is just a characteristic of the particular mosfet (GL has the IRFPF50, I think) or what. How long did GL keep the measurment going? For me, in 5 or ten seconds the current started to rise from 90 heading up.
TK,
I'm using a fairly large heat sink so I did not see that the bias current went so high. The main current did go
up a little as the MOSFET did heat up, but that is normal. What I'm addressing is that there is NOT an
relationship between bias current and main current where you simply ADD the bias current to the main
current as .99 did in his drawing. With the bias current running the main current did drop. But the sum
of the bias current and main current was not a simple addition. I think there is more to it than me have
found out yet.
GL.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 14, 2012, 11:39:48 PM
TK:
It's possible that what you are observing is the heating up of the quasi-junction inside the MOSFET. Higher temp equals higher current transfer through a MOSFET, correct?
Assume that when the current is bleeding through the zener diode, that a fairly small volume inside the MOSFET represents the actual junction. So it becomes a kind of pin-point "hot reactor core" and it takes a while for the thermal equilibrium to take place.
MileHigh
Yes, you are right, certainly for the D-S pathway. But in the applications I am most familiar with, the mosfets are either simply not stressed to the point where the circuit causes the body Zener to come into play, or they are stressed so very severely that I use external, replaceable zeners or high-speed diodes for protection... and even that doesn't help sometimes. So in my prior experience the internal body zener either never comes into play or is bypassed by the external ones. Still, I manage to blow mosfets occasionally.... and I don't even consider it an "event" unless I have to pick the pieces out of my teeth or the ceiling or something.
So I'd like to know if GL finds the same current rise over 10-20 seconds using the PF50s that he has.
ETA: I see that GL has answered already. That could be it. I noticed that for the one "bare" mosfet (no HS) I tested briefly, the bias current rose very fast as the die heated.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 14, 2012, 11:47:22 PM
TK,
I'm using a fairly large heat sink so I did not see that the bias current went so high. The main current did go
up a little as the MOSFET did heat up, but that is normal. What I'm addressing is that there is NOT an
relationship between bias current and main current where you simply ADD the bias current to the main
current as .99 did in his drawing. With the bias current running the main current did drop. But the sum
of the bias current and main current was not a simple addition. I think there is more to it than me have
found out yet.
GL.
Yes, I wonder if the currents add like parallel resistances like this: 1/Itotal = 1/Imain + 1/Ibias, or something like that. Or (1/I main - 1/Ibias). I'm too tired to run the numbers right now.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 11:48:19 PM
Yes, you are right, certainly for the D-S pathway. But in the applications I am most familiar with, the mosfets are either simply not stressed to the point where the circuit causes the body Zener to come into play, or they are stressed so very severely that I use external, replaceable zeners or high-speed diodes for protection... and even that doesn't help sometimes. So in my prior experience the internal body zener either never comes into play or is bypassed by the external ones. Still, I manage to blow mosfets occasionally.... and I don't even consider it an "event" unless I have to pick the pieces out of my teeth or the ceiling or something.
So I'd like to know if GL finds the same current rise over 10-20 seconds using the PF50s that he has.
ETA: I see that GL has answered already. That could be it. I noticed that for the one "bare" mosfet (no HS) I tested briefly, the bias current rose very fast as the die heated.
TK,
I think the reason that you did see the bias current increasing is that the RdsOn actually went UP in value
as the transistor heats up. That will fit the theoretical analyze. I can set up my test circuit and try it again, but
this time allow the circuit to run for a much longer time and see what I get for the bias current.
The RdsOn going UP in value is often the reason those critters blow. You generate a lot of heat in the transistor
and as it heats up the RdsOn climbs and you are generating more internal heat, etc. So at one point you get
too much heat and you heat sink can no longer cope with it and the transistor blows.
Back in 1/2 an hour or so.................................
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 12:00:06 AM
TK,
I think the reason that you did see the bias current increasing is that the RdsOn actually went UP in value
as the transistor heats up. That will fit the theoretical analyze. I can set up my test circuit and try it again, but
this time allow the circuit to run for a much longer time and see what I get for the bias current.
The RdsOn going UP in value is often the reason those critters blow. You generate a lot of heat in the transistor
and as it heats up the RdsOn climbs and you are generating more internal heat, etc. So at one point you get
too much heat and you heat sink can no longer cope with it and the transistor blows.
Back in 1/2 an hour or so.................................
GL.
@GL: How can the Rds go up at the same time the main current, Ids, goes up too, if the main supply voltage is constant? ETA: I see it now, it has to do with the rates of increase.
And...the power dissipated in the mosfet goes up linearly with its resistance, but as the square of its current. P=I^2R, right? So a small rise in current means much more power dissipation increase than a small rise in resistance does.
ETA: the graph shows that GL is right, though... the Rds does climb with the temperature. But I think the current goes up faster, so that the end result is the same: blown mosfet.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 15, 2012, 12:12:34 AM
@GL: How can the Rds go up at the same time the main current, Ids, goes up too, if the main supply voltage is constant? ETA: I see it now, it has to do with the rates of increase.
And...the power dissipated in the mosfet goes up linearly with its resistance, but as the square of its current. P=I^2R, right? So a small rise in current means much more power dissipation increase than a small rise in resistance does.
ETA: the graph shows that GL is right, though... the Rds does climb with the temperature. But I think the current goes up faster, so that the end result is the same: blown mosfet.
TK,
Here is my bias current heating test over time.
Start:
My RLOAD = 10 Ohm. RdsOn = 1,6 Ohm. RSHUNT = 0,25 Ohm.
Main input 24 Volt @ 1,74 Ampere. BIAS was 0,09 Ampere @ 12,10 Volt.
15 Minutes later and running all the time:
Main input 24 Volt @ 1,92 Ampere. BIAS was 0,13 Ampere @ 12,05 Volt.
MOSFET is warm to the touch but not too warm to operate normally.
There is lot of heat coming from the RLOAD.
15 Minutes later on running all the time:
Main input 24 Volt @ 1,95 Ampere. BIAS was 0,13 Ampere @ 11,90 Volt.
MOSFET is much warmer now, almost so that it burns my hand.
So I will probably need a larger heat sink or put a fan on the existing heat sink. :-)
There is lot of heat coming from the RLOAD.
Seems that the circuit now is running stable and does not increasingly heating up more.
END TEST.
So yes, I agree that the bias current and the main current goes up as the MOSFET heats up.
GL.
Here is how she talks to someone who approached her with mildness and plain speech, and who is clearly much more expert in these topics than just about anybody I can think of. He never said a single harsh word to her, and this is how she responds.
And Ainslie thinks I am he ! That really cracks me up. I bow in awe at cHeeseburger's knowledge and erudition. And his equanimity in the face of gratuitous insult and heavy-handed censorship. Clearly, I do not tolerate fools as readily as he does, neither do I have the knowledge that he does. Neither, apparently, do I have enough sense to just throw up my hands and walk away like he finally did. After all.... this will still be going on in another year, with no progress, whether I am here or not.
(Or is he out there, lurking and shaking his head, between facepalms.... or is he even closer than that? Only Stefan knows, and I hope he doesn't tell.)
I note from that post that she doesn't know how to use the scope's zoom feature to show a time-amplified section of a waveform taken at a slower timebase.
Heck.... I can even do THAT on my old analog HP180a. Remember when I showed, simultaneously, the overall envelopes at 0.2 ms/div, and I expanded the timebase out from a portion of that and showed the oscillations at 1 microsecond/div, a zoom factor of 200? SIMULTANEOUSLY? Is it POSSIBLE that my old analog garage-sale scope can do something that a modern, if low-end, DSO cannot?
Well, in all fairness it was a LLNL "garage sale". (That's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, for the acronym-challenged.)
SIGH. Ainslie has a beautiful, if low-end, DSO that is used like an Etch-a-Sketch: to make art, rather than science.
@GL: thanks for running that test.
What do you think would happen if you used 72 volts instead of 24 volts, leaving everything else the same?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 15, 2012, 01:18:56 AM
@GL: thanks for running that test.
What do you think would happen if you used 72 volts instead of 24 volts, leaving everything else the same?
TK,
The amount of heat generate in the MOSFET is also depended on the duty cycle.
So if I run at 72 Volt with a duty cycle of 12.2% on, then Amp = Volt / Rtotal = 72 Volt / 11,85 Ohm = 6 Ampere * 12.2/100 = 0,732 Ampere.
So the Ptotal in the MOSFET will be (0,732 * 0,732) * 1,6 = 0,8573184 Watt.
So nothing bad will happen.
PS: I'm getting a cold with fever so my math may be wrong, can't think straight right now.
>>>leaving everything else the same?
With 100% ON time the heating in the MOSFET will exceed the SOA of the transistor.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 01:44:41 AM
TK,
The amount of heat generate in the MOSFET is also depended on the duty cycle.
So if I run at 72 Volt with a duty cycle of 12.2% on, then Amp = Volt / Rtotal = 72 Volt / 11,85 Ohm = 6 Ampere * 12.2/100 = 0,732 Ampere.
So the Ptotal in the MOSFET will be (0,732 * 0,732) * 1,6 = 0,8573184 Watt.
So nothing bad will happen.
PS: I'm getting a cold with fever so my math may be wrong, can't think straight right now.
>>>leaving everything else the same?
With 100% ON time the heating in the MOSFET will exceed the SOA of the transistor.
GL.
I'm sorry to hear you aren't feeling well.
I think the problem goes like this, though.
Your Rtotal is 11.85 Ohms, your voltage is 72 V and so your current during the "on" state is 6 amps. And the mosfet has Rdss of 1.6 Ohms. This means that your instantaneous power dissipating in the mosfet is I^2R, or (6x6)x1.6, or 57.6 Watts. Right? For as long as the current is flowing.
But this instantaneous power is only happening for 12.2 percent of the time ON AVERAGE, but it certainly is happening when it happens.
So NOW is when the duty cycle is applied to the figure: 57.6 Watts x 0.122 = a bit over 7 Watts average dissipation at the mosfet. It will get quite warm. And... if the _period_ of the pulsations is long, even with the short duty cycle, there will still be plenty of time at 57.6 watts for the mosfet to heat significantly. That this is where the duty cycle comes in should be clear if you imagine very long periods. Imagine, say, a 2.5 MINUTE period at 12.2 percent ON. That means that the mosfet is ON, carrying 6 amps and dissipating 57.6 Watts, for 12.2 percent of 150 seconds, or almost twenty seconds. (Grab hold of a 60 Watt light bulb and turn it on for 20 seconds and see if it gets hot or not.) Then it gets two minutes and ten seconds to cool.... then another 20 seconds at 57.6 Watts. Right? So you were applying the duty cycle at the wrong place in the calculation, I think.
If you have time, 72 volts, and a spare mosfet, perhaps you'd like to do the obvious experiment. I will be doing it myself, tomorrow, probably.
Take it easy, drink plenty of your favourite fluids and try to rest. I hope you feel better soon.
--TK
(Also... you only know your Rdss to two digits of precision... so really you don't know your answer to seven digits of precision, do you? What you are saying when you give a number like "0,8573184 Watt" is that the answer isn't 0,8573183 Watt, nor is it 0,8573185 Watt.... in other words, even if the math is right, the degree of precision is wrong so that makes the answer "wrongish". However, if the TRUE value is something like 0,8573184 and you give the answer as 0,86 -- since you only know the Rds as 1.6, not 1.600342 for example .... you will be more correct technically because the error in your Rds precision -- the least precise value in your calculation -- determines the error in your overall calculation.)
@GL: so... if you are still up, why do you think that they removed one battery, leaving only 48 volts, during the second half of the video demo, the high heat mode?
I don't think this has ever been explained by the NERDs but I think it is very important in analyzing the behaviour of the circuit and the claims made for it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 15, 2012, 03:33:00 AM
I'm sorry to hear you aren't feeling well.
I think the problem goes like this, though.
Your Rtotal is 11.85 Ohms, your voltage is 72 V and so your current during the "on" state is 6 amps. And the mosfet has Rdss of 1.6 Ohms. This means that your instantaneous power dissipating in the mosfet is I^2R, or (6x6)x1.6, or 57.6 Watts. Right? For as long as the current is flowing.
But this instantaneous power is only happening for 12.2 percent of the time ON AVERAGE, but it certainly is happening when it happens.
So NOW is when the duty cycle is applied to the figure: 57.6 Watts x 0.122 = a bit over 7 Watts average dissipation at the mosfet. It will get quite warm. And... if the _period_ of the pulsations is long, even with the short duty cycle, there will still be plenty of time at 57.6 watts for the mosfet to heat significantly. That this is where the duty cycle comes in should be clear if you imagine very long periods. Imagine, say, a 2.5 MINUTE period at 12.2 percent ON. That means that the mosfet is ON, carrying 6 amps and dissipating 57.6 Watts, for 12.2 percent of 150 seconds, or almost twenty seconds. (Grab hold of a 60 Watt light bulb and turn it on for 20 seconds and see if it gets hot or not.) Then it gets two minutes and ten seconds to cool.... then another 20 seconds at 57.6 Watts. Right? So you were applying the duty cycle at the wrong place in the calculation, I think.
If you have time, 72 volts, and a spare mosfet, perhaps you'd like to do the obvious experiment. I will be doing it myself, tomorrow, probably.
Take it easy, drink plenty of your favourite fluids and try to rest. I hope you feel better soon.
--TK
(Also... you only know your Rdss to two digits of precision... so really you don't know your answer to seven digits of precision, do you? What you are saying when you give a number like "0,8573184 Watt" is that the answer isn't 0,8573183 Watt, nor is it 0,8573185 Watt.... in other words, even if the math is right, the degree of precision is wrong so that makes the answer "wrongish". However, if the TRUE value is something like 0,8573184 and you give the answer as 0,86 -- since you only know the Rds as 1.6, not 1.600342 for example .... you will be more correct technically because the error in your Rds precision -- the least precise value in your calculation -- determines the error in your overall calculation.)
TK,
I looked at you math and it looks right to me. So when the MOSFET reaches 50 degrees Celsius in my
case, then I'm starting to go outside the SOA of my transistors capability to transfer current.
The Maximum Power Dissipation (MPD) the MOSFET can handle is 190 Watt. You will need a really
good heat sink to get rid of all those Watts. If you allow the transistor to heat up just a little bit, then
you are in trouble. I know about precision, and I agree, all my digits is a copy paste from the PC calculator,
does not mean much in real life.
GL.
Rosemary:
When are you going to start your new round of testing? I can tell you a 'wish list' item that I think a lot of people would like to see:
Do whatever you have to do to do the dim bulb testing first. You know the drill. Get small batteries, set up your preferred oscillation mode and confirm it with your DSO. Then determine how long you want to run the setup starting with fresh batteries. Run the setup as long as required and then do the dim bulb tests.
That should your first and foremost goal, the dim bulb testing.
After that feel free to record DSO captures to your heart's content.
We really do not want to wait months while you do whatever you want to do. If you run the dim bulb test as a hasty afterthought after a few months worth of DSO captures we will all be extremely disappointed.
MileHigh
Quote from: Groundloop on May 14, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
.99
Your analyze is not in agreement with actual measurements. Both TK and me got 0,09 Ampere bias current.
You also have just added the bias current to the main current. This is not correct and measurement shows
that this is not correct. Without the bias current running (removing the Q2) the overall circuit current is 1,92 Amp.
With the Q2 installed then the bias current is 90mA. But the overall current did drop to 1,78 Amp. Did you you Spice
simulator to get those numbers?
GL.
All indicated current and voltages were derived from a SPICE simulation on the NERD circuit with a 24 Volt supply, vs. 72V. I applied no math myself.
It would be impossible to correctly measure any significant DC current
into the Gate of a working MOSFET. The current through the bias supply is NOT an indication of Gate current.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2012, 08:37:08 AM
All indicated current and voltages were derived from a SPICE simulation on the NERD circuit with a 24 Volt supply, vs. 72V. I applied no math myself.
It would be impossible to correctly measure any significant DC current into the Gate of a working MOSFET. The current through the bias supply is NOT an indication of Gate current.
.99
We are talking pass each other. What I did address was that your simulation just did add the main current in the circuit
from the main input voltage source with the bias current in the bias loop. This is not what I see in measurement. When the
bias current is running through the MOSFET at the same time as the main current is running through the MOSFET we get
an reduction of the main current. And this reduction is not (main current - bias current). If you remove the bias current by removing
the other MOSFET the the main current is approx. 1,94 Amp. Insert the other MOSFET and the main current drops to 1,74 Amp.
I can't get the numbers correct even if the bias current was 113mA. 1,74 + 0,113 = 1,853 Amp. Do you see what I mean?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 09:08:12 AM
If you remove the bias current by removing the other MOSFET the the main current is approx. 1,94 Amp. Insert the other MOSFET and the main current drops to 1,74 Amp.
I can't get the numbers correct even if the bias current was 113mA. 1,74 + 0,113 = 1,853 Amp. Do you see what I mean?
GL.
I think I see what you mean, but to be sure could you label my diagram with your measurements? Also, if you could indicate where you are taking your current measurements (i.e. where is your current meter inserted for each measurement?). Thanks.
It is important to distinguish where the measurements are being taken, because it varies depending where. For eg.
Q1 Source current:
1.67A with Q2 installed, 1.6A with Q2 pulled (a decrease in current)
Load current:
1.52A with Q2 installed, 1.6A with Q2 pulled (an increase in current)
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2012, 09:54:40 AM
I think I see what you mean, but to be sure could you label my diagram with your measurements? Also, if you could indicate where you are taking your current measurements (i.e. where is your current meter inserted for each measurement?). Thanks.
.99
Here is what I'm measuring.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 09:08:12 AM
If you remove the bias current by removing the other MOSFET the the main current is approx. 1,94 Amp. Insert the other MOSFET and the main current drops to 1,74 Amp.
I can't get the numbers correct even if the bias current was 113mA. 1,74 + 0,113 = 1,853 Amp. Do you see what I mean?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 10:22:39 AM
.99
Here is what I'm measuring.
GL.
OK, I think I see the problem.
If you are anticipating that the current through the load (your 1.74A) should increase by the amount of bias current (your 90mA) when Q2 is pulled, that would not be a correct assessment, and is evidently not what you are seeing with your measurement.
The biasing for Q1 is different in each case, i.e. when Q2 is present or absent, therefore the load current with Q2 removed can not be predicted by simply adding the bias current to the load current when Q2 is present.
Does that make sense?
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2012, 11:35:40 AM
OK, I think I see the problem.
If you are anticipating that the current through the load (your 1.74A) should increase by the amount of bias current (your 90mA) when Q2 is pulled, that would not be a correct assessment, and is evidently not what you are seeing with your measurement.
The biasing for Q1 is different in each case, i.e. when Q2 is present or absent, therefore the load current with Q2 removed can not be predicted by simply adding the bias current to the load current when Q2 is present.
Does that make sense?
.99,
Yes that makes sense. But that is exactly what your Spice simulation did, just adding the bias current to the main current.
Now at 90mA through the 50 Ohm resistor the voltage drop over the resistor should be 4,5 Volt. With a bias voltage
of 12 volt the gate should get 7,5 Volt. With 7,5 Volt on the gate, the MOSFET should be fully on conducting current
and also will be out of the linear area of amplification. So the only thing that should limit the overall current is the total
resistance between the 24 Volt and ground. But still the current drops to 1,74 Amp when we apply a bias current
of 90mA through the MOSFET instead of close to 2 Amp where it should be. Do you understand the implication
of what I'm saying? We have discovered that a secondary current loop through a MOSFET in saturation will bring
the MOSFET current down even if the gate voltage is high enough to keep the MOSFET in saturation. So the bias current
running through the MOSFET is modifying the behavior of the MOSFET somehow. Is it possible that the extra bias current
loop is somehow acting upon the gate charge?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
.99,
Yes that makes sense. But that is exactly what your Spice simulation did, just adding the bias current to the main current.
No, I think you are confusing what I'm saying. Yes, the SPICE simulation indicates that if we add the currents as shown on the diagram, all makes sense. BUT this is only for the case
when Q2 is present.I stated two (2) distinct Q1 bias conditions, one when Q2 is present, and one when Q2 is absent. You stated that we should be able to add the two currents to produce the total load current, even when we change the biasing by removing Q2. I am trying to explain that this is NOT the case. The biasing is different in each case, therefore Q1 is NOT biased to the same current. The two conditions are not equivalent.
Let's look at your example again:With Q2 present, you have a load current of 1.74A, and a bias current of 90mA, correct? That adds to 1.83A. If I am understanding your assertion, you expect the load current to be 1.83A when Q2 is pulled, correct?
With Q2 pulled, the actual measured load current in your case was 1.94A, not 1.83A, correct? I am saying that
they should be different, because Q1's biasing is different in each case.
Quote
Now at 90mA through the 50 Ohm resistor the voltage drop over the resistor should be 4,5 Volt. With a bias voltage of 12 volt the gate should get 7,5 Volt. With 7,5 Volt on the gate, the MOSFET should be fully on conducting current and also will be out of the linear area of amplification. So the only thing that should limit the overall current is the total resistance between the 24 Volt and ground.
But still the current drops to 1,74 Amp when we apply a bias current
of 90mA through the MOSFET instead of close to 2 Amp where it should be. Do you understand the implication
of what I'm saying? We have discovered that a secondary current loop through a MOSFET in saturation will bring
the MOSFET current down even if the gate voltage is high enough to keep the MOSFET in saturation. So the bias current
running through the MOSFET is modifying the behavior of the MOSFET somehow. Is it possible that the extra bias current
loop is somehow acting upon the gate charge?
GL.
There is nothing that strange going on, I assure you. The circuit is obeying KCL (Kirchhoff's Current Law), and if you measured the Q1 Drain current as I did in the simulation, you too will see that KCL holds true.
Well...
My internet was down for a while this morning, but just before it went, I had prepared this comment, some of which may still apply. I couldn't post it then so I'll do it now... but please don't interrupt the current analysis. I'm going shopping anyway.
(no pun intended....)
-------
Yes, it's important to be clear about the measuring points and the exact circuit used. I think .99's and GL's diagrams are perfectly clear and straightforward, but apparently they need a translator on their journey South.
This is why I always am trying to put all my circuit variations onto the same basic NERD diagram as published in the papers and on the forums. I think that by doing this, the schematics probably have the best chance of being correctly interpreted by YKW.
It is easier and clearer for me, too, to work with the style of diagrams that .99 and GL use. But I'm always going to put whatever variant or different measurement locations I've used back on some schematic that...er..... _relates to_ the NERD schematic directly. It might be helpful if GL and .99 indicated on their diagrams the points corresponding to what I'm now calling "RED" and "BLACK": the bias or gate drive input points on the Ainslie circuit. I can tell where they are but... well, you know.
Today.... finally.... I might have time to get to the component supplier. I'll be able to pick up some parts for the Altoids demonstrator circuit that .99 designed, and I also want to get a couple more PG50s..... because I intend to test at least one to deliberate destruction this afternoon. I will also ask if they have the IRFPF50 in stock.
--------
Carry on....
:)
Effect of some added inductance at Tar Baby's battery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWHURC48vDo
Somebody is watching. This video had at least 9 views before I got around to posting this link, including a comment by Stefan already.
Thanks for watching ! Please comment on the videos, you lurkers.
I'm sure you understand my editorial policy by now, in the one place over which I have some control. That is.... if I don't like what you say, I'll ask you to justify your argument with checkable facts, and if you cannot... or even claim you can, but WILL not.... then you can just go play in somebody else's sandbox.
Unless of course you are particularly amusing... then we can have some fun.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2012, 12:50:39 PM
No, I think you are confusing what I'm saying. Yes, the SPICE simulation indicates that if we add the currents as shown on the diagram, all makes sense. BUT this is only for the case when Q2 is present.
I stated two (2) distinct Q1 bias conditions, one when Q2 is present, and one when Q2 is absent. You stated that we should be able to add the two currents to produce the total load current, even when we change the biasing by removing Q2. I am trying to explain that this is NOT the case. The biasing is different in each case, therefore Q1 is NOT biased to the same current. The two conditions are not equivalent.
Let's look at your example again:
With Q2 present, you have a load current of 1.74A, and a bias current of 90mA, correct? That adds to 1.83A. If I am understanding your assertion, you expect the load current to be 1.83A when Q2 is pulled, correct?
With Q2 pulled, the actual measured load current in your case was 1.94A, not 1.83A, correct? I am saying that they should be different, because Q1's biasing is different in each case.
There is nothing that strange going on, I assure you. The circuit is obeying KCL (Kirchhoff's Current Law), and if you measured the Q1 Drain current as I did in the simulation, you too will see that KCL holds true.
.99,
In both situations (Q2 pulled or not) the bias voltage on the Q1 gate is ABOVE the linear area and will make
the MOSFET go into full saturation. With Q2 pulled you have +12 Volt on the gate. With Q2 NOT pulled you have +7,5 Volt
on the gate. What makes so difficult for you to understand this fact? So for both cases the MOSFET is fully ON
conducting current.
The ONLY thing that is different in both cases is that we put our 90mA through the Drain Source of the MOSFET.
Now explain why the there is a LOWER current going through the MOSFET when we put a 90mA current
through the Drain Source.
Next question, what is the total resistance the 12 Volt bias must "see" to be 90mA through the circuit?
Last question, what is the total resistance the main current from the 24 Volt must "see" to be 1,74 Amp?
Sorry for all the questions, but I really like to know what is going on in the circuit.
GL.
PLEASE NOTE: As .99 pointed out in the comments, in that last video, the low figure that I gave for the wire spool is implausible and of course wrong. I MISREAD the digital meter ! The meter only reads down to one microHenry anyway. That's what I get for not sleeping. :'(
The spool of wire actually measures 28 microHenry. I've edited the video description to reflect this, noted how I got the error and so on. The meter is actually agreeing with other measurements of known inductors as long as they aren't "resistive" inductors... it even warns about this in the manual, oh well.
So thanks again for noticing my 3-orders of magnitude Texas sized "tad" and I'll go with 28 microHenry for that spool of wire.
OK... carry on..... sorry to interrupt....
Groundloop:
I explained why the current changes, you just have to go back a few pages. I made three or four postings about it.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
Re: Request for documenting the test runs for the dim bulb testing.
It would not be desirable to see a dozen or more DSO captures in support of the dim bulb testing. I would say that a maximum of four would be fine. It goes without saying that the configuration of the circuit should be exactly the same for each capture.
For each DSO capture in support of the dim bulb testing we would like to know the details about the setup. How many batteries, things like that. We would like to see pictures of the setup. We would like you to list the the DSO negative power measurement for each capture. Therefore if you are going to use a 0.25 ohm current sensing resistor then you have to do the calculations to show us the measured negative wattage. We also want to know what the function generator voltage is without it being connected to the circuit, for each capture. So you measure it on the scope or with a multimeter, your choice, as long as you make the measurement. We also would like to know what the current measurement in the running circuit is when checked with a digital multimeter. If the digital multimeter is going crazy than use an analog multimeter. We expect a few hundred milliamps of current flow so you ideally you would have an analog current meter with a full-scale deflection of zero to 500 milliamps, or a full-scale deflection of zero to one amp.
So you can imagine four captures with a text file that records the configuration and data for each capture. If you want to be really nice you can put the whole thing into a spreadsheet. There should be no resizing of the scope capture images. You could also include the results of the dim bulb testing in the spreadsheet. Then we can simply download the spreadsheet.
We want no ambiguities in the data because that causes doubt. This is what open source is supposed to be all about.
I have just given you a few suggestions about documenting the "COP infinity" power measurements on the setup while the dim bulb test is running. If you can think of any more things to add then please add them. You know that you have been haunted by setup and circuit ambiguities in the past. This is your chance to get it right and document yourself properly.
I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting and sharing your thoughts with us.
When do you expect to start the testing?
MileHigh
GL,
I would encourage you to measure your actual VGS, as I have a hard time believing that it could be 7.5V.
All my sims show no more than about 4V max when Q2 is installed.
TK:
That was a great clip where you added the inductor between the batteries.
If you look at the two scope captures you can see the capture with the extra inductance is a more exaggerated version of the regular inductance version.
You know in these forums we are always suffering from a lack of information and of course it takes time and effort to get that information. I am hoping that you will be willing to do some more investigation, no need to make a video clip.
I am going to discuss the case with the extra inductance. Understanding this case will allow you to understand the regular case.
Here is my theory: When you see the battery voltage take the sharp fall, that's when the MOSFET switches on. After about 1/2 a cycle, that's when the MOSFET switches off.
The MOSFET switching on quickly pulls the voltage low for two reasons. Firstly, it is discharging the distributed capacitance consisting of the MOSFET DS capacitance and the stray capacitance in the wire. Secondly, the inductance in the wires and the big coil "rejects" the MOSFETs "desire" to increase the current flow. So the inductance puts on the brakes, and the microscopic capacitance quickly discharges when the MOSFET switches on.
So after about half a cycle the MOSFET then switches off. By this time some current has started to flow in the wires again, and you have stored some extra magnetic energy in the big coil. So the sharp rise in the "battery voltage" is simply your big extra inductor wanting to keep the current flowing, but it finds that the MOSFET is switched off. So the inductor has "no choice" and it charges up the MOSFET DS capacitance and the entire interconnect wire capacitance between the coil output and the MOSFET drain to a high potential.
I hope that everyone is following. I will continue in a second posting.
MileHigh
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 01:52:22 PM
Now explain why the there is a LOWER current going through the MOSFET when we put a 90mA current
through the Drain Source.
Actually, the MOSFET current INCREASES when the bias (Q2) is added. The load current DECREASES when the bias (Q2) is added.
The reason for the difference between Q2 present and Q2 absent, is because the RDsON state of Q1 changes in each case. In other words, the bias condition of Q1 changes.
Quote
Next question, what is the total resistance the 12 Volt bias must "see" to be 90mA through the circuit?
It is more than simply "resistance". There are two voltage sources bucking each other in series, and one must consider that as well. See my updated drawing below. I had to correct the measurements because I forgot to remove the 2 Ohms of wire resistance between the batteries and the circuit in my last simulation (I used the NERD circuit with all the wire inductance and resistance).
The bias current is calculated as follows:
- Determine the voltage at point "V": 1.84A x 11 Ohms = 20.24V across Rload.
- Now subtract from 24V to get 3.76V.
- Now subtract from the 12V bias supply to get 8.24V and
- Divide by the total resistance of 50 + 4.8 (for the diode, or use 11.3V vs. 12V) = 150mA
(there is probably an easier/quicker way, but the above is a simple explanation)
Quote
Last question, what is the total resistance the main current from the 24 Volt must "see" to be 1,74 Amp?
In the case shown below, 13 Ohms, which is just about Rload + RdsON. But I hope you understand that it is a little more complicated than that, as you saw above for your other related question.
Quote
Sorry for all the questions, but I really like to know what is going on in the circuit.
GL.
No problem. As a point of interest, note the indicated VGS voltage and the ON resistance for Q1?
@MH: I'll watch all right. You did see that I corrected the value of that inductance, I hope.
I misread the meter as nH when it was telling me uH. That's what I get for being so pysplexic. The correct inductance is about 28 microHenry, not nanoH. .99 poynted out that the nH value was implausible, and I certainly should have known better. No more posting before that second cup of coffee for me !! Sorry about that.
It's a bit more than necessary to show some effect... but now I know roughly exactly how much to add to get down to whatever frequency is deemed nominal for the oscillations. If I use about a third of that and scatter it around, I should wind up close to 1.4-1.5 MHz.
TK:
Okay, so continuing on with the discussion.
There are a few big unknowns relative to my discussion. We don't know the actual timing of the "virtual gate" signal. I am making an assumption of what the "virtual gate" signal might be, but I am not sure.
We can derive what the "gate" signal looks like by looking at the Q2 array source pin. i.e.; the negative output from the function generator or function generator equivalent.
So in the quest for more information, the request is to see what the timing on that signal is. So assume that you keep triggered on the "battery voltage" you look at the Q2 array source pin. (Or you just have a single Q2 in this test setup if I remember correctly)
So now you have three signals, the battery voltage, the CVR waveform, and the Q2 source pin voltage and you know the precise timing relationship between all three. And we are "molasses in January" about 600 KHz, yippee!
Here is were I recommend you go low tech. Get a pencil and some graph paper and sketch out the three waveforms based on your scopeoscopy with all of the proper timings.
For a really helpful bonus, you can also sketch out some derived waveforms. You can sketch out the gate voltage, which is just the ground (possibly CVR) potential minus the Q2 source pin voltage. (Just to make it easier on the brain.) You can also sketch out the MOSFET DS capacitance voltage! It's just the battery voltage minus the Q2 source pin voltage.
To be really picky, it might be worth it to verify the propagation delay for the MOSFET switching on. You are happily running at a lower frequency so it's probably not an issue.
Ooops, another verification I almost forgot. You have one probe on the battery voltage. Put the other probe on the MOSFET drain pin. If my theory is correct they should be almost identical. This would tend to confirm that the MOSFET DS capacitance and the wire length capacitance are charging up like I am suggesting.
Okay, now you have a cool timing diagram to show in a clip. We do NOT need to see you do this live with one hand - if you choose to do the investigation.
Assuming that you have the waveforms, then next question is does everything fit together like I am suggesting? Maybe I am wrong. After all, I don't have all of the information. Look at all of the relationships, what can be concluded. What about the current reversing direction? Do we have a handle on that, etc?
Supposing that I am right. That would tend to suggest that we are now able to tie in the wire inductance effects with the exaggerated battery voltage. It also explains the greatly reduced battery voltage. If we are really confident of this, then we have a chain of evidence to support the idea that the "battery voltage" is not actually the true battery voltage.
MileHigh
Poynty
I still don't get it. Are you describing what would be happening under ideal circumstances when the switch is 'on'? Because otherwise I fail to see the relevance. Please let me know.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote from: MileHigh on May 15, 2012, 10:21:54 PM
Okay, so continuing on with the discussion.
There are a few big unknowns relative to my discussion. We don't know the actual timing of the "virtual gate" signal. I am making an assumption of what the "virtual gate" signal might be, but I am not sure.
We can derive what the "gate" signal looks like by looking at the Q2 array source pin. i.e.; the negative output from the function generator or function generator equivalent.
So in the quest for more information, the request is to see what the timing on that signal is. So assume that you keep triggered on the "battery voltage" you look at the Q2 array source pin. (Or you just have a single Q2 in this test setup if I remember correctly)
So now you have three signals, the battery voltage, the CVR waveform, and the Q2 source pin voltage and you know the precise timing relationship between all three. And we are "molasses in January" about 600 KHz, yippee!
Here is were I recommend you go low tech. Get a pencil and some graph paper and sketch out the three waveforms based on your scopeoscopy with all of the proper timings.
For a really helpful bonus, you can also sketch out some derived waveforms. You can sketch out the gate voltage, which is just the ground (possibly CVR) potential minus the Q2 source pin voltage. (Just to make it easier on the brain.) You can also sketch out the MOSFET DS capacitance voltage! It's just the battery voltage minus the Q2 source pin voltage.
To be really picky, it might be worth it to verify the propagation delay for the MOSFET switching on. You are happily running at a lower frequency so it's probably not an issue.
Ooops, another verification I almost forgot. You have one probe on the battery voltage. Put the other probe on the MOSFET drain pin. If my theory is correct they should be almost identical. This would tend to confirm that the MOSFET DS capacitance and the wire length capacitance are charging up like I am suggesting.
Okay, now you have a cool timing diagram to show in a clip. We do NOT need to see you do this live with one hand - if you choose to do the investigation.
Assuming that you have the waveforms, then next question is does everything fit together like I am suggesting? Maybe I am wrong. After all, I don't have all of the information. Look at all of the relationships, what can be concluded. What about the current reversing direction? Do we have a handle on that, etc?
Supposing that I am right. That would tend to suggest that we are now able to tie in the wire inductance effects with the exaggerated battery voltage. It also explains the greatly reduced battery voltage. If we are really confident of this, then we have a chain of evidence to support the idea that the "battery voltage" is not actually the true battery voltage.
Thanks for this contribution MileHigh. I see now why you're in sales. Is this that 'treatise' you mentioned earlier? It's remarkably entertaining.
And here's the doozy...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 15, 2012, 09:10:16 PM
I am going to discuss the case with the extra inductance. Understanding this case will allow you to understand the regular case.
Here is my theory: When you see the battery voltage take the sharp fall, that's when the MOSFET switches on. After about 1/2 a cycle, that's when the MOSFET switches off.
Especially intriguing. It is a perfect example of the fatuously self-evident being delivered by the tediously pompous.
Rosie Posie
Rosemary:
How predictable. Any attempts at doing a serious investigation that could threaten your proposition are dismissed by you. You even try to make light of it by stating that it's "remarkably entertaining."
Anything that supports your proposition is good, even if it is nonsense. Anything that has the slightest whiff of not supporting your proposition is junk - according to you.
The truth of the matter is that you don't even understand what I wrote and you could never have conceptualized it yourself, not in a million years. So you are not even in a position to pass judgement on it.
How about my posting requesting improved documentation and supplementary testing for your upcoming round of dim bulb testing. What do you have to say about that? MileHigh
Rosemary:
QuoteIt is a perfect example of the fatuously self-evident being delivered by the tediously pompous.
You are full of shit.
MileHigh
What an entertaining series of posts. Now we have this one... LOL
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 15, 2012, 09:47:28 PM
@MH: I'll watch all right. You did see that I corrected the value of that inductance, I hope.
I misread the meter as nH when it was telling me uH. That's what I get for being so pysplexic. The correct inductance is about 28 microHenry, not nanoH. .99 poynted out that the nH value was implausible, and I certainly should have known better. No more posting before that second cup of coffee for me !! Sorry about that.
It's a bit more than necessary to show some effect... but now I know roughly exactly how much to add to get down to whatever frequency is deemed nominal for the oscillations. If I use about a third of that and scatter it around, I should wind up close to 1.4-1.5 MHz.
Knowing something 'roughly' and 'exactly' sufficient to 'scatter it around' to the four winds - in any and every direction - to derive a predicted conclusion predicated by that 'roughly exact informational data - dreamed up or real - imaginary or factual - roughly or exacly - to 1.4- 1.5 MHz. Golly we're going from obscurity - into the blackness of that INFINITE vacuum of space.
No wonder poor Harti's readership is moving away - by the droves.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary:
QuoteKnowing something 'roughly' and 'exactly' sufficient to 'scatter it around' to the four winds - in any and every direction - to derive a predicted conclusion predicated by that 'roughly exact informational data - dreamed up or real - imaginary or factual - roughly or exacly - to 1.4- 1.5 MHz. Golly we're going from obscurity - into the blackness of that INFINITE vacuum of space.
No wonder poor Harti's readership is moving away - by the droves.
This is another
pure garbage posting by you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You are not going to ruin this discussion with your
inane nonsense. It's not going to happen.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 15, 2012, 11:03:01 PM
Rosemary:
This is another pure garbage posting by you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You are not going to ruin this discussion with your inane nonsense. It's not going to happen.
MileHigh
WHAT discussion? I keep hoping for some kind of SKILL or some kind of relevance. But it seems that my hopes are likely to be still born. WHY do you think MilesOfPurePretension - that I took the trouble to advise you to correct your GROSS and ELEMENTARY errors in power analysis. It's PRECISELY because I want our readers to think that there's some skill and therefore some relevance to ANY arguments that you propose. When you parade this level of absurdity - then with respect - there is NO reader who will take you or this subject seriously.
And that CERTAINLY is not in the interests of progressing this technology. There are only TWO members dealing with this subject that are able to keep the subject relevant. And all you and TK manage to do is to detract from their hard work.
Rosie Pose
Not edited so much as I must have hit the post button too early.
The gathering together continues. Here is SCRN0150. This is what I believe a "proper" run is supposed to look like.
Envelope period is just under 700 us... call it 690 us, for an envelope frequency of about 1450 Hz, and the duty cycle looks to be about 120/700 or about 17 percent ON.
Gate drive: About +5 HI and some negative with oscs LO, indicating the negative offset of the FG and showing that there is bias current flowing when it is LO.
CVR trace: Shows good strong current during the Gate HI intervals, about 550 mV drop or 550 mV/0.25 Ohm = a nice healthy 2.2 Amps flowing. Interesting. The battery is a 4-stack of just over 49 volts.
The math trace shows the instantaneous power during the Gate HI periods quite well.
So here it is clear that the mosfets are behaving pretty much as expected although the current in the Gate HI phase still seems a little low to me.
Let's see.... if the mosfet is fully on its Rdss 2.0, CVR 0.25, load 11.11, battery and other wires 2... total circuit resistance should be around 16 Ohms. I=V/R, so 49.5/16 = 3.1 A, But we are only doing 2.2 A, so the TCR must be higher. Perhaps the mosfet isn't quite turning fully on yet with the only 5 volts or so gate drive. For 2.2 amps the TCR must be V/I = 49.5/2.2 == about 22 Ohms. About 13 - 14 of this is in the load and wiring so the mosfet must have an internal resistance of about 8 or 9 ohms. Let's use 8. So the power dissipated in the entire circuit during the Gate HI intervals is (2.2 x 2.2) x 22 == about 106 Watts instantaneous power. So the power dissipated in the mosfet will be (2.2x2.2)x8 == about 39 Watts and in the load (2.2 x 2.2)x11.11 or about 54 Watts, and in the shunt (2.2x2.2)x0.25 == about 1.2 Watt, so that is 94.2 Watts out of the 106 accounted for. The rest will be in the battery and the leads.
Looking at the math trace now.... again during the Gate HI periods... I measure with my calipers about 22 VxV. Since one of those Vs is actually a scaled A value, and since the current value is 4 times the voltage value on the shunt, we do VxVx4 to get to the actual instantaneous power during the Gate HI periods, and I make that about 88 Watts. In rough agreement with the other measurements and calculations.
But of course this is only the instantaneous power during the ON time and this mosfet is OFF when the Gate signal is LO. So applying the duty cycle of about 0.17 we get an AVERAGE power dissipation of the total circuit of about 15 Watts, of which about 9.2 Watts will be in the load, and about 6.6 Watts in the mosfet AVERAGE power dissipation. And this is JUST the contribution of the Gate HI "ON" portion of the signal.
This ignores the contribution from the negative bias oscillations during the Gate LO part of the period, of course, so the true power delivered to the load will be greater. But the Q1 mosfet will definitely feel warm to the touch at about 7 Watts average.
And... if the _period_ is lengthened, even if the duty cycle stays the same, or if the battery pack is increased to 72 volts.... or both... or if the gate signal is made more positive during the HI portions... the Q1 mosfet will be stressed.
Since we clearly have power being delivered to the load and dissipating in the mosfet during the NON OSCILLATION PORTION OF THE SIGNAL..... where is the magic? There are no oscillations to fight the battery current and keep it from discharging, so it MUST BE DISCHARGING even under the terms of the "thesis". The only way to defeat this OBVIOUS DISCHARGE DURING THE NON_OSCILLATIONS is to somehow postulate that the battery IS being recharged DURING THE OSCILLATIONS, to offset the evident discharge during the non-oscillations.
So..... if there IS NO DISCHARGE PERIOD, that is, no Gate HI period to discharge the batteries, the CHARGING EFFECT OF THE OSCILLATIONS should over charge the batteries and cause the voltage to rise, not stay constant. And I mean RISE, because .... the oscillations must produce a charging effect at least as great as the DISCHARGING effect, corrected for duty cycle, if the battery is to remain at a constant charge. When the discharge is removed by using only the negative bias mode...... the oscillations should overcharge the battery. I mean, I didn't tell them we weren't going to be sneaking an ON portion into the cycle... did you? SO how do they know not to overcharge the battery?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EjCHuqdKUs
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 15, 2012, 10:32:26 PM
Poynty
I still don't get it. Are you describing what would be happening under ideal circumstances when the switch is 'on'? Because otherwise I fail to see the relevance. Please let me know.
Regards,
Rosie
Rosemary,
I think we've been trying to uncover the operating conditions for the "positive bias mode", in which Q1 is actively ON, and while only Q2's diode is involved, as per the drawing. We are looking at this bias condition and the resulting circuit currents.
You can see that this mode is somewhat more complex in terms of the current paths, where there is a secondary (bias) loop within the main current loop. A fine example of KCL at play.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2012, 08:00:57 PM
GL,
I would encourage you to measure your actual VGS, as I have a hard time believing that it could be 7.5V.
All my sims show no more than about 4V max when Q2 is installed.
.99,
Yes I did and I also indicated that on the drawing in the post "Here is what I did measure".
It was +7 Volt.
GL.
Rosemary:
Our esteemed readers can look at your message to me and decide for themselves. I am only doing this because there was nothing confidential or personal in the message:
Quote
(Quoting MileHigh:) Take the example of the bias supply current loop. Let's say that the real Q2 Rds is 3.5 ohms. What the +13-volt bias supply 'sees' for the Q2 MOSFET drain-to-source voltage drop is ((3.5 ohms x 0.09 amps) + (3.5 ohms x 1.78 amps)). The second term is the counter-EMF generated by the main current of 1.78 amps flowing through the same MOSFET.
You may want to look again at this post of yours MilesOffTheMark. What is r x I? Don't you mean I^2R? And then correct it before its TOO LATE.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary, you are in attack mode right now and you are talking like an idiot. You talk like an idiot in your message to me shown above.
Repeat, you are not qualified to make any comments about what I posted, inane or otherwise. Shame on you for being in the gutter with your attack postings about my investigation. It's simply disgusting and everybody that is reading you is squirming looking at you making a spectacle of yourself yet again.
I won't discuss this matter any further. Get out of jackass mode.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2012, 09:40:06 PM
Actually, the MOSFET current INCREASES when the bias (Q2) is added. The load current DECREASES when the bias (Q2) is added.
The reason for the difference between Q2 present and Q2 absent, is because the RDsON state of Q1 changes in each case. In other words, the bias condition of Q1 changes.
It is more than simply "resistance". There are two voltage sources bucking each other in series, and one must consider that as well. See my updated drawing below. I had to correct the measurements because I forgot to remove the 2 Ohms of wire resistance between the batteries and the circuit in my last simulation (I used the NERD circuit with all the wire inductance and resistance).
The bias current is calculated as follows:
- Determine the voltage at point "V": 1.84A x 11 Ohms = 20.24V across Rload.
- Now subtract from 24V to get 3.76V.
- Now subtract from the 12V bias supply to get 8.24V and
- Divide by the total resistance of 50 + 4.8 (for the diode, or use 11.3V vs. 12V) = 150mA
(there is probably an easier/quicker way, but the above is a simple explanation)
In the case shown below, 13 Ohms, which is just about Rload + RdsON. But I hope you understand that it is a little more complicated than that, as you saw above for your other related question.
No problem. As a point of interest, note the indicated VGS voltage and the ON resistance for Q1?
.99,
>>>The reason for the difference between Q2 present and Q2 absent, is because the RDsON state of Q1 changes in each >>>case. In other words, the bias condition of Q1 changes.
I agree that the bias situation is different in the two cases but it does NOT change that fact that the MOSFET
is biased fully ON at each case and the GS voltage is +12 Volt in one case and +7 Volt in the other.
The RdsOn starts at very high Ohm when there is no positive voltage on the Gate (ref. to S). The RdsOn then
go down in Ohm when we increase the G voltage. But at some point the RdsOn will NOT go down anymore
because we have reached the saturation of the MOSFET and the RdsOn have reached the data sheet RdsOn of 1.6 Ohm.
It will not go lower than that. So in my case the linear region of the MOSFET current control ends at approx. 6 Volt.
ALL voltages on the G above that voltage will put the MOSFET into saturation.
Your simulation is not showing what I'm measuring. I did measure the GS voltage and found it to be +7 Volt
with both MOSFET transistors IN the circuit, and +12 Volt when I pulled the other MOSFET.
What is the RdsOn for the 24 Volt main current of 1,74 Ampere?
24 Volt / 1,74 Amp = 13,79 Ohm -10 Ohm = 3,79 Ohm - 0,25 Ohm = 3,54 Ohm = RdsOn
What is the RdsOn for the 12 Volt bias current of 0,09 Ampere?
12 Volt / 0,09 Amp = 133,3 Ohm - 50 Ohm = 83,3 Ohm
The internal diode has a voltage drop of 1,8 Volt. Gives, 1,8 Volt / 0,09 Amp = 20 Ohm.
So, 83,3 Ohm - 20 Ohm = 63,3 Ohm = RdsOn.
How can the RdsOn be different for the two cases at the SAME TIME?
GL.
Here's a challenge for the scoposcopist.
The traces are :
Golden, CVR "shunt" voltage drop, 0.25 Ohms DC resistance
Fuchsia: The "battery" voltage: Mean is given as 73.3 V, so this is a six-battery-pack trial. ;D
Turquoise: The Gate signal from the FG
Scarlet: The scope's computed math trace
It's too bad that the traces weren't displayed with the thought that they actually meant something. What use is a scope if all you are going to do is read the numbers it puts in boxes for you? Why in heaven's name would anyone display that math trace at 10 KiloVV per division? Or the Gate at 50 V/div? Or the critical SHUNT trace at 5 v/div? Only because the thought was never given to the idea that someone might actually examine the data. Or was it? Or is it because those spikes are there....?.
Now... for the challenge.
Compute the duty cycle.
Compute the voltage of the Gate signal when it is HI.
Compute the level of the voltage drop across the CVR when the Gate signal is HI.
Compute the level of the current seen in the CVR when the Gate signal is HI.
Compute the instantaneous power level during the Gate HI signal -- this is what the Math trace would show if you could see it.
Compute the average power for the whole waveform using the instantaneous power during the gate HI portion and the duty cycle.
IGNORE any contribution from the oscillations for now.
(This is essentially the same calculation that GL and I went through last night, except that the values aren't given. You have to blow up the scopeshot and use your dividers or a ruler to get the values from the traces.)
Report, compare, contrast, discuss. Yes, there is a point, coming up, somewhere.
What is the average power dissipation in the entire circuit during the trial shown on the scopeshot, neglecting any contribution from the oscillations? And where in the circuit is this power dissipated?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 15, 2012, 10:32:26 PM
Poynty
I still don't get it. Are you describing what would be happening under ideal circumstances when the switch is 'on'? Because otherwise I fail to see the relevance. Please let me know.
Regards,
Rosie
Rosemary,
I know you addressed this question to .99 but let me also clarify.
There has been many different opinions about your circuit "floating" on the Internet. The only way to make
sure to get the correct circuit analysis is to do actual measurement on the circuit and compare those
measurements with some theoretical analysis. That is what I'm trying to do. I'm also engaging .99
in this because I know he is a very knowledgeable person.
One of the "myths" that have been put forth numerous times is that the function generator is adding
power to the circuit. And, yes, that is partly the truth. But at the positive part of the function generator
cycle, the added power is burnt as heat in the MOSFET and DOES NOT ADD TO THE RLOAD.
In the negative part of the function generator cycle we have current flowing OUT of the switching circuit
and this energy is BURNT OFF AS HEAT IN THE INTERNAL 50 OHM OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR
and DOES NOT ADD ANY POWER TO RLOAD.
By doing the BIAS analysis I have found that there is NO WAY the function generator can ADD any power to RLOAD!
So all posters, including myself, got it WRONG when we assumed that the function generator could
add energy to to RLOAD. The only person that got it right was YOU, when you said (in a non technical way)
that the function generator does not add any power to the the load resistor.
This is WHY I do my circuit analysis, to find the truth about the circuit on how it works.
GL.
Groundloop:
QuoteIn the negative part of the function generator cycle we have current flowing OUT of the switching circuit
and this energy is BURNT OFF AS HEAT IN THE INTERNAL 50 OHM OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR
and DOES NOT ADD ANY POWER TO RLOAD.
By doing the BIAS analysis I have found that there is NO WAY the function generator can ADD any power to RLOAD!
You are wrong for negative oscillation mode. In this mode the signal amplifier inside the the function generator acts like a battery in series will all of the other batteries with additive voltage. It's also possible that the voltage being output by the signal amplifier is 15 or 20 volts. In that sense it's a "bigger battery" in series with the other batteries.
In this case, all of the batteries, and the amplifier inside the function generator, provide power that is dissipated as heat in RLOAD.
MileHigh
Ah.. .but GL... you are talking about ONE mode of operation, and the NERDs have typically been operating either in BOTH modes, or the OTHER Mode.
That is, they use a negative bias current exclusively or for most of the time. In the negative bias mode the bias source and the main battery are in aiding series and so both contribute to the entire power in the circuit. They never operate in the Positive bias mode for more than 50 percent of the duty cycle and usually much less than that, and the "desired" mode is to not use the positive bias at all, just stay in the negative bias, oscillation mode. And in that mode, it is apparent that the bias source or FG CAN add to the power in the load... I think.
HEH... I see that MH is on top of this too. Great minds think alike !!
Groundloop and Poynty Point
Thanks for the explanation
Kindest as ever
Rosie
I'd really like to see someone else besides me analyze that SCRN0235 shot I posted above, so I can check my work. And so that some conclusions can be drawn.
Also, I am searching for a blow up of the oscillations taken with a 48-volt battery pack. I don't mean the slower envelope or a "burst" all the way across the screen... I want something I can actually measure the frequency of the oscs from, that was taken with the 48 volt battery pack. If anybody comes across one in the "SCRNXXXX" series please post it or link it. Thanks in advance...
--TK
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 12:31:38 AM
Groundloop and Poynty Point
Thanks for the explanation
Kindest as ever
Rosie
This is unlike you, Rosemary. This surely is the record for the least word count in one of your posts. Especially when replying to MH or .99.
Aren't you feeling well? Cat got your tailfeathers again?
I'm crushed that you didn't even acknowledge the photograph I gave you. That one, I sell big prints of occasionally, and it's very popular with a certain crowd. Artsy types, you know. I really thought you might like it. Oh well..... different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Now... about those tests that you are getting ready to perform... of course you aren't going to charge your batteries beforehand, since they are always fully charged, and we know that even when they aren't, like down to 10 volts even, they still will run the circuit. So of COURSE you won't be needing to recharge your batteries before you start your current round of tests, which will commence as soon as you get your scope back from the repair shop. Won't it.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 12:29:37 AM
Groundloop:
You are wrong for negative oscillation mode. In this mode the signal amplifier inside the the function generator acts like a battery in series will all of the other batteries with additive voltage. It's also possible that the voltage being output by the signal amplifier is 15 or 20 volts. In that sense it's a "bigger battery" in series with the other batteries.
In this case, all of the batteries, and the amplifier inside the function generator, provide power that is dissipated as heat in RLOAD.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
Yes, and that is the beauty of it. I may be wrong about the oscillator cycle and power into RLOAD.
And that is because I haven't done all the necessary measurements and theoretical analysis yet.
I will let you know what I find when I have done that.
GL.
Guys - this one is hilarious. I've highlighted the appropriate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 12:31:20 AM
Ah.. .but GL... you are talking about ONE mode of operation, and the NERDs have typically been operating either in BOTH modes, or the OTHER Mode.
That is, they use a negative bias current exclusively or for most of the time. In the negative bias mode the bias source and the main battery are in aiding series and so both contribute to the entire power in the circuit. They never operate in the Positive bias mode for more than 50 percent of the duty cycle and usually much less than that, and the "desired" mode is to not use the positive bias at all, just stay in the negative bias, oscillation mode. And in that mode, it is apparent that the bias source or FG CAN add to the power in the load... I think.
HEH... I see that MH is on top of this too. Great minds think alike !!
And kindly note in the context in which those 'GREAT MINDS' operate - as a gentle reminder...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 09:18:52 PM
Long exposure deep sky astrophotography is a piece of cake compared to some of the photography I can do...if it's important enough. But shooting impromptu documentation of demonstrations designed to entertain a small audience and to educate an even smaller one... heck. I'll hold the camera under my chin, dim the lights to encourage hallucinations, reduce the HD originals to .flv, show the dog and the NERD preventer, all of that. If someone doesn't like it, they really should take the issue up with whoever it is that forces them to watch my videos. And if they fail to Get The Message, they only have their early educational choices and experiences to thank for that.)
If it weren't quite so insulting then it would REALLY be comical. What troubles me is that I REALLY need the work of Groundloop and Poynty. We all do. And there's not much of this thread that is likely to survive when they're called on to remove the calumny and slander. Hopefully we can salvage this more important aspect.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 12:31:20 AM
Ah.. .but GL... you are talking about ONE mode of operation, and the NERDs have typically been operating either in BOTH modes, or the OTHER Mode.
That is, they use a negative bias current exclusively or for most of the time. In the negative bias mode the bias source and the main battery are in aiding series and so both contribute to the entire power in the circuit. They never operate in the Positive bias mode for more than 50 percent of the duty cycle and usually much less than that, and the "desired" mode is to not use the positive bias at all, just stay in the negative bias, oscillation mode. And in that mode, it is apparent that the bias source or FG CAN add to the power in the load... I think.
HEH... I see that MH is on top of this too. Great minds think alike !!
TK,
See my post to MileHigh.
Added: My next focus will be the oscillator mode. And I want to find out as much as I can about it.
GL.
Repost:
Rosemary:
Re: Request for documenting the test runs for the dim bulb testing.
It would not be desirable to see a dozen or more DSO captures in support of the dim bulb testing. I would say that a maximum of four would be fine. It goes without saying that the configuration of the circuit should be exactly the same for each capture.
For each DSO capture in support of the dim bulb testing we would like to know the details about the setup. How many batteries, things like that. We would like to see pictures of the setup. We would like you to list the the DSO negative power measurement for each capture. Therefore if you are going to use a 0.25 ohm current sensing resistor then you have to do the calculations to show us the measured negative wattage. We also want to know what the function generator voltage is without it being connected to the circuit, for each capture. So you measure it on the scope or with a multimeter, your choice, as long as you make the measurement. We also would like to know what the current measurement in the running circuit is when checked with a digital multimeter. If the digital multimeter is going crazy than use an analog multimeter. We expect a few hundred milliamps of current flow so you ideally you would have an analog current meter with a full-scale deflection of zero to 500 milliamps, or a full-scale deflection of zero to one amp.
So you can imagine four captures with a text file that records the configuration and data for each capture. If you want to be really nice you can put the whole thing into a spreadsheet. There should be no resizing of the scope capture images. You could also include the results of the dim bulb testing in the spreadsheet. Then we can simply download the spreadsheet.
We want no ambiguities in the data because that causes doubt. This is what open source is supposed to be all about.
I have just given you a few suggestions about documenting the "COP infinity" power measurements on the setup while the dim bulb test is running. If you can think of any more things to add then please add them. You know that you have been haunted by setup and circuit ambiguities in the past. This is your chance to get it right and document yourself properly.
I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting and sharing your thoughts with us.
When do you expect to start the testing?
MileHigh
Er... ummmm... I hate to keep interrupting you with all these scopeshots... but here is another scoposcopy puzzle.
There is a point to these, and I really wish that they would be taken seriously.
The below is a screengrab blowup of a graphic Stefan prepared over a year ago. It is of course the CVR trace from one of RA's time-expanded oscillation shots. Stefan has colored the areas above and below the zero-voltage line.
The puzzle: How many red pixels are there? How many green pixels are there? I don't know the answer. Yet.
(This can be determined fairly easily by most graphics programs, I think. Or you could blow the image up and count them all manually. This is Nobel-prize material, after all, you should be willing to do a little work for it.)
Report, compare, contrast, discuss.
Now, we do realize that the negative mean power product arises not only from the areas and the zerocrossings of the current signal but also from the amplitudes and areas of the battery trace that fluctuate above and below the battery's nominal voltage. So it would have been nice of Stefan to extend lines down from the zero-crossings of the CVR trace, down to the battery trace, with a line across that trace at the nominal voltage level, so _those_ areas could also be compared, and the areas themselves could then be multiplied. But this is what we've got and it's an interesting problem.
And TK - I think your own referenced scopshots BELIE this little 'spin' effort of yours...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 12:31:20 AM
Ah.. .but GL... you are talking about ONE mode of operation, and the NERDs have typically been operating either in BOTH modes, or the OTHER Mode.
That is, they use a negative bias current exclusively or for most of the time. In the negative bias mode the bias source and the main battery are in aiding series and so both contribute to the entire power in the circuit. They never operate in the Positive bias mode for more than 50 percent of the duty cycle and usually much less than that, and the "desired" mode is to not use the positive bias at all, just stay in the negative bias, oscillation mode. And in that mode, it is apparent that the bias source or FG CAN add to the power in the load... I think.
How then do you explain that we get even GREATER power dissipated at the load when we apply a 50% duty cycle. In FACT we've got samples where we have it ON more than OFF and STILL get a negative wattage.
You are truly insulting the intelligence of everyone who engages here. And you do it with the reckless abandon of a loose cannon.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 12:44:18 AM
(snip)
If it weren't quite so insulting then it would REALLY be comical. (snip)
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
Pot, kettle, black.
As I have said before, you are the most hypocritical person I have ever encountered outside of politics. You are the Red Queen of the veiled insult, the sly innuendo, the stabbing in the back of your former colleagues, the mendacious aspersion, the distorted reference, the malquote.
Regards as ever... but you are trying your level best to do me actual harm. You are indeed a piece of work, Ainslie.
Matthew 7:3-5.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 01:19:19 AM
And TK - I think your own referenced scopshots BELIE this little 'spin' effort of yours...
How then do you explain that we get even GREATER power dissipated at the load when we apply a 50% duty cycle. In FACT we've got samples where we have it ON more than OFF and STILL get a negative wattage.
You are truly insulting the intelligence of everyone who engages here. And you do it with the reckless abandon of a loose cannon.
Rosie Pose
You fool. If you paid attention you might notice that I HAVE ASKED OUR PARTICIPANTS TO DO THEIR OWN MATH on that first shot you reproduced.
And I hope they do, because it shows that the HEAT IN THE LOAD comes mostly when THERE ARE NO MAGIC OSCILLATIONS.
And the negative power product has been explained to you so many times I can't count them and I KNOW you can't count them. Anyone can produce it with any number of component combinations and it is A MEASUREMENT ARTEFACT.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 12:54:27 AM
Repost:
I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting and sharing your thoughts with us.
MileHigh
And I would like to see considerably more RESPECT for the subject at hand and for me - before I will EVER 'seriously' acknowledge your posts. I suspect that we're both doomed to frustration. Which is probably as well - since our interests are so diverse.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 01:23:39 AM
You fool. If you paid attention you might notice that I HAVE ASKED OUR PARTICIPANTS TO DO THEIR OWN MATH on that first shot you reproduced.
And I hope they do, because it shows that the HEAT IN THE LOAD comes mostly when THERE ARE NO MAGIC OSCILLATIONS.
And the negative power product has been explained to you so many times I can't count them and I KNOW you can't count them. Anyone can produce it with any number of component combinations and it is A MEASUREMENT ARTEFACT.
What is particularly laughable is that you're now quoting the Bible? Good heaven's TK? Do you really think that you can make us think that there's any residual trace of Christian decency in your make up? And then THIS POST? Where you AGAIN try and spin that watts can be determined outside of time? I saw your rather pedantic contribution earlier. Unfortunately our Standard Model has already determined the basis of wattage analysis. Power equals the volts over time, x the amps over time. You're SKEWING the facts. As ever.
Rosie Pose
And Guys, again just as a reminder...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 01:23:39 AM
And I hope they do, because it shows that the HEAT IN THE LOAD comes mostly when THERE ARE NO MAGIC OSCILLATIONS.
And the negative power product has been explained to you so many times I can't count them and I KNOW you can't count them. Anyone can produce it with any number of component combinations and it is A MEASUREMENT ARTEFACT.
Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints. A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms. IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED. Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required. And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable. Poynty denies there's a benefit. Groundloop's checking it out. And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact.
What TK is trying to do is diminish the significance. We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions. But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous. And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.
Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary
QuoteSo. The bottom line is this. We absolutely do not need that oscillation to get the required negative mean average and cycle mean average and negative math trace.
Yes, actually..... you do.
And YOU can prove that you do... by trying to make your negative averages and math trace WITHOUT IT.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:01:21 AM
And Guys, again just as a reminder...
Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints. A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms. IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED. Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required. And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable. Poynty denies there's a benefit. Groundloop's checking it out. And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact.
Why TK is trying to do is diminish the significance. We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions. But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous. And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.
Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The measurement is not "anomalous". A repeatable, well understood and explained ERROR is not "anomalous" at all.
And I repeat: DO THE MATH on that scope trace. You might find something interesting. Not YOU, Ainslie, because I know you aren't capable of it. But GL, or .99, or MH, or Stefan, or ANYONE can do it... and come to a rather different conclusion than you do.
And again Guys, a 'red alert'...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 02:04:18 AM
Yes, actually..... you do.
And YOU can prove that you do... by trying to make your negative averages and math trace WITHOUT IT.
TK has referenced this without dates ... YET AGAIN. I believe what I am here referring to the Parasitic Hartley Effect proposed by a certain academic as an explanation for the oscillation on our COP>17 Test. I won't swear to to YET - but it is my opinion that this reference of mine has NOTHING to do with this oscillation pertinent to the NERD circuit.
Regards,
Rosemary
QuoteSo. The bottom line is this. We absolutely do not need that oscillation to get the required negative mean average and cycle mean average and negative math trace.
Let's see you do that. I'd love to see it.
But I .... and some others.... know that you cannot, and that this is just another of your hopeful mendacities designed to attract more attention to you and your claims.Tell me, Ainslie: do you work for a living? What do you do to earn your daily bread?
Good grief, I hope you aren't a schoolteacher.That is a frightening thought.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 02:06:34 AM
The measurement is not "anomalous". A repeatable, well understood and explained ERROR is not "anomalous" at all.
And I repeat: DO THE MATH on that scope trace. You might find something interesting. Not YOU, Ainslie, because I know you aren't capable of it. But GL, or .99, or MH, or Stefan, or ANYONE can do it... and come to a rather different conclusion than you do.
WHERE HAS ANYONE PROVED THAT IT IS ERRONEOUS? FAR FROM IT. If something is measured - repeatedly - then it is NOT an error. Unless the applied protocols are in error. And THAT MUCH has not been proved. You are jumping the gun TK. As ever. And your analysis of power related to that little waveform analysis applied to our downloads - is LAUGHABLY inexact.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:10:17 AM
And again Guys, a 'red alert'...
TK has referenced this without dates ... YET AGAIN. I believe what I am here referring to the Parasitic Hartley Effect proposed by a certain academic as an explanation for the oscillation on our COP>17 Test. I won't swear to to YET - but it is my opinion that this reference of mine has NOTHING to do with this oscillation pertinent to the NERD circuit.
Regards,
Rosemary
Look at the damn screenshot I posted, you ignorant liar. The date and the place I got it from are on the bottom left corner.
Here's the link, you can see for yourself that you are INDEED talking about your oscillations.
Do you really think that I cannot back up EVERY SINGLE ONE of my allegations with facts and references to YOUR OWN WORDS AND DATA?
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279347/#msg279347
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 02:11:52 AM
Let's see you do that. I'd love to see it.
But I .... and some others.... know that you cannot, and that this is just another of your hopeful mendacities designed to attract more attention to you and your claims.Tell me, Ainslie: do you work for a living? What do you do to earn your daily bread?
Good grief, I hope you aren't a schoolteacher.That is a frightening thought.
I would bother to answer this ALLEGATION for the benefit of our readers if you also took the trouble to quote the context of its reference. It strikes me as a rather REQUIRED condition to your multiple ALLEGATIONS to keep all context of all references out of reach. Which is again further proof of your rather reckless desire to distort my statements while you SPIN your SPIN and THROW that HOT TAR.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:13:11 AM
WHERE HAS ANYONE PROVED THAT IT IS ERRONEOUS? FAR FROM IT. If something is measured - repeatedly - then it is NOT an error. Unless the applied protocols are in error. And THAT MUCH has not been proved. You are jumping the gun TK. As ever. And your analysis of power related to that little waveform analysis applied to our downloads - is LAUGHABLY inexact.
Rosie Pose
Over and over again, Ainslie, your miserable excuse for "reasoning" is addled, by age or illness I don't know.
And you can't be serious: errors CAN AND ARE repeated all the time. AND YOU LIE EVERY TIME YOU CLAIM TO USE STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
And lest this rather significant post of mine by buried by these utterly inane allegations by our little TK - here guys is a repost...
And Guys, again just as a reminder...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 01:23:39 AM
And I hope they do, because it shows that the HEAT IN THE LOAD comes mostly when THERE ARE NO MAGIC OSCILLATIONS.
And the negative power product has been explained to you so many times I can't count them and I KNOW you can't count them. Anyone can produce it with any number of component combinations and it is A MEASUREMENT ARTEFACT.
Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints. A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms. IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED. Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required. And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable. Poynty denies there's a benefit. Groundloop's checking it out. And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact.
What TK is trying to do is diminish the significance. We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions. But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous. And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.
Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:16:28 AM
I would bother to answer this ALLEGATION for the benefit of our readers if you also took the trouble to quote the context of its reference. It strikes me as a rather REQUIRED condition to your multiple ALLEGATIONS to keep all context of all references out of reach. Which is again further proof of your rather reckless desire to distort my statements while you SPIN your SPIN and THROW that HOT TAR.
Rosie Pose
The link is there, you liar. The context is perfectly clear.
DO THE MATH. YOU have claimed that you can make your negative power product and the math trace without the oscillations. IT IS THERE IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Now do it.
Put up OR SHUT UP, Ainslie.
Look at the bottom left of the image. Look at this link. YOU ARE A LIAR.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279347/#msg279347
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Over and over again, Ainslie, your miserable excuse for "reasoning" is addled, by age or illness I don't know.
And you can't be serious: errors CAN AND ARE repeated all the time. AND YOU LIE EVERY TIME YOU CLAIM TO USE STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
And so you allege - TK. Over and over and over. With a regularity that diminishes the force of this statement in direct proportion to the number of times that you repeat it. You are running out of time here TK. You must be feeling rather frantic.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:18:49 AM
And lest this rather significant post of mine by buried by these utterly inane allegations by our little TK - here guys is a repost...
And Guys, again just as a reminder...Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints. A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms. IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED. Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required. And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable. Poynty denies there's a benefit. Groundloop's checking it out. And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact.
What TK is trying to do is diminish the significance. We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions. But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous. And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.
Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary
You are not breaching any of KCL constraints. You are not using anything like a "standard model". You don't even know how to calculate power and energy! And I have alleged nothing like what YOU LIE about in reference to me.
I would be HAPPY for GL and .99 and anyone to analyze that scopeshot, which you now are trying to bury.
Here it is again. Notice that I give it its correct filenumber so it can be put in sequence with your other hidden data.
What is the average power shown, NOT INCLUDING THE OSCILLATIONS? Just leave them out. Calculate only the DC POWER. then you will have to explain how the oscillations can CANCEL all that power and REPLACE IT BACK INTO THE BATTERY.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:22:01 AM
And so you allege - TK. Over and over and over. With a regularity that diminishes the force of this statement in direct proportion to the number of times that you repeat it. You are running out of time here TK. You must be feeling rather frantic.
Rosie Pose
And I will still be right and you will still be wrong. You have another incredible claim to support now, Ainslie...and YOU are the one running out of time, not me.
What do you do for a living, Ainslie? How do you earn your daily bread?
Negative wattage and positive wattage
In circuit sim, if i scope the source for power consumption, if I connect the source to a load, the wattage of the source shows negative. Which makes sense. The source it the component that holds and provides the energy to the load. But if I apply a higher voltage source to the original source being monitored, + to + and - to - , the scope shows a positive wattage, as if the original source is being charged like a battery.
When reading a resistive load, it always shows positive wattage as it consumes power from the source or circuit any time there is a potential difference across the resistance. No matter the polarity of the current flow, it only shows positive wattage readings as it is the receiver of that wattage. It is in the plus. ;)
If you have ever loaded Falstads Circuit sim, the first circuit on the page is an LC resonance circuit. Delete the cap and resistor in the LC loop. Now add 2 wires and a diode across the push button switch so that when we close the switch, the battery charges the inductor, then when you release the switch, the inductor will send the charge back to the battery. Of course orient the diode so it doesnt conduct till the inductor produces reverse emf. If you pull a scope shot for power consumed of the batt, you can see the pos and neg results when the batt discharges and recharges. Just an easy example of pos and neg batt wattage with passive components other than the battery.
Mags
Here's a challenge for the scoposcopist.
The traces are :
Golden, CVR "shunt" voltage drop, 0.25 Ohms DC resistance
Fuchsia: The "battery" voltage: Mean is given as 73.3 V, so this is a six-battery-pack trial. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fgrin.gif&hash=48cd3b652a891d74b4b4ef746db528263b551e0c)
Turquoise: The Gate signal from the FG
Scarlet: The scope's computed math trace
It's too bad that the traces weren't displayed with the thought that they actually meant something. What use is a scope if all you are going to do is read the numbers it puts in boxes for you? Why in heaven's name would anyone display that math trace at 10 KiloVV per division? Or the Gate at 50 V/div? Or the critical SHUNT trace at 5 v/div? Only because the thought was never given to the idea that someone might actually examine the data. Or was it? Or is it because those spikes are there....?.
Now... for the challenge.
Compute the duty cycle.
Compute the voltage of the Gate signal when it is HI.
Compute the level of the voltage drop across the CVR when the Gate signal is HI.
Compute the level of the current seen in the CVR when the Gate signal is HI.
Compute the instantaneous power level during the Gate HI signal -- this is what the Math trace would show if you could see it.
Compute the average power for the whole waveform using the instantaneous power during the gate HI portion and the duty cycle.
IGNORE any contribution from the oscillations for now.
(This is essentially the same calculation that GL and I went through last night, except that the values aren't given. You have to blow up the scopeshot and use your dividers or a ruler to get the values from the traces.)
Report, compare, contrast, discuss. Yes, there is a point, coming up, somewhere.
What is the average power dissipation in the entire circuit during the trial shown on the scopeshot, neglecting any contribution from the oscillations? And where in the circuit is this power dissipated?
Rosemary:
QuoteAnd I would like to see considerably more RESPECT for the subject at hand and for me - before I will EVER 'seriously' acknowledge your posts. I suspect that we're both doomed to frustration. Which is probably as well - since our interests are so diverse.
Total bullshit. I made some technical postings in hope of gaining a better understanding of what was going on in the circuit and your comments were vulgar low-brow flippant lies - just you being a low life that didn't even understand what she was reading.
So don't you go playing the 'respect' card and the 'acknowledge' card. You are just trying to escape discussing open source and what it means. You are fully aware that your previous report was full of holes like a Swiss cheese. My requests were made in a true cooperative spirit of open source and sharing of information so all attempts made by you to taint them are in vain.
I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting
and sharing your thoughts with us.
MileHigh
I have MANY, MANY examples of your deliberate 'out of context' misquotes. So. In answer to this...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 02:14:49 AM
Look at the damn screenshot I posted, you ignorant liar. The date and the place I got it from are on the bottom left corner.
Here's the link, you can see for yourself that you are INDEED talking about your oscillations.
Do you really think that I cannot back up EVERY SINGLE ONE of my allegations with facts and references to YOUR OWN WORDS AND DATA?
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279347/#msg279347 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279347/#msg279347)
I KNOW that you CANNOT back up 'EVERY SINGLE ONE' of your 'ALLEGATIONS'. You can 'spin' and 'allege' and 'imply'. That's the best you can do. And even HERE - even as in THIS example - you SPIN and you SPIN. And you call ME a piece of work? I am NOT in your league. SADLY. Because then I would freely slander you and your work and I too would then EXPECT no accountability.
Rosie Pose
The below is a screengrab blowup of a graphic Stefan prepared over a year ago. It is of course the CVR trace from one of RA's time-expanded oscillation shots. Stefan has colored the areas above and below the zero-voltage line.
The puzzle: How many red pixels are there? How many green pixels are there? I don't know the answer. Yet.
(This can be determined fairly easily by most graphics programs, I think. Or you could blow the image up and count them all manually. This is Nobel-prize material, after all, you should be willing to do a little work for it.)
Report, compare, contrast, discuss.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:32:47 AM
I have MANY, MANY examples of your deliberate 'out of context' misquotes.
And yet... you never link to any of them. Whereas I, just like in the post to which you mendaciously refer, always do show just where your OWN WORDS COME FROM.
Like this: Note the filename: it contains your blog, and the post number. Surely you can find it from THAT.
Magsy I simply don't understand this post.
Quote from: Magluvin on May 16, 2012, 02:26:11 AM
Negative wattage and positive wattage
In circuit sim, if i scope the source for power consumption, if I connect the source to a load, the wattage of the source shows negative. Which makes sense. The source it the component that holds and provides the energy to the load. But if I apply a higher voltage source to the original source being monitored, + to + and - to - , the scope shows a positive wattage, as if the original source is being charged like a battery.
When reading a resistive load, it always shows positive wattage as it consumes power from the source or circuit any time there is a potential difference across the resistance. No matter the polarity of the current flow, it only shows positive wattage readings as it is the receiver of that wattage. It is in the plus. ;)
If you have ever loaded Falstads Circuit sim, the first circuit on the page is an LC resonance circuit. Delete the cap and resistor in the LC loop. Now add 2 wires and a diode across the push button switch so that when we close the switch, the battery charges the inductor, then when you release the switch, the inductor will send the charge back to the battery. Of course orient the diode so it doesnt conduct till the inductor produces reverse emf. If you pull a scope shot for power consumed of the batt, you can see the pos and neg results when the batt discharges and recharges. Just an easy example of pos and neg batt wattage with passive components other than the battery.
If one puts a scope across a battery and then reads a negative voltage then that would be extraordinary. Have I misunderstood you?
Regards,
Rosie
TK:
QuoteThe puzzle: How many red pixels are there? How many green pixels are there? I don't know the answer. Yet.
It's got to be more red pixels indicating a net current flow clockwise in the circuit. Net current flow clockwise spells curtains for Rosie Posie who speaks erroneously.
As we know, the battery voltage readings are a fake, and that is throwing off the DSO average power computation.
MileHigh
I remembered this lecture from a long time ago and I thought it might help. But then I realised that calculus is a prerequisite for Prof. Lewin's freshman physics survey. I hope YKW can make it past the 1:40 mark and see what Lewin is actually showing here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 02:47:46 AM
TK:
It's got to be more red pixels indicating a net current flow clockwise in the circuit. Net current flow clockwise spells curtains for Rosie Posie who speaks erroneously.
As we know, the battery voltage readings are a fake, and that is throwing off the DSO average power computation.
MileHigh
Got to be... yes, perhaps. But did you count them? I think it's a close call. Red wins, but it's close. I've done it several ways.
Ok.... so what about SCRN0235, then?
I'd like somebody else besides me to compute the instantaneous power level during the Gate HI portion of the signal when there are NO OSCILLATIONS and then use the duty cycle to determine the average power dissipated by the circuit, neglecting the oscillation portion. Just compute the DC power level and adjust it for the duty cycle to give the average power.
What is the magnitude of this power, computed without even referring to the oscillation portion?
Where is this power dissipated? Do we expect anything to get warm, just from the DC power alone, not even considering the power from the oscillations?
Finally... where is this power coming from? There are no oscillations, it's just a normal mosfet turned on, for that Gate HI timeslice, isn't it?
So I think that even if zipons are true... .during this part of the cycle the zipons are irrelevant. Right?
So... that means that the battery must be supplying this heat.
And if the battery is to somehow maintain its state of charge, then the oscillations MUST be replenishing it somehow, because it manifestly IS LOSING charge during the ON period without the magic oscillations.
Please....anybody... look at this trace and compute the DC power level.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279127/#msg279127 Reply #283 on: March 24, 2011, 07:13:07 AM
Quote
Guys, I can't get the test up again until Saturday. Meanwhile this is for Harti. It will be a whole wack of screen shots - and I'll give comments against each one. So. Apologies for this but there'll be multiple posts following.
This one.
Channel 1 = Rshunt
Channel 2 = Vbatt
Channel 3 = Gate
Channel 4 = Drain
These settings never vary.
a - cycle mean rshunt
b - math trace a x c
c - mean average vbatt
d - mean average rshunt
Typically an example of very high wattage disssipation at the load. In this case > 44 watts
Note that the cycle mean is negative - the mean average is positive.
Math trace - as in all examples stays negative.
Included here to remind you all that high wattage dissipation does not automatically result in a postive cycle mean average. AGAIN. That example used in the demonstration was intended to highlight the concern related to the phase
condition of those voltages that result in an infinite COP.
SCRN0235.jpg
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg283299/#msg283299 Reply #932 on: April 27, 2011, 07:25:26 AM
Quote
Here's a better example where we're into wattage dissipation at something close to 80 watts.
Added. I've been going through the hundreds of samples that we've got. But the real 'runaway' numbers just happen too quickly to get a down load of the data. I could however get a screen shot and shall try and do so this week. The
sample I've shown here is at a high frequency. We can get this at slower frequencies - but I need to be nimble. It often ignores the setting and then just keeps going north. And I'm not that keen on spoiling any more of those FETs.
SCRN0235.jpg
Hey TK,
I find it quite odd with the same scope shot
SCRN0235.jpg with referencing the load resistor wattage dissipation would change such a drastic amount from
44 watts to
80 watts in a months time. ???
It's also curious what Rosemary maybe referring to on
spoiling any more FET's ( additional RA terminology - mosfet, transistor or switch )
The only LeCroy oscilloscope screen shot I could find after
SCRN0235.jpg was
SCRN0238.jpg approximately
38 minutes later.
Fuzzy
;)
@FTC: Yes, exactly. Queue the funeral march from Aida. We have just been shown a mosfet tortured to death.
But seriously... please compute the actual DC power, instantaneous and average, in the shot SCRN0235? If I do it (I have) you know who will say you know what.
The point of SCRN0235 is that: during the Gate HI portion of the duty cycle, there is significant (boy I'll say) DC power being passed. Ignoring the oscillations, and using the duty cycle, what then is the AVERAGE POWER from just the DC that flows through the circuit during Gate HI?
Since this is DC, and there are no oscillations while it is happening, inductive effects aren't there. Oscillations aren't there. ZIPONS are not there. It is just a mosfet being turned on in a simple series circuit. There is no magic during this time EVEN IF AINSLIE's ZIPONS ARE TRUE. The oscillations are what make the magic.... or are they, since she now claims to be able to make the negative product without oscillations. HOOT !
This scope shot alone falsifies Ainslie's entire project, all the way down the line.
Golly, guys, that was so much fun I nearly forgot.
Fig. 1: Strewing some inductances about the battery pack
Fig. 2: The resultant frequency, to eight accurate and precise significant digits
Fig. 3: The scopeshot. Negative mean power product? I dare say so.
Oh... I almost forgot. Heating the load nicely.
(I think the EXIF data comes along with these jpegs, so you can see that I'm shooting these frames fairly close together in time, just minutes or seconds apart.)
Quote from: Groundloop on May 16, 2012, 12:21:01 AM
Rosemary,
I know you addressed this question to .99 but let me also clarify.
There has been many different opinions about your circuit "floating" on the Internet. The only way to make
sure to get the correct circuit analysis is to do actual measurement on the circuit and compare those
measurements with some theoretical analysis. That is what I'm trying to do. I'm also engaging .99
in this because I know he is a very knowledgeable person.
One of the "myths" that have been put forth numerous times is that the function generator is adding
power to the circuit. And, yes, that is partly the truth. But at the positive part of the function generator
cycle, the added power is burnt as heat in the MOSFET and DOES NOT ADD TO THE RLOAD.
In the negative part of the function generator cycle we have current flowing OUT of the switching circuit and this energy is BURNT OFF AS HEAT IN THE INTERNAL 50 OHM OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR and DOES NOT ADD ANY POWER TO RLOAD. By doing the BIAS analysis I have found that there is NO WAY the function generator can ADD any power to RLOAD!So all posters, including myself, got it WRONG when we assumed that the function generator could add energy to to RLOAD. The only person that got it right was YOU, when you said (in a non technical way) that the function generator does not add any power to the the load resistor.
This is WHY I do my circuit analysis, to find the truth about the circuit on how it works.
GL.
I know you made subsequent posts which roll back the "certainty" espoused in this post, but this is silly GL. No one that made the assertion about the FG in negative mode is wrong. The "negative bias" drawing I made clearly shows the two supplies in series-adding, so how is it possible that either supply can NOT be contributing to the power to ANY component ALSO in series?
I think you jumped the gun again. Your test will prove it.
The more I think about it the more I realize that SCRN0235 is the critical bit of data that nails the lid on.
Events must have transpired just as I conjectured. She was happily tuning away, hit upon this mode shown in 0235 and had high heat in the load !! Surprise surprise ! Take some scopeshots, twist knobs.... and by the time things settle, one mosfet is blown, passing no current, and yet the load is still plenty hot. Eureka! We've discovered Free Energy !
Please... a careful analysis of this scopeshot is very important. Consider the DC power during the ON gate pulse, and apply the duty cycle to arrive at an average power level which does not even include any contribution from the oscs. THen if you like add some for the oscs. But DO compute the DC power level.
Got to run, real life intrudes. But seriously, folks... this shot and the ones immediately after it, combined with Ainslie's "analysis", contain the entire experimental case and blow it totally out of the water.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 15, 2012, 11:42:32 PM
.99,
>>>The reason for the difference between Q2 present and Q2 absent, is because the RDsON state of Q1 changes in each >>>case. In other words, the bias condition of Q1 changes.
I agree that the bias situation is different in the two cases but it does NOT change that fact that the MOSFET
is biased fully ON at each case and the GS voltage is +12 Volt in one case and +7 Volt in the other.
The RdsOn starts at very high Ohm when there is no positive voltage on the Gate (ref. to S). The RdsOn then
go down in Ohm when we increase the G voltage. But at some point the RdsOn will NOT go down anymore
because we have reached the saturation of the MOSFET and the RdsOn have reached the data sheet RdsOn of 1.6 Ohm.
It will not go lower than that. So in my case the linear region of the MOSFET current control ends at approx. 6 Volt.
ALL voltages on the G above that voltage will put the MOSFET into saturation.
GL,
From your measurements, the MOSFET RdsON isn't quite1.6 Ohms. The equivalent RdsON is actually 6.46V/1.83A = 3.53 Ohms.
Take out Q2 and re-measure V
DS. Then re-calculate the Rds using 1.94A.
TK:
You are definitely excited about something. Are you suggesting that with a 50% duty cycle and six batteries in series the MOSFETs will blow? That this is beyond the absolute maximum ratings for the part so it's inevitable that, "She's gunna blow!?"
Rosemary:
QuoteWHAT discussion? I keep hoping for some kind of SKILL or some kind of relevance. But it seems that my hopes are likely to be still born. WHY do you think MilesOfPurePretension - that I took the trouble to advise you to correct your GROSS and ELEMENTARY errors in power analysis. It's PRECISELY because I want our readers to think that there's some skill and therefore some relevance to ANY arguments that you propose. When you parade this level of absurdity - then with respect - there is NO reader who will take you or this subject seriously.
You make another totally asinine grotesque display like this again and I will respond. I don't know how you can even face yourself in the mirror. You didn't even understand what I was saying and to see you get so ghetto is absolutely gross.
And I will remind you that the absolutely shocking thing about you is that after 10 years, you still cannot articulate what energy and power are properly:
QuoteUnfortunately our Standard Model has already determined the basis of wattage analysis. Power equals the volts over time, x the amps over time. You're SKEWING the facts.
Lo and behold, we must have tried about 50 times to explain energy and power to her and poor hapless Rosie Posie fails yet again to get it through her thick skull.
Let's not play any games here Rosemary. You are clueless with respect to electronics and energy and it's abundantly clear that you are unable to learn. So it's almost a case of you being "along for the ride" right now and certainly it will be the case if you ever actually follow through and do the dim bulb testing. You are unable to do it yourself and are almost a helpless baby. That is the reality of your situation.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 09:59:34 AM
GL,
From your measurements, the MOSFET RdsON isn't quite1.6 Ohms. The equivalent RdsON is actually 6.46V/1.83A = 3.53 Ohms.
Take out Q2 and re-measure VDS. Then re-calculate the Rds using 1.94A.
.99,
I'm currently in bed with a flu and fever.
I will do new measurements when I can think straight again.
Then we can see if the theoretical analysis agrees with measurements.
Will be back in a couple of days.................
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 16, 2012, 01:06:48 PM
.99,
I'm currently in bed with a flu and fever.
I will do new measurements when I can think straight again.
Then we can see if the theoretical analysis agrees with measurements.
Will be back in a couple of days.................
GL.
Take it easy, and hope you're feeling better soon ;)
Hi all,
I used a different method from TK to measure the pixels in his pixel puzzle. I also used GIMP, but, used the 'magic wand' selection tool to get these results. I also get the same results if I try to manually trace the outline, but in all honesty I don't trust the accuracy of any of these methods when using this image as its resolution makes it difficult to determine where the edges of the green and red really are.
Cheers,
I hope this is helpful, considering I'm not even remotely qualified to discuss the actual business in this thread.
Polln8r
Quote from: polln8r on May 16, 2012, 02:12:47 PM
Hi all,
I used a different method from TK to measure the pixels in his pixel puzzle. I also used GIMP, but, used the 'magic wand' selection tool to get these results. I also get the same results if I try to manually trace the outline, but in all honesty I don't trust the accuracy of any of these methods when using this image as its resolution makes it difficult to determine where the edges of the green and red really are.
Cheers,
I hope this is helpful, considering I'm not even remotely qualified to discuss the actual business in this thread.
Polln8r
Hi Polln8r,
Thanks for the work.
It may seem odd doing areas this way but prior to the fancy oscilloscope being able to calculate this with a push of a button, there was someone who painstakenly cut out the wave form printed on paper possibly from a photographic image taken, using the area above and the one below zero and actually put them on a scale and weighed them.
We have now came to the pixel puzzle method ... not bad if you don't have a fancy scale ;D
Fuzzy
;)
@MH:
That, but more than just that.
Examine the claims made for this shot and the ones immediately surrounding it on her blog.
For one thing this is the "high heat" trial that resulted in the claims of 44 or 80 Watts dissipated at the load.... definitely enough to warm up even that big chunk of thermal mass she is using-- which, incidentally, will stay hot for a while after the current is removed. Duh.
However... _and this is the key claim_ ... she claims that this high heating is achieved without drawing power from the battery.
This is why I want that scopeshot fully analyzed in public by somebody other than me. I've listed the points that need to be covered in the analysis in an earlier post. The interpretation of those points will follow after the complete analysis. So please.... humor me. I've done plenty of things that I've been asked to do... so now I'm asking for somebody else with calipers and a calculator and knowledge of scopeshots and Ohm's Law to analyse SCRN0235 fully and "do the math" and post the results here.
There are two phases to the period of pulsation: One with NO oscillations, the Gate HI portion, and one with copious oscillations, the Gate LO portion. Notice how we lately have been subtly steered towards the idea that the oscillations are the important features of the claim and the action of Q1 is actually unimportant in the desired mode, so we shouldn't even bother to turn it on.
But the EVIDENCE that Ainslie constantly cites of strong load heating invariably comes from trials in which a bipolar pulse is used AND A WEAKER BATTERY PACK of 48 volts is used generally. In other words, Q1 is put to use, indeed. You will note that this SCRN0235 is one of the RARE trials in which the full 72 volts "AND" a substantial Q1 ON time are both allowed. And I know why, and you do too.
Now.... there IS manifestly a lot of power shown in the SCRN0235 trial. Is it 44 Watts? Or even the "impossible" 80?
Come, let us calculate.
Batt voltage is 72. Shunt resistance to DC is 0.25 Ohms. Voltage drop across shunt DURING GATE HI is 1 Volt. Current through shunt is 1/0.25 Amps. Instantaneous power is therefore ((1/0.25) x 72) Watts. Right? Period is 31 microseconds, and ON time, not even including the ramp up, is 14 microseconds. Duty cycle ON time, no oscillations, then is (14/31). AVERAGE POWER then, IGNORING OSCILLATIONS ALTOGETHER, is
Pavg == ((1/0.25) x 72) x (14/31)
Right?
Note that I am not even counting the "ramp up" time where the current is still rising to its steady level within the ON periods.
This is why I need somebody else to do this. WHAT POWER LEVEL is shown by this scopeshot, even disregarding the oscillations?
And it is easy to calculate from the scopeshot, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH OSCILLATIONS.
And this is the point. The large power levels that are heating the load in this trial are essentially DC, even though they are chopped up into little timeslices. Ainslie has used long duty cycles with 17-second ON times (no oscs, when a functioning Q1 would be passing current). Surely nobody could argue that , during those 17 seconds, the current is NOT DC. So how does shortening the _period_ turn DC into AC during the Gate HI, Q1 ON timeslices? IT DOESN'T.
Regardless of that, just compute the AVERAGE POWER shown, using the duty cycle and whatever definition of AC-DC you like, but ignoring FOR NOW the contributions of the oscillations. They can only "add" to the total average power anyway, right? So by leaving them out for now we should be UNDER estimating the "true" power in the circuit. Right?
(But for Anslie's claim to be true, the oscillations must actually SUBTRACT at least as much power as is added during the non-osc portions in order for the overall average to come out negative. Right?)
Once we have a full analysis of what the scopeshot is telling us, from somebody other than me, we can start talking about How those measurements were generated by the circuit, and What they mean for the Ainslie claim set.
We are getting closer and closer to calorimetry, but first we need to understand this issue fully: how important is the STRICTLY DC component of the circuit's total average power to the high-heat trials and the claims arising from them? And this is what a comprehensive analysis of SCRN0235 is meant to accomplish.
So not only is this a forensic investigation into the torture slaying of an innocent, hard working mosfet, an unnamed victim of oscilloscope abuse, but it is also an important step in understanding and comparing calorimetric data.
polln8r, thanks for posting that.
As you can see the difference, either way, is very small. And that's the point. If there were a large "reverse" total to the current, or even a "forward" one, it would make more than a few pixels difference out of many thousands of total pixels in the areas. The net current is tiny, probably below the resolution of our technique here.
But this is an AC signal! It dissipates power in its load in both phases of the oscillation! If you plug your toaster into the wall, does it heat up only on the Red phase and return POWER to the wall during the Green phase? I don't think so.
These AC oscillations are going nowhere, really. If one side of the slosh is a little greater than the other side of the slosh, that is because some has sloshed out of the bucket, as heat in a resistance or radiation as RF. But no matter... there is plenty more being dribbled in from the battery to replace that which is sloshed out, so the overall amplitude of the oscs doesn't decay, as long as the battery is able to supply a little bit to replenish them.
But the oscillations aren't even important!! They are a Red Herring in the masterful tradition of red herrings. Look at SCRN0235 !!
Massive power is transferred, heating the load and the mosfet massively, and this is the origin of the massive claims about load heating and current and all the rest. And the oscillations aren't even important in making this heat ... It's right there!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 03:57:02 AM
Ok.... so what about SCRN0235, then?
Please....anybody... look at this trace and compute the DC power level.
Sorry TK, about all I can motivate myself to do right now is calculate the overall average power of about 13W.
More weirdness.
Here's a timeline that goes from about March 27 to April 8 2011, as chronicled in the locked thread.
She fixed the two blown mosfets but still couldn't get the required power products.
She couldn't get it working and thought she had a problem, a bad FG (offset apparently not working), so she replaced the FG with a new one.
Then she still couldn't get the circuit working and had to call in help.
After several days she reported that the circuit was now working but didn't explain why.
I think only one person actually asked her what was wrong and how it was fixed... and of course she did not deign to explain.
Right in here she also admitted that she omitted data that didn't fit her expectations from her reports, and was challenged on this by evolvingape and others.
Then she reported the battery fire and meltdown of the battery clips... and who knows what else.
Then... the next scopeshots she posted were these, the Turnips. I have not seen anything like these on Tar Baby that I can recall.
Of course I haven't exploded any batteries either.
I don't know what is making the strange envelopes, but I can tell that there isn't any DC current during the non oscillation portions. But without a gate drive trace who knows whether that is expected, or not. More Etch-a-Sketch Ainslie scoposcopy rather than clear display of real data.
Compare, contrast, discuss.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 05:22:20 PM
Sorry TK, about all I can motivate myself to do right now is calculate the overall average power of about 13W.
Can you please show how you got that?
Do you agree with the numbers I extracted from the scope trace and put into the unsolved equation, or did I misread something or misapply the algebra somehow? Are there not 4 amps flowing around at 72 volts during the Gate HI time?
I make it 130W
(or 130.064516129 :-))
I agree with your method concerning how you arrive at that figure given the duty cycle etc. reported (relieved, huh?), and I can follow some of what you've done from the scope now you've done it, but I wouldn't be able to read that from scratch
S
ETA: I didn't want to divert from more knowledgeable people who've followed more closely and can interpret those screenshots by asking to be fed the meaning of each division on the graticle etc. but I wouldn't mind if it doesn't disrupt.
@mrS2k... me too. I think .99 misread the channel setting. The CVR trace is at 5 v/div, not .5 v/div.
Here is a graphic.
Incidentally... a pack of 6 _fully charged_ 12 volt SLA batteries in series should read something closer to 76 or 78 volts, NOT 73. These batteries are not fully charged at all. And the sag in the voltage during the heavy 4 amp draw shows this as well.
Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer. I was almost there with eyeballing the period.
But now you've added an indicator for the zero volt line, the voltage looks overestimated to me; if one large division is 100V, it looks like the voltage is 3 / 5 of 100V, close to 60V ?
ETA: belay that. I've just realised the grid has 5 divisions per large-square-thing on the time axis, but only 4 on the voltage, so ~ 3/4 x 100 ~ 75V or so.
GAAH...
That damn LeCroy has 5 small divs horizontally and only 4 vertically per major div. So the power is EVEN HIGHER than that.
The actual Vdrop across the CVR is 1.25 volts, for a current of 5 Amps !
Therefore the actual average power is even more than 130 Watts, it is 5 x 73 x .45 = 164 Watts.
Good night Irene.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 16, 2012, 06:31:22 PM
Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer. I was almost there with eyeballing the period.
But now you've added an indicator for the zero volt line, the voltage looks overestimated to me; if one large division is 100V, it looks like the voltage is 3 / 5 of 100V, close to 60V ?
ETA: belay that. I've just realised the grid has 5 divisions per large-square-thing on the time axis, but only 4 on the voltage, so ~ 3/4 x 100 ~ 75V or so.
Yep. damn LeCroy, fooled me too. Look what it did to the CURRENT calculation, though.
You're going to find this *very* irritating, but now that you (and everyone else) has painfully assembled the sequence of events and revisited that scope shot, it seems trivially obvious that there's Nothing To See Here.
(tongue in cheek - isn't all conjuring and misdirection like that, once you're told the trick?)
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 16, 2012, 06:40:01 PM
You're going to find this *very* irritating, but now that you (and everyone else) has painfully assembled the sequence of events and revisited that scope shot, it seems trivially obvious that there's Nothing To See Here.
(tongue in cheek - isn't all conjuring and misdirection like that, once you're told the trick?)
Oh, you just wait until the Red Queen wakes up. There will be plenty to see then. She will spin and spin indeed. But this here is just data, no spin, and it's her data to boot.
Conclusions, I guess, are kind of like beauty. They are in the mind's eye of the beholder. Some conclusions are less avoidable than others, but for some people, avoidance of issues and implications is a highly developed skill.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 05:48:33 PM
Can you please show how you got that?
Do you agree with the numbers I extracted from the scope trace and put into the unsolved equation, or did I misread something or misapply the algebra somehow? Are there not 4 amps flowing around at 72 volts during the Gate HI time?
Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.
Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:
73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.
Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:
73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W
That is more like it. Are you beginning to feel the heat now?
But....where did you get the 0.179 A from? The voltage drop across the CVR when it is manifestly carrying current is 1.25 A. But in the "oscillations" it is ... what? The average of the "fuzz" is just below the zero baseline.
I am not concerned with numbers in boxes. They are not accurate because of the way the scope is being used.
Read the scope traces please-- they are accurate, if not as precise as the boxed numbers.
How can you justify the 0.179 A figure?
Also don't forget the inductive reactance at 1.5 MHz... the resistor is not 0.25 Ohms for that frequency. BUT that is just why I suggested leaving the oscs out of the picture altogther FOR NOW. Do they COOL the load?
Guys,
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.
Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:
73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W
Just a small note here to Poynty Point. I don't think you've allowed for impedance. But well done for getting this argument back and closer to the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it. And since TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis or alternatively he's parading his monumental efforts at misdirection - may I remind you ALL.
1
It was considered advisable to test the settings to the limit of the transistor's voltage tolerance - required to explore whether the circuit could operate in booster converter mode. That included #235 and then the same settings but at a higher applied frequency captured in screenshot numbers #236 #237 #238. Further tests related to this operational mode continued. Way past this test number. We did not get close to the voltage tolerances on this test as the IRFPG50 has a voltage tolerance at upwards of 1000 volts. We did NOT test its amperage tolerance as the MOSFETs functionality DID NOT DEGRADE.
2
The anomaly related to tests 354 and 355 - that related to the 'water to boil' test - required NO extreme transients - and a small but critical off set adjustment. As in the previous booster converter tests - the benefits here were also manifestly greater at a higher frequency.
3
The rampant confusions being spun by TK - Sean - FTC - in these latest 'post contributions' relate to the amount of energy delivered against the amount of energy dissipated. It is somewhat absurd to doubt the voltage measurements determined by the LeCroy. It is well able to compute these waveforms which are within its bandwidth capacity. No amount of 'eyeballing' is likely to exceed the accuracy that is guaranteed by that instrument - within, obviously, it's known margins of error. At these frequencies that error margin is that negligible as to be discounted in its entirety. The amount of energy dissipated FAR exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply. Integrated power analysis is in line with the negative wattage which is indicated by the product of the voltages shown in the math trace. The signature heat values recorded exceed the wattage measured to have been delivered by that supply source the more so as all such detailed analysis of the wattage delivered results in a negative wattage.
4
This latest rather reckless attempt at misrepresentation of our work by TK, Sean and FTC is again an example of their propensity to indulge in slander which most certainly is actionable. We who have worked on this project for many years now - will deal with this aspect of their multiple acts of legal abuse - as required.
Regards,
Rosemary
Golly. That is not how you explained it before, though, is it. AND... you threaten me again with your legal fictions because I POST A SCOPE SHOT WITH CORRECT NUMBERS ON IT? You are insane. And that is an opinion from a qualified psychologist.
@.99: Note where the cursors are positioned. Are you getting valid "cycle mean" and "mean" values in the boxes?If so, why are they so different?
And Guys - regarding this post....
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 08:20:29 PM
That is more like it. Are you beginning to feel the heat now?
But....where did you get the 0.179 A from? The voltage drop across the CVR when it is manifestly carrying current is 1.25 A. But in the "oscillations" it is ... what? The average of the "fuzz" is just below the zero baseline.
I am not concerned with numbers in boxes. They are not accurate because of the way the scope is being used.
Read the scope traces please-- they are accurate, if not as precise as the boxed numbers.
How can you justify the 0.179 A figure?
Also don't forget the inductive reactance at 1.5 MHz... the resistor is not 0.25 Ohms for that frequency. BUT that is just why I suggested leaving the oscs out of the picture altogther FOR NOW. Do they COOL the load?
The highlighted comment is slanderous. There is NO WAY that the LeCroy can be used other than to accurately record voltages. This ALLEGATION of 'misuse' is SLANDEROUS. In other words it cannot be PROVED. And it is, in any event 'IMPOSSIBLE'.
I will be notifying Stefan to apply some rather hefty editing.
Regards,
Rosemary
Golly.
Is it possible that Ainslie omitted data from her report, because it was embarrassing to her?
Yep.
TK - you have now gone WAY TOO FAR.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 08:25:42 PM
Golly. That is not how you explained it before, though, is it. AND... you threaten me again with your legal fictions because I POST A SCOPE SHOT WITH CORRECT NUMBERS ON IT? You are insane. And that is an opinion from a qualified psychologist.
@.99: Note where the cursors are positioned. Are you getting valid "cycle mean" and "mean" values in the boxes?If so, why are they so different?
And I do not THREATEN to take legal action. I PROMISE you this.
Rosie Pose
Preserved as evidence. Once again you threaten me.
The TRUTH is an absolute defense, Ainslie, and I am telling the truth. YOU ARE NOT.
Go ask Stefan whatever you want. He knows how to read a scope trace and how to do simple math.
I can see +1.25V across the CSR during the HI phase (5A) but overall average current depends on what is happening during the LO oscillating phase as well. Is there an expanded scrn shot available?
The scope has enough cycles to get a rough idea of the mean voltage across the CSR. The only trouble is the CSR inductance can and will throw off the reading a bit, as I showed in my document, but not that much.
Consider that the 179mA could be a realistic value. I would need to see a zoom-in of the oscillation to know if the 179mA is accurate or not. Again, I am talking average current, you have been referring to the current during the HI time.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 08:37:43 PM
I can see +1.25V across the CSR during the HI phase (5A) but overall average current depends on what is happening during the LO oscillating phase as well. Is there an expanded scrn shot available?
The scope has enough cycles to get a rough idea of the mean voltage across the CSR. The only trouble is the CSR inductance can and will throw off the reading a bit, as I showed in my document, but not that much.
Consider that the 179mA could be a realistic value. I would need to see a zoom-in of the oscillation to know if the 179mA is accurate or not. Again, I am talking average current, you have been referring to the current during the HI time.
OK, then... .what would the current during the LO time have to be, to average out to 0.179 A overall?
And we know what the zoom ins look like during the oscillations, don't we? They have just about as many "RED pixels as GREEN pixels". So how do you get a -4.5 A or whatever it needs to be during those oscs, in order to arrive at the overall 0.179 A figure that you cite?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 08:25:42 PM
@.99: Note where the cursors are positioned. Are you getting valid "cycle mean" and "mean" values in the boxes?If so, why are they so different?
TK, the "CYCLE MEAN" is always out to lunch on these types of wave forms, because the scope doesn't know where the cycle begins and where it ends; it is taking a best guess. The only true reading that can be obtained is with plain old MEAN.
I don't think the cursors alter how the MEAN is taken...it should be using the full width that is in the display.
And Stefan, in the unlikely event that you don't open my emails - let me copy you here as well...
Dear Stefan,
Kindly attend edit the appalling allegations that are made by TK, FTC, Sean, PhiChaser and picowatt which are now escalating to an entirely unacceptable level. You need to act ASAP - or this work of ours will be irreparably DAMAGED.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
TK, the "CYCLE MEAN" is always out to lunch on these types of wave forms, because the scope doesn't know where the cycle begins and where it ends; it is taking a best guess. The only true reading that can be obtained is with plain old MEAN.
Not actually Poynty Point. NOT according to the specifications and NOT according to LECROY.
Rosie pose
Rosemary:
I wonder what "booster converter" mode is. It sounds real cool though.
QuoteJust a small note here to Poynty Point. I don't think you've allowed for impedance. But well done for getting this argument back and closer to the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it. And since TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis or alternatively he's parading his monumental efforts at misdirection - may I remind you ALL.
That is more low-life ghetto garbage behaviour from you and you should be ashamed of yourself.
So are you going to get out of the gutter or not? Do you have any self-respect?
MileHigh
@.99:
0.179 x 73 = 13.07 x 4 = 52.3 Watts average according to the numbers in boxes, for the full 100 percent period.
(1.25 x 73) x 0.45 = 41.1 x 4 = 164.25 Watts POSITIVE during the Hi time. or .45 of the period. This comes right off the scope traces. I put a blowup graphic up. Are my figures wrong?
So to bring this figure DOWN to the 52.3 watts average you cite, what then would be the current and power required in the oscillations?
And how do you account for the difference between the "cycle mean" and the "mean"? Cursors, foiled again?
TA: I see you've already addressed that. Do you know that the LeCroy also doesn't know to take the mean across a full number of cycles? It displays the mean of what's on the screen.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 08:49:47 PM
Not actually Poynty Point. NOT according to the specifications and NOT according to LECROY.
Rosie pose
Rosemary,
The LeCroy manual is open to interpretation. The scope looks for zero-crossings or peaks, and if it looks within the oscillation, it will not provide an accurate number for one full HI/LO cycle.
Also, if you sent that wave form to LeCroy and asked them if it was possible to obtain an accurate "CYCLE MEAN" for it, I am quite confident they would reply with a "no, use "MEAN" in this case".
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 08:52:38 PM
Rosemary:
I wonder what "booster converter" mode is. It sounds real cool though.
That is more low-life ghetto garbage behaviour from you and you should be ashamed of yourself.
So are you going to get out of the gutter or not? Do you have any self-respect?
MileHigh
THIS IS MORE EVIDENCE OF SLANDER.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Rosemary,
The LeCroy manual is open to interpretation. The scope looks for zero-crossings, and if it looks within the oscillation, it will not provide an accurate number for one full HI/LO cycle.
Also, if you sent that wave form to LeCroy and asked them if it was possible to obtain an accurate "CYCLE MEAN" for it, I am quite confident they would reply with a "no, use "MEAN" in this case".
Poynty Point - THERE IS ONLY ONE NUMBER THAT LECROY WILL GUARANTEE - and that is the voltages over a broad range of samples. There are NOT EVEN ENOUGH SAMPLES in that screenshot to give an ENTIRELY dependable analysis. We ONLY recorded that screenshot sample to give a CLEAR indication of the extreme transients evident over the current sensing resistor.
And NOTA BENE - TK's UTTERLY incorrect reference of the switching period. THAT in itself is GROSS MISREPRESENTATION.
Again
Rosie POSE.
I must admit I assumed you were inclined to a more less BIASED approach. Clearly assumptions are always DANGEROUS.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 08:37:43 PM
I can see +1.25V across the CSR during the HI phase (5A) but overall average current depends on what is happening during the LO oscillating phase as well. Is there an expanded scrn shot available?
The scope has enough cycles to get a rough idea of the mean voltage across the CSR. The only trouble is the CSR inductance can and will throw off the reading a bit, as I showed in my document, but not that much.
Consider that the 179mA could be a realistic value. I would need to see a zoom-in of the oscillation to know if the 179mA is accurate or not. Again, I am talking average current, you have been referring to the current during the HI time.
My main point in this has to do with the amount of power that the circuit must handle, for how long it must handle it, and where that power must be dissipated. During the HI time, there is 5 amperes of current flowing in a mosfet that has 2 ohms RDss and that is sitting on a bit of heatsink about the size of a matchbox. And this HIGH time is nearly half the total time.
During the LO time, do the oscillations actively cool the Q1 mosfet, you know, the one that they aren't happening in? I don't think so. So the Q1 mosfet itself is dissipating an average power of nearly 25 Watts (5 x 5 x 2 x .45) for the duration of the experiment. Isn't it? Have you ever grabbed onto a 25 watt light bulb that was on for a while?
Rosemary:
So you don't have any self-respect. If you perceive that a discussion is threatening to your proposition, even if it were to be a discussion between two PhD electrical engineers, you would trash what they were saying with whatever low-life ghetto gutter garbage that you choose to spew out of your mouth.
The truth doesn't matter to you, all that you know is that you have to denigrate and dismiss anything that you think is a threat, even if it is the most reasonable intelligent discussion between people that are so far superior to you in the subject matter, so far superior that it's like comparing an amoeba to an elephant.
The low-life grotesque pandering of Rosemary in a desperate search for words, any words to attack the people and the ideas that she feels threaten her her little pulsating resistor - how low can you really go?
How can you look at yourself in the mirror?
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 08:54:41 PM
@.99:
0.179 x 73 = 13.07 x 4 = 52.3 Watts average according to the numbers in boxes, for the full 100 percent period.
(1.25 x 73) x 0.45 = 41.1 x 4 = 164.25 Watts POSITIVE during the Hi time. or .45 of the period. This comes right off the scope traces. I put a blowup graphic up. Are my figures wrong?
So to bring this figure DOWN to the 52.3 watts average you cite, what then would be the current and power required in the oscillations?
I would need to see an expanded view of the oscillation portion. If that "CYCLE MEAN" happened to take a mean during the oscillation, there is a lot of power there in the opposite direction, and that could easily knock your 130W down to 50W average power.
Quote
And how do you account for the difference between the "cycle mean" and the "mean"? Cursors, foiled again?
TA: I see you've already addressed that. Do you know that the LeCroy also doesn't know to take the mean across a full number of cycles? It displays the mean of what's on the screen.
Yes, I am aware of that issue. I did say it uses the full width of the display. The more cycles, the better, but in my experience taking a lot of MEAN measurements, 10 cycles is pretty good, even if they aren't lined up perfectly to fit exactly 10. So here with 6.5 cycles, it won't be the best, but it will certainly be in the ball park.
Quotend NOTA BENE - TK's UTTERLY incorrect reference of the switching period. THAT in itself is GROSS MISREPRESENTATION.
Whaat?
The timebase is set to 20 microseconds per division (top left).
There are 5 minor divisions per major division, so each minor division is 4 microseconds.
On the duty cycle I deliberately did NOT include the "ramp up" time in the ON time. I will, gladly, if you like. That will make the ON time power even greater, because while it lowers the current figure slightly, it adds to the time during which it acts.
So not including the ramp up to the steady state, I see 14 microseconds of ON time per period, and a total period of 31 microseconds.
Is this a gross misrepresentation? How?
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:10:19 PM
Rosemary:
So you don't have any self-respect. If you perceive that a discussion is threatening to your proposition, even if it were to be a discussion between two PhD electrical engineers, you would trash what they are saying with whatever low-life ghetto gutter garbage that you choose to spew out of your mouth.
The truth doesn't matter to you, all that you know is that you have to denigrate and dismiss anything that you think is a threat, even if it is the most reasonable intelligent discussion between people that are so far superior to you in the subject matter, so far superior that it's like comparing an amoeba to an elephant.
The low-life grotesque pandering of Rosemary in a desperate search for words, any words to attack the people and the ideas that she feels threaten her her little pulsating resistor - how low can you really go?
How can you look at yourself in the mirror?
MileHigh
MORE SLANDER AND MORE ABUSE. Guys the question is this. WHY IS HARTI ALLOWING IT?
Regards,
Rosemary
This is the real abuse you fool:
QuoteJust a small note here to Poynty Point. I don't think you've allowed for impedance. But well done for getting this argument back and closer to the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it. And since TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis or alternatively he's parading his monumental efforts at misdirection - may I remind you ALL.
Now
WAKE UP and start acting like a decent human being.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:14:54 PM
This is the real abuse you fool:
Now WAKE UP and start acting like a decent human being.
Guys,
YET MORE CALUMNY. This is unstoppable.
Again,
Rosemary
QuoteYET MORE CALUMNY. This is unstoppable.
Bullshit - I quoted
your own words.
It's time for you to start acting like a decent human being. If you can't do that then you are in the gutter.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 09:05:58 PM
My main point in this has to do with the amount of power that the circuit must handle, for how long it must handle it, and where that power must be dissipated. During the HI time, there is 5 amperes of current flowing in a mosfet that has 2 ohms RDss and that is sitting on a bit of heatsink about the size of a matchbox. And this HIGH time is nearly half the total time.
During the LO time, do the oscillations actively cool the Q1 mosfet, you know, the one that they aren't happening in? I don't think so. So the Q1 mosfet itself is dissipating an average power of nearly 25 Watts (5 x 5 x 2 x .45) for the duration of the experiment. Isn't it? Have you ever grabbed onto a 25 watt light bulb that was on for a while?
I have no qualms with what the MOSFETs may be dissipating, I'm simply saying that the indications are that roughly 50W of average power is being delivered by the batteries in that shot. And yes, 50W will do some decent heating.
And MileHigh - while I realise that you DEPEND on misdirection in your carefully edited references, may I remind both you and any readers here about my actual post - IN ITS ENTIRETY. THAT is the WHOLE of the appropriate reference. And the scheduled points 1 through 4 is the REQUIRED PROOF that TK's conclusions are erroneous - whether or not this is deliberate.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:14:54 PM
This is the real abuse you fool:
Now WAKE UP and start acting like a decent human being.
Guys,
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.
Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:
73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W
Just a small note here to Poynty Point. I don't think you've allowed for impedance. But well done for getting this argument back and closer to the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it. And since TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis or alternatively he's parading his monumental efforts at misdirection - may I remind you ALL.
1
It was considered advisable to test the settings to the limit of the transistor's voltage tolerance - required to explore whether the circuit could operate in booster converter mode. That included #235 and then the same settings but at a higher applied frequency captured in screenshot numbers #236 #237 #238. Further tests related to this operational mode continued. Way past this test number. We did not get close to the voltage tolerances on this test as the IRFPG50 has a voltage tolerance at upwards of 1000 volts. We did NOT test its amperage tolerance as the MOSFETs functionality DID NOT DEGRADE.
2
The anomaly related to tests 354 and 355 - that related to the 'water to boil' test - required NO extreme transients - and a small but critical off set adjustment. As in the previous booster converter tests - the benefits here were also manifestly greater at a higher frequency.
3
The rampant confusions being spun by TK - Sean - FTC - in these latest 'post contributions' relate to the amount of energy delivered against the amount of energy dissipated. It is somewhat absurd to doubt the voltage measurements determined by the LeCroy. It is well able to compute these waveforms which are within its bandwidth capacity. No amount of 'eyeballing' is likely to exceed the accuracy that is guaranteed by that instrument - within, obviously, it's known margins of error. At these frequencies that error margin is that negligible as to be discounted in its entirety. The amount of energy dissipated FAR exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply. Integrated power analysis is in line with the negative wattage which is indicated by the product of the voltages shown in the math trace. The signature heat values recorded exceed the wattage measured to have been delivered by that supply source the more so as all such detailed analysis of the wattage delivered results in a negative wattage.
4
This latest rather reckless attempt at misrepresentation of our work by TK, Sean and FTC is again an example of their propensity to indulge in slander which most certainly is actionable. We who have worked on this project for many years now - will deal with this aspect of their multiple acts of legal abuse - as required.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
TK does not have a "monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis."
It's a brazen LIE, and it's disgusting and it's time for this to stop.
YOU ARE LYING - and I could easily find another 50 instances like this if I reviewed the past month's postings. IT MUST STOP.
YOU MUST STOP LYING.
Get yourself out of the gutter, stop compulsively lying, show some self-respect, and try to act like a decent human being.
MileHigh
Golly.
Rosemary,
I think most if not all are in disagreement with me on the impedance issue.
My extensive research and findings on this issue indicate that the correct value to use when computing average power, even in the presence of high voltage oscillations, is the DC resistance of the CSR (providing the voltage probes are as close as possible to the CSR body).
In short, the reason being is that the resistance is a static fixed value, just as the battery voltage is, and therefore it (they) can be averaged.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 09:22:42 PM
I have no qualms with what the MOSFETs may be dissipating, I'm simply saying that the indications are that roughly 50W of average power is being delivered by the batteries in that shot. And yes, 50W will do some decent heating.
So then what is the power necessary during the LO portions required to bring the overall average over the entire period down to roughly 50 W? Since you now agree that there are indeed 5 amps at 73 volts during 45 percent of the total time, I hope.
And where IN ANY SCOPE TRACES WE HAVE SEEN is there that much power in the oscillation traces? There are plenty of blowups out there and every one shows that the negative current and the positive current in the oscillations are nearly exactly equal, and that is without any filtering.
If average power is 50 watts and the current and voltage during the ON time is 5 A and 73 V, and the duty cycle is 45 percent ON, then:
((73 x 5) x 0.45) + ( Px x 0.55) = 50. Solve for Px.
(Px x 0.55) = 50 - (365 x 0.45)
Px = (50 - (365 x 0.45)) / 0.55
Px = -208 WattsSo there must be NEGATIVE 208 WATTS in the oscillation portion to bring the average down to +50 Watts, given the power level that is clearly happening during the gate HI time. Right? And that requires a current average of I=P/V or 208/73 or about 2.8 Amps average in the NEGATIVE direction during the gate LO, oscillations present, portion of the cycle.
Where is this current passing? Does a Negative current flow not dissipate heat in the elements it is flowing through? Toasters heat no matter which phase of the AC is going through the element at any given instant.
Where have I gone wrong? Please show me, that I may understand.
Look at the high-res oscs below. This is at 62 volts, I believe. Where is the evidence for a negative current averaging close to 2 amps during the oscillation?
Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 09:33:45 PM
Rosemary,
I think most if not all are in disagreement with me on the impedance issue.
My extensive research and findings on this issue indicate that the correct value to use when computing average power, even in the presence of high voltage oscillations, is the DC resistance of the CSR (providing the voltage probes are as close as possible to the CSR body).
In short, the reason being is that the resistance is a static fixed value, just as the battery voltage is, and therefore it (they) can be averaged.
I KNOW you depend on this argument Poynty. It's another of those cards that we've not played yet. You're wrong - but nor am I going to argue it on this thread.
Rosie Pose
And POYNTY POINT. WHEN in the proud history of science has the MAJORITY opinion every carried an argument? Surely you know better than to rely on this to support your allegation?
R
Rosemary:
QuoteAnd MileHigh - while I realise that you DEPEND on misdirection in your carefully edited references, may I remind both you and any readers here about my actual post - IN ITS ENTIRETY. THAT is the WHOLE of the appropriate reference. And the scheduled points 1 through 4 is the REQUIRED PROOF that TK's conclusions are erroneous - whether or not this is deliberate.
This in fact is yet another
LIE from you. Your scheduled points 1 through 4 are your expressed opinion. Your expressed opinion does not constitute "proof" that the following statement is true:
QuoteTK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis
So where are you again? You are back in the gutter. You do not have a logical argument at all.
Here is the essence of your argument: "I disagree with TK, therefore he has a monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis."
They would laugh at you for that statement if you tried to get onto the Grade Six debating team.
Your argument is not true, and in fact it's truly pathetic and it's a farce. You make a fool of yourself and we all know that your technical knowledge is almost non-existent. Therefore we all know that you are not even qualified to pass judgement on TK's abilities with respect to power analysis. Everybody reading this that has followed the thread knows this to be a fact Rosemary.
And the actual truth,
the REAL TRUTH, Rosemary, is that TK does a pretty damn decent job overall, and pretty damn decent job at power analysis. Anybody reading the thread knows this to be true.
So what in God's name are you saying?
Why are you making a fool of yourself by denigrating other people and their ideas when what you are saying is not true and 95% of the time you are not even qualified to say if their ideas have merit or not?Stop lying and start acting like a decent human being. Your disgusting vulgar low-brow ghetto displays that aren't even true have to stop.
MileHigh
@MH: She is trying desperately to get herself banned. She knows that threatening us or Stefan with legal action is what is most likely to do it. That way she weasels out of doing the definitive Dim Bulb test... that she has no intention of doing anyway.
But she is full of hot air. She's got nothing, no case, nothing to complain about. All I have to do is publish my whole database, and anyone can see for themselves what a liar and an insulting mendacious ignorant fool she really truly actually is, IN HER OWN WORDS, yet, and any lawyers reading, like eatenbyagrue, will suddenly find something else to do. You can't get blood out of a turnip--- or a pickle--- anyway.
If she manages to get banned, she will do just what she's always done: find a new forum to inundate with her bloviating and her silly claims. That's why we don't want to ban her from this site...again.... and add to her ever-growing list of places she's been kicked out of.
TK:
The point has been made. I have seen her do it to you, to me, to Poynt, to PW, and many many others, and it's all untrue - lies - and it's just too much and it has to stop.
It's a pathetic display of the dark side of human behaviour - and she now knows what the image in the mirror truly looks like and it's not pretty.
Whenever she does it again I will remind her of this discussion with this simple phrase, "Gutter Efforts at Misdirection." Feel free to use it yourself.
MileHigh
Guys - the following is to refute MileHigh's calumny...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMThis in fact is yet another LIE from you. Your scheduled points 1 through 4 are your expressed opinion. Your expressed opinion does not constitute "proof" that the following statement is true:
Not actually. Here's the statement
1
It was considered advisable to test the settings to the limit of the transistor's voltage tolerance - required to explore whether the circuit could operate in booster converter mode. That included #235 and then the same settings but at a higher applied frequency captured in screenshot numbers #236 #237 #238. Further tests related to this operational mode continued. Way past this test number. We did not get close to the voltage tolerances on this test as the IRFPG50 has a voltage tolerance at upwards of 1000 volts. We did NOT test its amperage tolerance as the MOSFETs functionality DID NOT DEGRADE.
This is stipulated in the test series related to these scopeshot and this research referenced in Paper 1 of the 2-part paper.
2
The anomaly related to tests 354 and 355 - that related to the 'water to boil' test - required NO extreme transients - and a small but critical off set adjustment. As in the previous booster converter tests - the benefits here were also manifestly greater at a higher frequency.
This is stipulated in the test series related to these scopeshots and this research referenced in Paper 1 of the 2 part paper.
3
The rampant confusions being spun by TK - Sean - FTC - in these latest 'post contributions' relate to the amount of energy delivered against the amount of energy dissipated. It is somewhat absurd to doubt the voltage measurements determined by the LeCroy. It is well able to compute these waveforms which are within its bandwidth capacity. No amount of 'eyeballing' is likely to exceed the accuracy that is guaranteed by that instrument - within, obviously, it's known margins of error. At these frequencies that error margin is that negligible as to be discounted in its entirety. The amount of energy dissipated FAR exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply. Integrated power analysis is in line with the negative wattage which is indicated by the product of the voltages shown in the math trace. The signature heat values recorded exceed the wattage measured to have been delivered by that supply source the more so as all such detailed analysis of the wattage delivered results in a negative wattage.
This is easily demonstrated by reference to the LeCroy specs and by reference to the results detailed in both the first and second part of that 2-part paper.
4
This latest rather reckless attempt at misrepresentation of our work by TK, Sean and FTC is again an example of their propensity to indulge in slander which most certainly is actionable. We who have worked on this project for many years now - will deal with this aspect of their multiple acts of legal abuse - as required.
This is our official protest to the statements referenced in points 1 through to 3. And therefore this is NOT our expressed opinion but provable FACTS.
continued / ...
Therefore. When MileHigh states, as he does here...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMSo where are you again? You are back in the gutter. You do not have a logical argument at all.
Not only are my statements accurate, the comments correct, but they are quintessentially logical. And there is no relevance at all to any 'GUTTER' reference unless it's maliciously intended to IMPLY and ALLEGE some act of 'fraud' or 'misrepresentation' of the facts. Since the scheduled list of claims can be proved, then any such reference by MileHigh is SLANDEROUS.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMHere is the essence of your argument: "I disagree with TK, therefore he has a monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis."
That is NOT the essence of my argument. My argument is detailed in points 1 - 3 and concluded and 4. MileHigh is here Miles off the point.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMThey would laugh at you for that statement if you tried to get onto the Grade Six debating team.
This may well be true. But since we're NOT in a Grade Six debating team - and since we ARE here defending our work against malicious and overt attempts at damaging that work - then the reaction of a Grade Six debating team is largely irrelevant. Quite apart from which the reaction of a Grade Six debating team is entirely irrelevant and likely to be somewhat inappropriate - at best.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMYour argument is not true, and in fact it's truly pathetic and it's a farce.
So MileHigh keeps alleging. But as we all know - denial has never constituted an argument.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMYou make a fool of yourself and we all know that your technical knowledge is almost non-existent.
So he keeps saying. And every reference is still slanderous. I can PROVE that he doesn't know how to do power analysis. I can prove that I most certainly can and that I do it to an entirely acceptable level of competence. Therefore AGAIN AND YET AGAIN...MileHigh's comments related to this are slanderous.
continued/...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMTherefore we all know that you are not even qualified to pass judgement on TK's abilities with respect to power analysis.
I can PROVE that TK cannot do power analysis to an acceptable level. I can prove that I can do power analysis to an acceptable level. Therefore MileHigh's comments related to this are STILL slanderous.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMEverybody reading this that has followed the thread knows this to be a fact Rosemary.
It is my opinion that MileHigh is GROSSLY underestimating the level of contempt that the readers feel for him and for the standard of his posting. I have at least one personal message to that effect. He has eschewed any attempt at constraint and is indulging in a level of invective and insult that far exceeds Forum Guidelines and common decency BOTH. That he does not realise this is a reflection of his own mores and norms which are certainly NOT socially acceptable. Not in any context at all.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:49:50 PMStop lying and start acting like a decent human being. Your disgusting vulgar low-brow ghetto displays that aren't even true have to stop.
This is yet more evidence of malice, invective, insult and slander. I've already mentioned this. His talents in this regard seem to be bottomless.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
You are full of shit and everything I have said to you is true. I'm done with the argument and if we see any more disgusting untrue comments from you - lies - I will use my catch phrase to illustrate your gross behaviour.
With respect to all of your comments about heat production and water boiling etc, I have already told you half a dozen times that they are crap and should not even be discussed by you. You have no hard data at all, all that you have is anecdotal observations. "My resistor heats water real fast" is absolutely meaningless.
So, this about the seventh time I am telling you that your thermal data is useless and should not ever be referenced as evidence of anything. Do you understand this Rosemary?
You have been given a sense of how absolutely awful your behaviour can be and it's all true. Time for you to do some soul searching.
MileHigh
Guys,
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 11:01:11 PM
Rosemary:
You are full of shit and everything I have said to you is true. I'm done with the argument and if we see any more disgusting untrue comments from you - lies - I will use my catch phrase to illustrate your gross behaviour.
With respect to all of your comments about heat production and water boiling etc, I have already told you half a dozen times that they are crap and should not even be discussed by you. You have no hard data at all, all that you have is anecdotal observations. "My resistor heats water real fast" is absolutely meaningless.
So, this about the seventh time I am telling you that you thermal data is useless and should not ever be referenced as evidence of anything. Do you understand this Rosemary?
You have been given a sense of how absolutely awful your behaviour can be and it's all true. Time for you to do some soul searching.
MileHigh
If contradicting MileHigh's insufferable, insupportable, illegal and unacceptable - invective and malice and traducement and calumny AND SLANDER can be construed as being 'awful' then how much most so are those insufferable, insupportable, illegal and unacceptable invectives and malice and traducement and calumny AND SLANDER? I ask you?
Regards,
Rosemary
Sorry Guys, I forgot SLANDER.
Rosemary:
QuoteI can prove that I can do power analysis to an acceptable level.
Just the other day we
tried for the upteenth time to get you to understand power and energy and joules and watts and average power and instantaneous power and how to articulate these ideas and to not confuse units and to not confuse power with energy and
we failed miserably to teach you this basic material.
You failed to learn and master these concepts just the other day. I personally don't believe that you can do power analysis to an acceptable level.
MileHigh
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
Rosemary:
Just the other day we tried for the upteenth time to get you to understand power and energy and joules and watts and average power and instantaneous power and how to articulate these ideas and to not confuse units and to not confuse power with energy and we failed miserably to teach you this basic material.
You failed to learn and master these concepts just the other day. I personally don't believe that you can do power analysis to an acceptable level.
MileHigh
Your personal opinion has no material significance to our work nor to our research as you are patently incapable of understanding the basics of power analysis. Your reference to our 'booster converter mode' is more than adequate proof of this. And DO NOT presume that I can be taught power analysis by the likes of TK. His best efforts in this regard are PATENTLY wanting.
Rosie Pose
QuoteI can PROVE that TK cannot do power analysis to an acceptable level. I can prove that I can do power analysis to an acceptable level. Therefore MileHigh's comments related to this are STILL slanderous.
Go ahead and prove it then. Cite a calculation that I have not done to "an accepable level".
RIGHT NOW, you liar, or any time at all.
Like this:
Quote
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT CORRECTED THAT LITTLE JEWEL OF POWER "CALCULATION". Nor have you retracted the bogus conclusion based on it.
Again, therefore, you lie.
The essential difference between you and me, my dear little TK is that I ACKNOWLEDGED a mere error in computation. YOU on the other hand are not even aware of your GROSS and PROFOUND error related to standard measurement protocols.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 11:26:16 PM
Go ahead and prove it then. Cite a calculation that I have not done to "an accepable level".
RIGHT NOW, you liar, or any time at all.
Like this:
YOU STILL HAVE NOT CORRECTED THAT LITTLE JEWEL OF POWER "CALCULATION". Nor have you retracted the bogus conclusion based on it.
Again, therefore, you lie.
And I do NOT have to prove your incompetence. I prefer to let this stand - on this thread - for the anyone at all to see this for themselves. Your real and marked miscalculation is in the perspicacity and knowledge and breadth of knowledge of some of our readers. I RELY on this.
Rosie Pose.
Do you know what the GRE is? No, of course you don't, Ainslie. But here are my scores: Verbal, 800. Quantitative Reasoning, 780.
So I don't really care about what YOU think of my math skills, because I KNOW what mine are and they are far FAR superior to yours, Miss 25.6 Million Joules.
You and me, paper and pencil, no calculators allowed. Any where, any time, any problem. Miss "vi dt" who never came close to a calculus classroom in her life. I have total and utter contempt for you Polly Parrot.
Slander is spoken, libel is written and so, if there was any merit in your protestations, you should be accusing people of libel not slander.
But there isn't, so you shouldn't.
Certainly there are approximations in some of the calculations, but that's a side-effect of the bizarre variant of Open Source you've seem to have adhered to.
But in the main, the approach to these calculations is sound.
In technical discussions at all levels, honest men and women have divergent opinions and rarely feel the need to threaten legal redress because of a contrary view or interpretation. They come armed with their data and their reasoning. In this particular case, you may as well claim you are libelled by gravity because you don't float.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 11:32:10 PM
The essential difference between you and me, my dear little TK is that I ACKNOWLEDGED a mere error in computation. YOU on the other hand are not even aware of your GROSS and PROFOUND error related to standard measurement protocols.
And I do NOT have to prove your incompetence. I prefer to let this stand - on this thread - for the anyone at all to see this for themselves. Your real and marked miscalculation is in the perspicacity and knowledge and breadth of knowledge of some of our readers. I RELY on this.
Rosie Pose.
WRONG, crazy ignorant lying woman. You made more than a mere error in computation in that "calculation". Why don't you re-do it for us right now and show off your consummate math skills, you ignorant liar. YOU CANNOT because you don't even understand where your errors are.
You CANNOT "prove" my incompetence because I am not incompetent. YOU however, have been proven incompetent many times by many different people over the years, and this will continue for as long as you remain willfully ignorant and arrogant.
Rosemary:
QuoteYour personal opinion has no material significance to our work nor to our research as you are patently incapable of understanding the basics of power analysis. Your reference to our 'booster converter mode' is more than adequate proof of this. And DO NOT presume that I can be taught power analysis by the likes of TK. His best efforts in this regard are PATENTLY wanting.
Gutter Efforts at Misdirection times two.
MileHigh
Golly, guys.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 16, 2012, 11:37:47 PM
Slander is spoken, libel is written and so, if there was any merit in your protestations, you should be accusing people of libel not slander.
Slander sean, is PUBLIC. That's all I'm concerned with.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 16, 2012, 11:37:47 PM
In technical discussions at all levels, honest men and women have divergent opinions and rarely feel the need to threaten legal redress because of a contrary view or interpretation. They come armed with their data and their reasoning. In this particular case, you may as well claim you are libelled by gravity because you don't float.
In technical discussions at all levels, honest men and women who may have divergent opinions rarely NEED to threaten with legal redress. This is because honest men and women do NOT as a rule rely on invective and malice and spite and name calling and bullying. And sean - IF you seriously propose that I should tolerate this level of slander and invective - then you and TK and FTC and MileHigh and picowatt and PhiChaser and the rest ... are STILL in the minority. You're just a particularly NOISEY minority - which is usually the case. Just take due note of the number of readers that have fallen from the forum away since TK's been in full flood.
Rosie Pose
Gosh.
I wonder who it was that ACTUALLY DID BUILD "your" apparatus. I thought YOU built it, Ainslie. But now I see that that exceeds your competency.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 11:53:16 PM
Gosh.
I wonder who it was that ACTUALLY DID BUILD "your" apparatus. I thought YOU built it, Ainslie. But now I see that that exceeds your competency.
I do not have the eyes to handle a solder iron with competence. I am well able to design SIMPLE circuits. I have NEVER claimed knowledge beyond this. I do not need to. I know theoretical physicists and nuclear physicists who - LIKE ME - have no clue when it comes to interpreting circuitry. I have evidence of this on video. It is NOT a confession of general incompetence. That's the SPIN that you're trying to promote. Which is SLANDEROUS
Rosie Pose.
So what is booster converter mode?
@.99: Here is a blowup of the oscillations from a 72 volt run. Where is the 2 or more amperes of negative mean current that must be there, in order for the "50 Watt" earlier average power level to hold? Is it missing here, but present there hiding somewhere?
Is there something that distinguishes one set of oscillations at a given voltage from another set at that same voltage? If there is, I'd like to know what it is. Besides a blown Q1, that is... I know what difference THAT makes !
How do the oscillations know, deep within a gate LO timeslice, that they are supposed to be affected by some duty cycle issue many orders of magnitude slower than they are?
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 11:59:23 PM
So what is booster converter mode?
That is Ainslie-speak for MMM.
(Mosfet meltdown mode.)
:-[
Do those theoretical physicists who know nothing of electronic circuitry then go about here and there on the internet pretending to be able to interpret and design electronic circuitry?
No, not so much, I think.
Can anyone tell me how ASKING QUESTIONS gets me in so much "trouble" with the natives?
8)
Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 11:59:23 PM
So what is booster converter mode?
Careful.... you are ASKING A QUESTION.
She has heard the Joule Thief referred to as a boost converter. And she would like her circuit to approach the Joule Thief in efficiency and ability to generate interest. There is no chance of that happening.
Here is what a "real" set of problems in electronics engineering looks like. Actually the ones on the left are just "exercises" to get you ready for the "problems" on the right.
This is what you get exposed to by the 3rd week of your sophomore EE classes at a real University, and you had better be able to keep up, because there are a lot of Chinese and Persian and Indian students who can indeed keep up and you will be competing with them for grades and jobs.
I can do all these problems --- AND GET CORRECT ANSWERS --- and I have done so.
Ainslie? Somehow..... I doubt it. But I'm willing to watch her try. Just do one, Ainslie. I made the screenshot extra large so that even you can probably read it, if you squint and get up really close to the screen.
This is of course from Circuits, Devices and Systems, 3rd Ed, by Ralph J. Smith.
I am still waiting for proof of ANY of Ainslie's allegations and LIBELS about me. Meanwhile I am ready to prove any and all of my allegations about her, and I keep doing so, over and over. But it's like running over a dead armadillo: no matter how many times you do it... it is still a dead armadillo.
When does AC become DC? Part 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg2_yE5dEQg
Okay TK, look out because I have been trying to make pretty pictures again.
Note there is a timing skew of about 150 nanoseconds between the two traces. This may be explainable by the wire lengths. This is a rough outline of what I think is going on.
Think about this: You are opening and closing a valve. When the valve closes the inductance charges up the drain-source capacitance. At maximum voltage the current flow stops. Then the current flow reverses direction and the capacitance simply discharges through the whole circuit. When this happens, the current starts at zero, reaches a certain negative maximum current, and then drops towards zero again. The fact that the MOSFET is off does not stop the current flow at all. The MOSFET is acting like the capacitor in this case, and there is nothing to stop the current from flowing from the point of view of the capacitor. Then the MOSFET switches on and the current starts to flow clockwise again. The voltage is low and normal in this case because the cap has just finished discharging.
Here is the key point: When the DSO is recording "negative power" this corresponds to the time when the tiny capacitance is discharging, the current is flowing backwards, and the MOSFET switch is off. So the "negative power" is not "zipons" and "binding material," it's just the very tiny capacitance in the MOSFET discharging. The "load" for the tiny capacitance is the battery and the load resistor. It's almost certain that this tiny little nugget of energy is mostly burned off as heat in the battery and the load resistor.
MileHigh
Just a little bit of soapbox editorializing:
You can stare at DSO captures and scope traces until you are blue in the face. You can crunch numbers in real time with a DSO and do amazing things.
However, you have to realize that the squiggly lines are not just "cool waveforms." Every single aspect of every recorded waveform means something and there is reasoning and an explanation behind it. If you really want to know what is going on you really have to understand the waveforms and what they mean.
The whole Ainslie/NERD testing was basically an exercise in empirical observation. No attempt was ever made by the NERD team to _explain_ the waveforms. In sales you would say that the NERD team were just "order takers," they didn't take the initiative to go out and sell.
So I just made a early rough attempt to explain, _actually explain_, what was going on during the NERD testing based on a recent DSO capture posted by TK.
And that's what engineering and working with circuits on the bench is supposed to be all about. And we all know that your typical pulse motor builder scopes the signals on his pulse motor but almost never attempts to explain what he is seeing. He might ask for the wire gauge, the number of turns, the coil dimensions, and then when he looks at the waveforms on a scope he doesn't question what he is seeing. Team Ainslie suffered from the same problem. Rosemary was not capable of deciphering the meaning in the waveforms, but you would have hoped that somebody else on the team could.
MileHigh
@MH: it seems to me that from what you are saying that the currents in the CVR are tiny during the oscillations. They certainly look to me to be quite symmetrical plus/minus wise, even though they can have high apparant peak values of several amps or more. But even in the greatest negative power product claimed by Ainslie, these oscillations on the CVR trace are never extremely asymmetrical about the zero line. A few percent at most, usually much less as far as I can tell.
So it's really really hard for me to see just how that SCRN0235 could possibly average to 50 Watts, since the power is so high-- 5 amps x 73 volts -- for 45 percent of the time. The other 55 percent of the time the current must be well over 2 Amps in the other direction, for the average to wind up at 50 Watts.
I'd really really like for someone to show me the complete chain of reasoning and calculation that leads to the 50 Watts average. And if the answer is "you take one number in the box and multiply it by the other number in the other box"... well... I dunno. Can a person die of flabbergastment? I think the true average power is quite a bit higher, but of course I'm always willing to be SHOWN where my errors are... so that I can correct them.
Golly. Guys..... slander. Libel! TRADUCEMENT !!! LOL....
@MH: Timing skew? Now how could that be. Doesn't the LeCroy have a deskew function? Oh.... yes, I see that it DOES.
But if there is a timing skew and the scope's deskew function isn't used to compensate for it.... doesn't that affect the ACCURACY of the math that is being performed by the scope?
But why are we talking about "averaging" anyway? No self respecting scientist would ever use AVERAGING on a switched circuit.
I just can't figure out what they DO use..... because it sure looks like averaging to me. And I can't figure out whether Ainslie is FOR or AGAINST averaging.... this week.
Why, if averaging is bad, do all these scope traces show means? Isn't a "mean" an average? Or does "mean" not mean mean but mean something other than "mean" which is defined as the arithmetic average? To contrast it with median and mode, the two other measures of central tendency?
Well... at least we can tell that the "deskew" function was NOT used for this trace. But where do these turnips come from? I'd really like to know the explanation for these envelopes. I have seen nothing like them, but I have an idea how they might be reproduced.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 09:40:13 PM
And POYNTY POINT. WHEN in the proud history of science has the MAJORITY opinion every carried an argument? Surely you know better than to rely on this to support your allegation?
R
Rosemary,
Actually, I said that the majority do NOT support my assertion.
Howdy everyone,
I see looking at the postings of Rosemary's she trying her best to get banned again, this is just what she wants and maybe a few others also. The lies from her are really going over board and must be from the life style of never being told "NO" and getting everything you ever wanted without being responsible for nothing, if there is any problems, just throw some money at it hoping it would go away. This affliction is also called the rich bitch syndrome, filled with addiction to denial and the rejection of authority figures.
Look at all the fine work TK has done with the evaluation of the claimed circuit having a COP>INFINITY and the help and testing from Poynt99 and Groundloop qualified comments from MileHigh and the numerous others throughout the past year. This isn't a debate as Rosemary would have anyone believe but a outright one sided argument, with her against everyone else and those that may become interested ask to many questions regarding any discrepancies of the facts you all know what happens next.
Has anyone seen a Lecroy data dump for any of the oscilloscope screen shots that Rosemary has posted at her BLOB site or here at Over Unity? I cant seem to find a single one anywhere, is this one of those things that Rosemary has hidden from us by accident or was it actually on purpose? Is Rosemary just using the math function on each LeCroy oscilloscope screen shot as the basis of her entire testing evaluation without using a single data download?
It would be really sweet to have some kind of access to at least the LeCroy SCRN0235.JPG 2011/02/22 20us 200K 10:18:41 original data dump and oscilloscope screen shot so the evaluation can be done with the channel data summation numbers that were taken. The Lecroy oscilloscope screen shots were so cherry picked looking at the default numbers that were assigned there's a lot of data that has been hidden for some reason which from what I believe not to any proper protocol used in a scientific testing and evaluation for verification of a claim.
Well I still stand 100% by my words the posting http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg322290/#msg322290 (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg322290/#msg322290) Reply #1775 on: May 11, 2012, 09:01:05 PM where Rosemary buried it as fast as she could like everything else that puts her standard model THESIS ...... ITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal "standard model", the one not advanced by others done without any accredited authority in the subject matter attached to a electrical device that never has been proven with any credibility to work as advertised or claimed.
She can't even produce a "CURRENT" image or photograph that the COP>INFINITY device still exists .... because it's gone !! ???
FTC
:P
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2012, 12:04:06 AM
@.99: Here is a blowup of the oscillations from a 72 volt run. Where is the 2 or more amperes of negative mean current that must be there, in order for the "50 Watt" earlier average power level to hold? Is it missing here, but present there hiding somewhere?
Is there something that distinguishes one set of oscillations at a given voltage from another set at that same voltage? If there is, I'd like to know what it is. Besides a blown Q1, that is... I know what difference THAT makes !
How do the oscillations know, deep within a gate LO timeslice, that they are supposed to be affected by some duty cycle issue many orders of magnitude slower than they are?
TK,
The dates indicate that this could be quite a different test. I would not rely on this being representative of the oscillations shown in SCRN235.
Look, I'm NOT saying I am right about the 50W, I am saying this is what the scope computes as a MEAN power over that entire display. It may be wrong, but is there any reason that displayed 179mA could be wrong? Possibly yes. Is 50W average an unreasonable power into the circuit? I'd say no, based on my findings.
I would agree that going strictly by the displayed traces, the average power appears to be closer to 183W or so.
@TK
I don't know if it will help to illustrate the point, but is there any mileage in explicitly duplicating the standard "DC" portion of the trace in question using a power supply and a function generator to switch it with the same frequency and duty cycle as the smoking mosfet screenshot?
If I have it correctly, it would make it easier for whatever power averaging features your scope has to do the job correctly, and maybe give people greater confidence in the conclusion for the DC component at least.
With the DC portion replicated in this way you could regard that overall shot as the sum of two traces - standard pulsed DC who's power contribution you can measure without controversy, overlaid with bizarro mosfet spasms.
TK:
Just a suggestion for a quickie test. I am suggesting that the high "battery voltage" that's observed is the MOSFET drain-source capacitance (and the wire capacitance) charging up when the MOSFET switches off.
When you did the test where you added the extra coil between the batteries you observed a dramatic increase in the peak "battery voltage."
So my suggestion is to increase the effective MOSFET drain-source capacitance by adding a small cap across the drain-source and repeating the test.
Supposing the spec sheet says the D-S capacitance is 0.1 uF (I am just making a guess). So, with the setup with the extra coil in place, if you add say an extra 0.3 uF across the D-S, what will happen?
If my theory has credence, then you would expect to see the observed peak "battery voltage" drop considerably. If this voltage drop does happen it would not absolutely prove that what I am saying is true, but it would support the contention.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on May 17, 2012, 08:04:45 AM
TK,
The dates indicate that this could be quite a different test. I would not rely on this being representative of the oscillations shown in SCRN235.
Look, I'm NOT saying I am right about the 50W, I am saying this is what the scope computes as a MEAN power over that entire display. It may be wrong, but is there any reason that displayed 179mA could be wrong? Possibly yes. Is 50W average an unreasonable power into the circuit? I'd say no, based on my findings.
I would agree that going strictly by the displayed traces, the average power appears to be closer to 183W or so.
I have never argued that what the scope computes is not what the scope computes. I am arguing that what the scope SHOWS is in fact correct, under the conditions of the experiment. (73 volts and 14-15 Ohms TCR) for nearly half the time during the SCRN0235 trial. And that what the scope is computing for the "mean" values many times is incorrect, possibly due to sampling errors, since the scope is not being used correctly. Taking the "mean" of a burst envelope containing an undersampled high-frequency oscillation within part of it is not correct and I think you know this. What are the scope's computed mean voltage drop values for screenshots taken _during_ oscillations, not the burst enevelope? They are typically under 100 mV negative, usually more like 40-50 mV.. So well less than half an amp.
Every expanded scopeshot of the oscillations themselves, when grouped according to the battery voltage, shows virtually identical waveforms. But your argument requires that the SCRN0235 oscillation waveform, which we cannot see, to be radically different from all those we have seen.
For the average power in SCRN0235 to come out to 50 W, I think there would have to be over 2 amps average current in the negative direction during the oscillation portion. No expanded trace of the oscillations has ever shown anything like that. Peak currents yes, but immediately followed by a peak in the opposite direction, for essentially no _net_ current flow, much less 2 amps or more negative. And the scope's own data boxes bear this out when the oscillations themselves are examined at a proper sample rate.
In some _other_ trials, where 73 volts and a long ON time are not used, I have no problem with a 50 Watt average power level. In this trial, though..... unless I can see a full derivation for that value that does not depend on an unknown calculation from an undersampled waveform-- I'm gonna have to go with the higher average power figure, for that shot.
Look.... I'm arguing for an extremely high power level in a Free Energy experiment, higher even than the claimant has claimed, and my argument is supported by the claimant's own_actual_ data, and even using what I believe to be the incorrect mean value, the average power is STILL very high.
I am interpreting this high power level as mostly coming from Q1 being turned fully on and carrying 5 amperes of current during the time when there ARE NO OSCILLATIONS which are supposed to be producing the "unusual effects" like anomalous load heating. And I assert that all the heating in the load on this trial is accounted for by the high power levels that result from the Gate HI time when Q1 is fully on and carrying 5 amperes at 73 volts, and that the oscillations play very little role in adding to the heat.... and they certainly cannot subtract from the heat. Even negative power has to wind up somewhere! Does your toaster's element cool off during the "negative" phase of the AC power from the wall? I doubt it.
I also assert that the Q1 mosfet will not survive long under this treatment. And further I assert that the immediately subsequent scope shots, and the forum posts describing them, illustrate a mosfet driven to failure WITHOUT BEING NOTICED and all the Gate HI _with flatline CVR_ traces after that were performed with a bad mosfet in the Q1 hole. And I further assert that the "high heat" in the load mode CANNOT be done with a 72 volt battery pack and substantial Q1 mosfet ON times and that tiny heatsink because the transistor will fail. These assertions are supported by the actual data in the scopeshots and the statements made in the forum posts.
And later today, they MIGHT be supported by an experiment. I intend to put 5 amperes through an IRFPG50 using a 73 volt source and 15 Ohms of total circuit resistance, and I will use a 45 percent ON duty cycle at 32 kHz. I will display the waveforms and a timer. My heatsink is a little larger than Ainslie's, it is a real TO-247 heatsink using thermal paste and it has fins, we can be sure that it has better heat transfer ability than the bit of U-channel that she was using at the time of this shot.
Of course.... if the inverted schematic, placing the Gang of 4 in the Q1 position, was used.... then of course they could carry the 5 amps without difficulty. And with that I have no problem. Except that the subsequent shots do appear to show a failure, of course.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 17, 2012, 08:38:43 AM
@TK
I don't know if it will help to illustrate the point, but is there any mileage in explicitly duplicating the standard "DC" portion of the trace in question using a power supply and a function generator to switch it with the same frequency and duty cycle as the smoking mosfet screenshot?
If I have it correctly, it would make it easier for whatever power averaging features your scope has to do the job correctly, and maybe give people greater confidence in the conclusion for the DC component at least.
With the DC portion replicated in this way you could regard that overall shot as the sum of two traces - standard pulsed DC who's power contribution you can measure without controversy, overlaid with bizarro mosfet spasms.
That is exactly what I do intend to do, later this afternoon if possible. But my scope doesn't have any power averaging features, it has to be done manually and this process takes a little while. However there is a much more easily demonstrated consequence of putting that much power through a poorly mounted mosfet, and I think my scope will illustrate that consequence quite well.
We shall see. Stay tuned to this channel for more exciting results from Moses and Festus, Boris and Natasha.
@MH: Of course, if I punch a big hole in the side of my bucket (a cap to ground), pretty soon there won't be much left to slosh around in there higher than the hole, and if the hole is big enough, even the heavy rainfall won't keep my bucket full enough to slosh. And if I punch a hole in the Bottom (a resistor to ground) it gets even worse for my sloshes.
:'(
There was another test you suggested that appeared to involve three scope measurements at the same time. Unfortunately my scope only has the two channels. The next time I take Tar Baby out to play, I'll see what I can arrange, but I don't know when that will be at this point.
Now...... Referring again to SCRN0235:
The "average" or "mean" power must be the "average" of the Gate HI time power and the Gate LO time power, right? It's not correct to average the "voltage" across the whole cycle consisting of oscillations on one part and DC on the other part. You have to compute the powers separately and then use them both in the computation of the average across the whole envelope. The oscs on the CVR are an AC signal. How do we find the "average" power in an AC signal? Usually this is taken to be the RMS power, is it not?
Guys - yet another appeal to Stefan Hartman. Let's see what comes of this one. :o 8)
Regards
Rosemary
My dear Stefan,
There is still an uninterrupted series of utterly incorrect allegations related to the objects of our tests that are fully described in our paper. Together with this is the continual degradation and misrepresentation of our work. If you do NOT act against this within the next 24 hours, then I must assume that you endorse this or that it conforms to your preferred editorial bias.
Let me know.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here is a _different_ screenshot, 0325 (not 0235, dyslexic alert). This one shows the oscillation waveforms in detail, using presumably the 60 volt battery stack as the supply.
If the math trace is the instantaneous power curve given by the direct multiplication of the CVR trace and the Battery trace... what is its RMS value? (Don't forget whatever your model allows for the CVR's inductive reactance at 1.5 MHz). The scope can compute the RMS power value if it is asked to. But the RMS power will not be negative.
Still... what is its value, estimated from this scope trace?
(And here is a "NOTE BENE" that is another result of Ainslie incompetence. The screenshots are saved by the LeCroy as .bmp by default, apparently. The forum software does not allow the upload of .bmp attachments.... so "somebody" has simply changed the extension to .jpg on many of the early scopeshots and uploaded them that way. All the 301.1 KB "jpg" screenshots are really .bmp files that have not really been converted to .jpg. The .jpg conversion results in a much smaller filesize, for one thing. So if you have trouble opening any of her old 301.1 KB "jpg" screenshots, try changing the extension to .bmp and see if your software will open it that way.)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 17, 2012, 12:15:39 PM
Guys - yet another appeal to Stefan Hartman. Let's see what comes of this one. :o 8)
Regards
Rosemary
My dear Stefan,
There is still an uninterrupted series of utterly incorrect allegations related to the objects of our tests that are fully described in our paper. Together with this is the continual degradation and misrepresentation of our work. If you do NOT act against this within the next 24 hours, then I must assume that you endorse this or that it conforms to your preferred editorial bias.
Let me know.
Regards,
Rosemary
Don't forget to remind him that he seems to have been in agreement with "us" at one time, at least. And I find it especially telling that you are appealing to him now, after completely ignoring his specific requests to you at least SEVEN TIMES.
For example in SCRN0325, what do you get when you take the RMS value of the CVR current and multiply it by the RMS battery voltage?
I know that the waveforms are not sinusoidal.
To get the "average" power in an _arbitrary_ waveform it is done by taking the instantaneous power curve... the math trace.... integrating it to find the total area (the energy in Joules), and dividing this total area by the time of integration.
Is it not?
TK:
QuoteIf the math trace is the instantaneous power curve given by the direct multiplication of the CVR trace and the Battery trace... what is its RMS value?
Note that you already have a "square" factored in when you multiply voltage times current.
So when you look at the power waveform, let's say you could average the positive power and average the negative power as separate entities. Both of those entities would be equivalent to the RMS positive power and the RMS negative power.
So it could be another pixel counting exercise to determine the average power out from the battery and the average power "returned" to the battery.
The fundamental thing to realize is that the power returned to the battery was was supplied by the battery in the previous microsecond. Why it apparently measures more energy returned to the battery is something that has to be investigated further.
But the bottom line is all of the "magical returned power" while in negative oscillation mode is nothing more than power supplied by the battery in the first place. It's nothing to get excited about. All that it really means is that some of the battery energy is stored temporarily before it gets burned off.
The net flow of current is CLOCKWISE, and the batteries are discharging.
MileHigh
My dear little TK, As ever you are ENTIRELY misrepresenting the case.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2012, 12:18:53 PM
Don't forget to remind him that he seems to have been in agreement with "us" at one time, at least. And I find it especially telling that you are appealing to him now, after completely ignoring his specific requests to you at least SEVEN TIMES.
There has never been ANY time - EVER - that Harti has supported me, or our work. In the very early days - you'll recall - when we were still working on the COP>17 claim I enjoyed the rare distinction of being banned from his forum before even joining. And for those who have been with this saga for long enough - you will note that FuzzyTomCat and MileHigh were variously taken off moderation or invited to rejoin this forum PRECISELY to assist you with your calumny and traducement. Their skills at this are unequaled except, obviously by your own. And Harti saw good reason to give you every support he could offer. Because that is clearly his editorial bias.
And his spurious objections to our results have always been voiced. He has NEVER supported any of our claims. And he has done NOTHING but encourage dissention. He uses arguments that, when 'answered', are ignored. And so. Not actually. Harti has most certainly NOT given us a chance at a fair hearing. Not ever. Either I am allowed a thread - but that's to be accompanied by you and your team's best flaming efforts. Or you're allowed free reign to misrepresent to your hearts desire - with no control whatsoever on your slanderous indulgences. He only allows this excessive 'spin' that you all rely on as you'd otherwise have NO argument. The question is this? Why? If he were really truly - as MileHigh says - that interested in promoting over unity - then I would have thought that he'd try and offer our hard work the chance of a fair hearing. And fairness is NOT within the scope of your agenda - VERY obviously.
Rosie Pose
Where is the test?
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 12:59:43 PM
TK:
Note that you already have a "square" factored in when you multiply voltage times current.
Do you mean if you take the Pisnt curve and take the "rms" of that? Yes, there is another "square" in that. But that is not how you get RMS Power, which is Irms x Vrms... and this is already an "average" power. What is its sign?
If you are worried about inductive reactance X, which is positive for inductors, then the formula for RMS power is
Prms = (Irms^2) x X, and all those terms are positive values.
Quote
So when you look at the power waveform, let's say you could average the positive power and average the negative power as separate entities. Both of those entities would be equivalent to the RMS positive power and the RMS negative power.
So it could be another pixel counting exercise to determine the average power out from the battery and the average power "returned" to the battery.
The fundamental thing to realize is that the power returned to the battery was was supplied by the battery in the previous microsecond. Why it apparently measures more energy returned to the battery is something that has to be investigated further.
As long as your toaster doesn't ACTIVELY COOL OFF during the "negative power" phase..... what is to investigate?
BOTH phases of the power get dissipated in the circuit ! When you look at the "negative" current swing of an AC signal, does this indicate that you are returning power to the wall? Of course not: that "negative" power is also dissipated in the same place that the positive power is dissipated. That is why you are charged a positive number of dollars on your electric bill, rather than zero or a negative number. The "negative" power and the "positive" power are coming from the utility (or the battery) and they are dissipating in your load (the entire circuit).
Quote
But the bottom line is all of the "magical returned power" while in negative oscillation mode is nothing more than power supplied by the battery in the first place. It's nothing to get excited about. All that it really means is that some of the battery energy is stored temporarily before it gets burned off.
The net flow of current is CLOCKWISE, and the batteries are discharging.
MileHigh
That last part seems right to me. After all.... the circuit stops when you disconnect the battery. (I know my CAR isn't powered by the battery, even though the battery is necessary to start it. I know this because I can remove the battery once the car is started... and it keeps running.)
Small beer, but the author of the wiki definition for power / energy that Rosemary has been leaning on as evidence that they are equivalent has responded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy#Clarification_on_Power_vs_Energy_entry
In short: they cannot be used interchangeably as RA contends and they were referred to in that manner in the article precisely to point out that usage is colloquial but incorrect.
Quote from: The Boss on May 17, 2012, 01:26:45 PM
Where is the test?
It's in the mind of RA only.
Note the date, and ask yourself..... who has been wasting time?
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 17, 2012, 03:10:29 PM
Small beer, but the author of the wiki definition for power / energy that Rosemary has been leaning on as evidence that they are equivalent has responded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy#Clarification_on_Power_vs_Energy_entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy#Clarification_on_Power_vs_Energy_entry)
In short: they cannot be used interchangeably as RA contends and they were referred to in that manner in the article precisely to point out that usage is colloquial but incorrect.
Good for you. Thank you for taking the time to get in touch with that author and having the matter clarified.
Perhaps YKW will take it up with him in the Wiki forum, to explain why her stance is right and his is wrong.
I've zipped up all the Ainslie NERD scopeshots I've been able to find. Here is the archive. I've also put it in the "downloads" section of the forum.
Note that I've taken her false "jpg" extensions and renamed them correctly to .bmp, then converted to actual .jpg files. It's all in there.
If anyone knows of an Ainslie/NERD scopeshot that I've not included, please let me know and I'll add it to the archive.
TK:
QuoteDo you mean if you take the Pisnt curve and take the "rms" of that? Yes, there is another "square" in that. But that is not how you get RMS Power, which is Irms x Vrms... and this is already an "average" power. What is its sign?
My choice of words could have been better in that posting. Just some basics that everybody should know. You have an RMS voltmeter and you can use it to measure the power dissipated in a resistive load, which is (Vrms-squared/R). You can also determine the RMS current, which is Vrms/R.
The current is derived from the voltage and when you increase the voltage the current increases, which I am calling a "square factor." So you incorporate the "square factor" into a single measurement only, typically voltage, by calculating the RMS voltage. The higher the voltage, the higher it contributes to the average power and it is a non-linear relationship.
So you don't take Pinst over time and do the RMS on that. Pinst already incorporates a "square factor" so all that you need to do is average it over your chosen time period.
There is no such thing as "RMS power," there is only average power. i.e.; the RMS voltage-squared divided by your load resistance is the average power. Again, the whole point to the "RMS" is to give higher voltages a higher weighting factor when you want to determine power or current for a given resistive load.
Irms x Vrms doesn't work either. Both of those terms imply a weighted averaging over a certain period of time. You don't know what I(t) and V(t) and even R(t) are, so you have lost the time dimension to correlate one variable to the other when you say Irms x Vrms.
I can lose track sometimes myself but I am pretty confident what I stated above is correct.
QuoteBOTH phases of the power get dissipated in the circuit ! When you look at the "negative" current swing of an AC signal, does this indicate that you are returning power to the wall? Of course not: that "negative" power is also dissipated in the same place that the positive power is dissipated. That is why you are charged a positive number of dollars on your electric bill, rather than zero or a negative number. The "negative" power and the "positive" power are coming from the utility (or the battery) and they are dissipating in your load (the entire circuit).
Both phases of power get dissipated in a given purely resistive circuit when you apply an AC mains signal. Note however that the voltage and current are in phase in a case like this.
In the circuit we are looking at when the MOSFET drain-source capacitance starts to discharge back through the circuit, it's stored energy and the voltage and current are in "antiphase." ;D So it's not comparable to a typical AC mains power situation.
Ultimately this circuit is a "pulse circuit" that is based on a repeating pulse train, and the sloshing currents moving about and the associated voltages should be measurable.
300 MHz = 1 meter, so 2 MHz = 150 meters. So all of the interconnect wires should be at an equipotential. So that means when you are getting the "bounce back" when the current reverses direction and the capacitor starts discharging, you should be able to take a scope probe and go through the entire main loop of the circuit and find out where the voltage drops are.
My gut feel is that you will see most of the voltage drop across the battery itself, and some of the voltage drop across the load resistor. Note I am keeping it simple on the first go round and ignoring any capacitive and inductive effects.
To be continued...
MileHigh
TK:
I am just on a little journey here, I am not asking you to do anything specific.
Going back to when the MOSFET capacitance does it's discharge with the current reversed, in the DSO capture I annotated the reverse current waveform which looked like a triangle wave. So low reverse current -> high reverse current -> low reverse current. That could be used as a timing reference for looking at the voltage drops around the main loop. Obviously you know what the cap voltage is as you traverse through the reverse current waveform.
So you can imagine the battery set taking this "hit" every time the reverse current waveform happens. And we know that the cap voltage is falling when this happens. I suspect that you would see a significant voltage drop across the battery set when it gets hit. For example, imagine something like 90 volts at the one side of the load resistor and 80 volts on the other side of the load resistor. Then imagine some voltage lost in the interconnect wire so you see 79.5 volts on the battery positive terminal and 0.5 volts on the battery negative terminal. Note I am talking about one instant in time during the cap discharge. That huge voltage drop across the battery is NOT charging the battery - it's too fast for the battery - and it just plows through the battery like a small hurricane. The battery ends up looking like a big dumb resistor to the cap discharge. Perhaps 98% of the cap discharge through the battery becomes heat and only 2% charges the battery.
So with a lot of patience and a lot of work, you could characterize the cap discharge and know how much of a voltage drop the battery is sustaining during the actual one microsecond of the discharge.
Why do all of this crazy stuff even if it is just an intellectual exercise? It's to explore what is really going on in the circuit and dismiss out of hand Rosemary's ridiculous claim that the battery is supplying "potential only" and that the binding material in the load resistor is responsible for the energy return. As of course the zipons are part of the fabric of the binding material and the always want to seek a balanced state.
What's responsible for the current reversal and corresponding energy return is a lousy boring capacitor, not a zipon in sight.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 08:17:23 PM
TK:
My choice of words could have been better in that posting. Just some basics that everybody should know. You have an RMS voltmeter and you can use it to measure the power dissipated in a resistive load, which is (Vrms-squared/R). You can also determine the RMS current, which is Vrms/R.
The current is derived from the voltage and when you increase the voltage the current increases, which I am calling a "square factor." So you incorporate the "square factor" into a single measurement only, typically voltage, by calculating the RMS voltage. The higher the voltage, the higher it contributes to the average power and it is a non-linear relationship.
So you don't take Pinst over time and do the RMS on that. Pinst already incorporates a "square factor" so all that you need to do is average it over your chosen time period.
There is no such thing as "RMS power," there is only average power. i.e.; the RMS voltage-squared divided by your load resistance is the average power. Again, the whole point to the "RMS" is to give higher voltages a higher weighting factor when you want to determine power or current for a given resistive load.
Irms x Vrms doesn't work either. Both of those terms imply a weighted averaging over a certain period of time. You don't know what I(t) and V(t) and even R(t) are, so you have lost the time dimension to correlate one variable to the other when you say Irms x Vrms.
I can lose track sometimes myself but I am pretty confident what I stated above is correct.
Both phases of power get dissipated in a given purely resistive circuit when you apply an AC mains signal. Note however that the voltage and current are in phase in a case like this.
In the circuit we are looking at when the MOSFET drain-source capacitance starts to discharge back through the circuit, it's stored energy and the voltage and current are in "antiphase." ;D So it's not comparable to a typical AC mains power situation.
Ultimately this circuit is a "pulse circuit" that is based on a repeating pulse train, and the sloshing currents moving about and the associated voltages should be measurable.
300 MHz = 1 meter, so 2 MHz = 150 meters. So all of the interconnect wires should be at an equipotential. So that means when you are getting the "bounce back" when the current reverses direction and the capacitor starts discharging, you should be able to take a scope probe and go through the entire main loop of the circuit and find out where the voltage drops are.
My gut feel is that you will see most of the voltage drop across the battery itself, and some of the voltage drop across the load resistor. Note I am keeping it simple on the first go round and ignoring any capacitive and inductive effects.
To be continued...
MileHigh
Well, there's a lot in that post. Let's just see if we can get an "average power" value for that SCRN0235, please. I KNOW that the scope trace indicates a very large power value, DC, and this problem about the power in the AC portion of the signal is just exactly why I didn't want to discuss the AC part FOR NOW. But OK..... we are forced to.
I still seek some explanation for how the "average power" can come out to 50 Watts if the power in the DC portion of the signal is as high as it is. 360 W, for as long as it is on which is 0.45 x the period. What is required for the oscillations, in order to bring down the "average" to 50 Watts across the entire envelope containing both the DC and the oscillations?
Can we at least agree that the DC power shown in that scope trace during the Gate HI period is 5 x 73 = 365 Watts and that the duty cycle shown is 45 percent ON, not including the ramp-up to the steady state?
Perhaps calling it "rms power" is where the confusion lies. It's a term used frequently for sinusoidal waveforms and it typically means Pavg (or Prms) = (Irms^2) x X where X is the inductive reactance of the load (which acts like "ohms" in the equation) or simply the R if the load is resistive.
I'm pretty confident that _this_ is correct: (the more complicated analytic form accounts for all phase variations and waveform complexities, while the strict Irms x Vrms applies to sinusoidal waveforms).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/powerac.html#c3 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/powerac.html#c3)
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 08:17:23 PM
My choice of words could have been better in that posting. Just some basics that everybody should know. You have an RMS voltmeter and you can use it to measure the power dissipated in a resistive load, which is (Vrms-squared/R). You can also determine the RMS current, which is Vrms/R.
The current is derived from the voltage and when you increase the voltage the current increases, which I am calling a "square factor." So you incorporate the "square factor" into a single measurement only, typically voltage, by calculating the RMS voltage. The higher the voltage, the higher it contributes to the average power and it is a non-linear relationship.
So you don't take Pinst over time and do the RMS on that. Pinst already incorporates a "square factor" so all that you need to do is average it over your chosen time period.
There is no such thing as "RMS power," there is only average power. i.e.; the RMS voltage-squared divided by your load resistance is the average power. Again, the whole point to the "RMS" is to give higher voltages a higher weighting factor when you want to determine power or current for a given resistive load.
Irms x Vrms doesn't work either. Both of those terms imply a weighted averaging over a certain period of time. You don't know what I(t) and V(t) and even R(t) are, so you have lost the time dimension to correlate one variable to the other when you say Irms x Vrms.
I can lose track sometimes myself but I am pretty confident what I stated above is correct.
Both phases of power get dissipated in a given purely resistive circuit when you apply an AC mains signal. Note however that the voltage and current are in phase in a case like this.
In the circuit we are looking at when the MOSFET drain-source capacitance starts to discharge back through the circuit, it's stored energy and the voltage and current are in "antiphase." ;D So it's not comparable to a typical AC mains power situation.
Ultimately this circuit is a "pulse circuit" that is based on a repeating pulse train, and the sloshing currents moving about and the associated voltages should be measurable.
300 MHz = 1 meter, so 2 MHz = 150 meters. So all of the interconnect wires should be at an equipotential. So that means when you are getting the "bounce back" when the current reverses direction and the capacitor starts discharging, you should be able to take a scope probe and go through the entire main loop of the circuit and find out where the voltage drops are.
My gut feel is that you will see most of the voltage drop across the battery itself, and some of the voltage drop across the load resistor. Note I am keeping it simple on the first go round and ignoring any capacitive and inductive effects.
To be continued...
MileHigh
My dear MileHigh,
I LOVE this post - AND THE FOLLOWING. I shall print them out tomorrow and then frame them and then hang them here by my computer. And if and when that dim light of your 'real truth' EVER again dares intrude on my waking consciousness then I'll simply re-read these two posts of yours. Because every re-read will remind me of your nascent comic genius which I initially mistook as an earnest dissertation.
What a boon to science. A member with the ability to take logic by the nose - twist that nose - and thereby bring pure reason to it's knees. WHAT a marvelous muddle.
Rosie Pose
LOL by the way (BTW) Guys, - I see now why our little TK depends on MileHigh's support. He needs that precise scientific mind that MileHigh lacks in copious quantities - to elucidate the argument that TK lacks in any context at all. It's a match made in heaven. For my money I'd say that the greater skill is MileHigh's because he can avoid the issue with utter irreverence. Whereas TK still reaches for some level of plausibility.
They're a remarkably well matched team. Two of the Marx Brothers. But still looking for Groucho to make it perfect. LOL. I think this is where sean will need to come to their rescue. He - at least - doesn't underestimate our readers' intelligence. And he has that caricatured commitment to a really bad mood.
Again.
R
@MH: reading your explanation again I see that we are really saying the same thing, almost.
Regardless of the phase relationship between the V and I signal and the complexity of the waveforms, the integration of the product of the instantaneous measured voltage and current waveforms over a time interval, divided by the duration of the interval, will give you the average power during that interval.
Yes?
And the Math trace in the Ainslie scopeshots _of the oscillations only_ is the instantaneous multiplication of those measurements on the circuit during that time, right?
So the proper calculation of power for the period of the oscillations only, would be to INTEGRATE this trace and then divide that value (which is in Joules) by the time interval. (Remembering to correct the CVR voltage values by whatever you decide to use for the impedance of the shunt resistor at 1.5 MHz.) Right?
So, if we go through this process, or even just use the VxV value corrected for the shunt impedance right off the numbers in boxes ... how do we then get a power level in the oscillations sufficient to bring the overall average power down to 50 Watts, if the DC power is 365 Watts for 45 percent of the time?
And I don't think a current can go "through" a battery in the way that you describe. You seem to be saying that a fast, higher voltage pulse can go through the battery as if it were a resistor, without affecting the battery chemistry. I'm no expert on batteries, but this doesn't seem right to me at all. The battery has, like all components, an equivalent series resistance ( or internal resistance) , an inductance, and a capacitance. In addition it is an active component with chemistry happening. All of these allow current flows of one kind or another to pass "through" the battery. But there are lots of battery chargers on this forum that work by sending a fast HV pulse into the battery to charge it. SO... I dunno.
TK:
I wasn't plugged into the power debate too much but I know that you had a lively debate going with Poynt. You basic "multiply by 0.45" premise makes sense to me! So I honestly don't know right now.
However, I came up with a really good idea for your consideration. It's a goodie too.
Next time you connect Tar Baby up to your scope (assuming this does happen again) mount your camera on a tripod and get a good shot of the scope screen filling up the whole frame. Perhaps illuminate the graticule a bit so you see it in the video frame.
Let's assume we want to investigate negative oscillation mode. So pick your favourite signal to give you a nice stable trigger and make that the lower trace. Then just wander around the circuit and put the second channel probe on all of the naughty bits that we want to see; all three pins of the MOSFET, both sides of the load resistor, etc, etc.
While you are doing this you narrate what is going on.
Then people like me can parse through the clip and collect screen captures for all of the different waveforms. Then all of the screen captures can be put into a single composite image, with one waveform on top of the other to make a vertical stack of waveforms all in perfect alignment.
My bugaboo is explaining the overall timing and explaining the reversing current, etc. I am not confident that the timing diagram I annotated the other day is correct.
Explaining the timing is part of dispelling the myth of the "COP infinity" and the zipons. The dim bulb test is still the best test, but pondering the waveform stack would be fun.
You can imagine six or seven waveforms all stacked one on top of the other in a .jpeg file. It would be pretty cool, the marriage of analog and digital.
MileHigh
This is for posterity - as TK puts it. LOL. I'ts DELICIOUS...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 08:41:08 PM
TK:
I am just on a little journey here, I am not asking you to do anything specific.
Going back to when the MOSFET capacitance does it's discharge with the current reversed, in the DSO capture I annotated the reverse current waveform which looked like a triangle wave. So low reverse current -> high reverse current -> low reverse current. That could be used as a timing reference for looking at the voltage drops around the main loop. Obviously you know what the cap voltage is as you traverse through the reverse current waveform.
So you can imagine the battery set taking this "hit" every time the reverse current waveform happens. And we know that the cap voltage is falling when this happens. I suspect that you would see a significant voltage drop across the battery set when it gets hit. For example, imagine something like 90 volts at the one side of the load resistor and 80 volts on the other side of the load resistor. Then imagine some voltage lost in the interconnect wire so you see 79.5 volts on the battery positive terminal and 0.5 volts on the battery negative terminal. Note I am talking about one instant in time during the cap discharge. That huge voltage drop across the battery is NOT charging the battery - it's too fast for the battery - and it just plows through the battery like a small hurricane. The battery ends up looking like a big dumb resistor to the cap discharge. Perhaps 98% of the cap discharge through the battery becomes heat and only 2% charges the battery.
So with a lot of patience and a lot of work, you could characterize the cap discharge and know how much of a voltage drop the battery is sustaining during the actual one microsecond of the discharge.
Why do all of this crazy stuff even if it is just an intellectual exercise? It's to explore what is really going on in the circuit and dismiss out of hand Rosemary's ridiculous claim that the battery is supplying "potential only" and that the binding material in the load resistor is responsible for the energy return. As of course the zipons are part of the fabric of the binding material and the always want to seek a balanced state.
What's responsible for the current reversal and corresponding energy return is a lousy boring capacitor, not a zipon in sight.
MileHigh
And it ONLY gets better. Here's CHAPTER ? ? ? 3 - maybe. LOL. It's HILARIOUS
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 10:23:45 PM
TK:
I wasn't plugged into the power debate too much but I know that you had a lively debate going with Poynt. You basic "multiply by 0.45" premise makes sense to me! So I honestly don't know right now.
However, I came up with a really good idea for your consideration. It's a goodie too.
Next time you connect Tar Baby up to your scope (assuming this does happen again) mount your camera on a tripod and get a good shot of the scope screen filling up the whole frame. Perhaps illuminate the graticule a bit so you see it in the video frame.
Let's assume we want to investigate negative oscillation mode. So pick your favourite signal to give you a nice stable trigger and make that the lower trace. Then just wander around the circuit and put the second channel probe on all of the naughty bits that we want to see; all three pins of the MOSFET, both sides of the load resistor, etc, etc.
While you are doing this you narrate what is going on.
Then people like me can parse through the clip and collect screen captures for all of the different waveforms. Then all of the screen captures can be put into a single composite image, with one waveform on top of the other to make a vertical stack of waveforms all in perfect alignment.
My bugaboo is explaining the overall timing and explaining the reversing current, etc. I am not confident that the timing diagram I annotated the other day is correct.
Explaining the timing is part of dispelling the myth of the "COP infinity" and the zipons. The dim bulb test is still the best test, but pondering the waveform stack would be fun.
You can imagine six or seven waveforms all stacked one on top of the other in a .jpeg file. It would be pretty cool, the marriage of analog and digital.
MileHigh
What a treat. One early morning awakening that has DECIDEDLY improved my general outlook on life. Would that this level of absurdity would be exposed more often. And I THOUGHT that our technology was under attack. LOL. Guys, we're here dealing with the best opposition on offer. In this context we none of us energy enthusiasts have ANY COMPETITION AT ALL.
WOW
What a glorious romp.
Regards,
Rosemary
Ainslie, you have just spammed this thread AGAIN with contentless posts and long quotations that add only your gratuitous INSULTS and nothing of value.
You are not a very nice person at all and I don't think I like you very much.
Golly TK. And I thought you were in love...? ? ? Whatever next?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2012, 10:41:38 PM
Ainslie, you have just spammed this thread AGAIN with contentless posts and long quotations that add only your gratuitous INSULTS and nothing of value.
You are not a very nice person at all and I don't think I like you very much.
If it's any consolation at all - I like myself enormously.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 17, 2012, 10:45:54 PM
Golly TK. And I thought you were in love...? ? ? Whatever next?
If it's any consolation at all - I like myself enormously.
Rosie Pose
That much is abundantly clear.
TK:
Quoteintegration of the product of the instantaneous measured voltage and current waveforms over a time interval, divided by the duration of the interval, will give you the average power during that interval.
Yes?
Same page here!
QuoteAnd the Math trace in the Ainslie scopeshots _of the oscillations only_ is the instantaneous multiplication of those measurements on the circuit during that time, right?
Yes.
QuoteSo the proper calculation of power for the period of the oscillations only, would be to INTEGRATE this trace and then divide that value (which is in Joules) by the time interval. (Remembering to correct the CVR voltage values by whatever you decide to use for the impedance of the shunt resistor at 1.5 MHz.) Right?
Yes but with one caveat. My proposition is that the returned or negative power is just energy that was stored energy in the MOSFET capacitance. So it's almost like you are double-counting the same energy. Think of it like this: Per cycle you pump 100 units of energy into the circuit and 95 units bounce back at you. So what is the energy per cycle, 5 units? 100 units? My answer is that the energy per cycle is nearly 100 units. I am making the assumption that the 95 units that bounce back at me are mostly lost as heat. Therefore, I don't really want to measure the same energy twice.
I am also not comfortable with the whole impedance of the shunt resistor at 1.5 MHz thing. That assumes that you are putting a sine wave through the shunt resistor but the switching doesn't resemble a sine wave at all. Poynt said you are safe keeping this simple and just stick with the pure resistive value for the shunt. That's good enough for me, I am not 'hard core analog.'
QuoteSo, if we go through this process, or even just use the VxV value corrected for the shunt impedance right off the numbers in boxes ... how do we then get a power level in the oscillations sufficient to bring the overall average power down to 50 Watts, if the DC power is 365 Watts for 45 percent of the time?
I am not sure if the 50 watts is what the box is saying or if it's what Poynt said or both. Plus, aren't we normally working with DSO captures that show a negative VV average? Sorry I am not able to really comment right now.
However, what's interesting is if you are seeing an anomaly in the average power reading, it's somewhat analogous to the apparent anomaly in the per-cycle returned energy being larger than the supplied energy. There may be no connection, but you never know.
QuoteAnd I don't think a current can go "through" a battery in the way that you describe. You seem to be saying that a fast, higher voltage pulse can go through the battery as if it were a resistor, without affecting the battery chemistry. I'm no expert on batteries, but this doesn't seem right to me at all. The battery has, like all components, an equivalent series resistance ( or internal resistance) , an inductance, and a capacitance. In addition it is an active component with chemistry happening. All of these allow current flows of one kind or another to pass "through" the battery. But there are lots of battery chargers on this forum that work by sending a fast HV pulse into the battery to charge it. SO... I dunno.
We can agree to disagree, nor am I an expert on batteries. I have always viewed batteries as sluggish sloths. In my example I imagine that the actual chemistry in the electrolyte takes some time to "get organized" such that the charging chemical reactions start to actually "flow" and the different molecules start to "dance together." It takes time for the ducks to all get lined up in a row, perhaps milliseconds. So what happens when you have a microsecond pulse of current? My assumption is that the battery looks like a conductive fluid to the microsecond pulse - i.e.; a resistor.
Don't forget that the inductive-pulse battery chargers are putting out very long pulses compared to what we are talking about here so I don't think the comparison is a good one.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
You are acting like a low-life piece of gutter trash and you are doing exactly what I was complaining about just the other night.
Gutter Efforts at Misdirection
MileHigh
My dear MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 11:05:27 PM
Rosemary:
You are acting like a low-life piece of gutter trash and you are doing exactly what I was complaining about just the other night.
Gutter Efforts at Misdirection
MileHigh
Why are you repaying my eloquent tribute to your true 'genius' with this parade of insults? it is NOT appropriate.
Rosie Posie
:-* :o 8)
Rosemary:
So what in God's name are you saying? Why are you making a fool of yourself by denigrating other people and their ideas when what you are saying is not true and 95% of the time you are not even qualified to say if their ideas have merit or not?
Why? What's the real truth with you?
MileHigh
Rosemary:
QuoteWhy are you repaying my eloquent tribute to your true 'genius' with this parade of insults? it is NOT appropriate.
It's your 'genius' that deserves the quotations.
You are in the gutter, again. Your denials a not effective. Your sleazy little game is out in the open.
How can you look at yourself in the mirror?
MileHigh
Quoting Rosemary:
>>>>
My dear MileHigh,
I LOVE this post - AND THE FOLLOWING. I shall print them out tomorrow and then frame them and then hang them here by my computer. And if and when that dim light of your 'real truth' EVER again dares intrude on my waking consciousness then I'll simply re-read these two posts of yours. Because every re-read will remind me of your nascent comic genius which I initially mistook as an earnest dissertation.
What a boon to science. A member with the ability to take logic by the nose - twist that nose - and thereby bring pure reason to it's knees. WHAT a marvelous muddle.
Rosie Pose
LOL by the way (BTW) Guys, - I see now why our little TK depends on MileHigh's support. He needs that precise scientific mind that MileHigh lacks in copious quantities - to elucidate the argument that TK lacks in any context at all. It's a match made in heaven. For my money I'd say that the greater skill is MileHigh's because he can avoid the issue with utter irreverence. Whereas TK still reaches for some level of plausibility.
They're a remarkably well matched team. Two of the Marx Brothers. But still looking for Groucho to make it perfect. LOL. I think this is where sean will need to come to their rescue. He - at least - doesn't underestimate our readers' intelligence. And he has that caricatured commitment to a really bad mood.
Again.
R
>>>>>>>>>>>
I told you the other night that this garbage ghetto behaviour has to stop.
This kind of low-life mindless idiocy from you shows how truly disgusting your character is at the core. You mock a serious exploratory discussion about the power flows and the microsecond-level timing of the circuit made in a sincere effort to try to understand what is going on - and make a complete ass of yourself in the process.
You have succeeded in doing nothing more than making a pathetic spectacle of yourself one more time. Poor Rosie, the "bouncer" of the thread. If she senses something may affect her proposition, she decides that she is going to feign mockery and 'have a laugh' when in fact there is nothing at all to mock. Just a pathetic creature.
These disgusting and pathetic displays from you have to stop.
MileHigh
@MH: all OK...
I think the integration takes care of the "counting twice" problem. I'm not sure about the correspondence between the simple "mean" and the integral/time thing, though. I'm going to have to think about that one. I know the integration is correct, I don't _know_ that using the simple mean is correct, because of the phase angle and the harmonic content.
And you are right, how the battery behaves depends on the "incoming". I think at 1.5 MHz, though, it might act more like a mirror than a resistor. A lossy mirror...
TK:
Even though I am not 'hands on' these days anymore, I still have the 'touch' with equipment. I am foggy with respect to the nuances of the power discussion right now, I only skimmed through that from a few days ago.
If I had a DSO with math functions I would play with it. Start with a simple circuit, get familiar with the power calculations, etc. Then start to push envelope, increase the frequency, try changing parameters, etc. The desire would be to push the DSO to the point where it "breaks" and you learn its limitations, etc. You would also want to "force" a negative power reading that you know is false (sound familiar?) and then back off, lower the frequency etc, and observe how the device "recovers."
I suppose it's hypothetical for both of us. Perhaps one day soon with USB 3.0 there will be some truly decent multi-channel A/D capture modules. Between the external A/D and your four, six, or eight core processor, you will have a DSO with math and it won't cost $5K.
Honestly, if a dim bulb test was done next week and it was definitive and spelled game over, my interest in the microsecond-level timing of the circuit would wane....
MileHigh
TK, Poynt:
For the DSO mean power calculation, I think there are two types. One is for the whole capture buffer, and the other is "cycle" based?
Is the cycle-based one dependent on some kind of software algorithm that tries to recognize a clearly periodic signal in the memory buffer? I think Poynt mentioned that this function has its limitations. I suppose even today there is only so much an algorithm like that can do.
If there was an option to move cursors manually to define the mean cycle that would be cool.
MileHigh
Guys,
Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 11:11:01 PM
Rosemary:
So what in God's name are you saying? Why are you making a fool of yourself by denigrating other people and their ideas when what you are saying is not true and 95% of the time you are not even qualified to say if their ideas have merit or not?
Why? What's the real truth with you?
MileHigh
Guys,
The benefits to me personally and to our technology generally - are based on precisely the kind of dialogue that is offered in this thread. It is a parody of science and of social commentary - both. Those that actively partake here are bereft of the common decencies that could otherwise have made some valid contribution to the topic under discussion. TK has chosen his 'brand name' Tar Baby - with reckless disrespect to vast numbers of people that have been socially abused - and politically disenfranchised. And they are further - to this day - still disadvantaged by grave financial equalities that are exploited by our rather ruthless monopolists. Geographically and numerically - these unequal distributions of opportunity and wealth - effect vast reaches of our populations. The term Tar Baby is flaunted deliberately to insult all those who suffer under 2nd and 3rd world conditions. And the proof of TK's racist leanings are evidenced in his assumptions that we, in South Africa, wear 'loin cloths' and that we are incapable of even manufacturing and producing reliable motor cars. That is slander. It's a level of slander that would outrage any fair minded citizen anywhere on our globe. It shows a want of decency that would alienate all but that small minority who still propose racial superiority. And this is then coupled with a flagrant disrespect to every single citizen in South Africa and probably - in Africa as a whole. And these criminal propensities to slander and insult are evident in very nearly every single post in this thread where I, personally, am addressed in terms that are legally actionable and morally entirely reprehensible. And where our hard work is degraded by its association within this context - it is further denigrated with the use of really bad science that they offer as an argument against it. Nor is there any effort made to satirise that context. The terms of abuse are unequivocal. Naked in their intent. And the intention is to destroy my good name and with it our hard work.
And that begs the question 'why'? I have now sent a further 2 emails to Harti. And I have attempted to phone him twice. He does not answer my calls. He does not answer my emails. Which leaves me with no option but to ask my attorneys to insist on his co-operation within the context of his own contract and within the context of his own forum guidelines. And we all know where that will end. But what intrigues me most is this. Harti clearly enjoys a certain amount of income from the advertising made available through this forum. Which then also relies on a high 'hit rate'. While TK's thread still enjoys a high percentage of 'hits' Harti's overall readership count is dropping. Why is he allowing his forum to be 'trashed' by these less than savoury postings? Why is he tolerating this level of calumny? This level of abuse? In the final analysis we're ONLY asking our experts to evaluate some anomalous readings. What could be more modest? It all speaks to a questionable agenda behind Harti's actual reach to find new energy sources. Because that's PRECISELY what he's frustrating. And may I add - it is a concern that has been voiced to me be many of our members. But they speak most eloquently - when they simply 'disengage' from his forum.
This post of MileHigh's is a PERFECT example of their entire lack of defense in their declared objects to denigrate our work. Rest assured. We will - very publicly - show more than enough evidence of over unity to satisfy everyone everywhere. But we collaborators will NEVER do it in the context of this thread. And in the light of these my protests - it is highly doubtful that we will be able do it in the context of this forum.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
What a joke. You make a complete ass of yourself tonight for all to see - a spectacle. Then you come back and make this posting.
The "Tar Baby" name has nothing to do with racial strife in South Africa, it's a wry comment about your propensity to get into ever increasing levels of conflict and the reference is a 19th century novel.
QuoteIn modern usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.
Then come your pleas. You are just an old lady that has discovered an anomaly.
The problem is that in fact you haven't discovered an anomaly, and the dim bulb test will show this.
The other problem is that you are unable to admit to your behavioural problems tonight and accept responsibility for your actions and apologize. Even though you know it, I know it, TK knows it, and the entire readership knows it. It's just a few pages back, anybody can read it.
And the last point is that you may run away. You can't face or accept the reality of the diligent work being done yet again to analyze your circuit and explain it. You tried acting like a buffoon tonight and it backfired on you. You might be back to your own blog will all comments disabled.
MileHigh
MileHigh - ON THE CONTRARY
Quote from: MileHigh on May 18, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
What a joke. You make a complete ass of yourself tonight for all to see - a spectacle. Then you come back and make this posting.
The "Tar Baby" name has nothing to do with racial strife in South Africa, it's a wry comment about your propensity to get into ever increasing levels of conflict and the reference is a 19th century novel.
Then come your pleas. You are just an old lady that has discovered an anomaly.
The problem is that in fact you haven't discovered an anomaly, and the dim bulb test will show this.
The other problem is that you are unable to admit to your behavioural problems tonight and accept responsibility for your actions and apologize. Even though you know it, I know it, TK knows it, and the entire readership knows it. It's just a few pages back, anybody can read it.
And the last point is that you may run away. You can't face or accept the reality of the diligent work being done yet again to analyze your circuit and explain it. You tried acting like a buffoon tonight and it backfired on you. You might be back to your own blog will all comments disabled.
The term 'tar baby' is in the context of every single post in this thread and every single reference to TK's videos include 'making out with a dog' including 'do you still wear loin cloths?' including ' remind me not to buy a car from South Africa' ... that's from the top of my head.
If I were to go deeper into those recesses it would include a slew of insults and accusations that I do NOT care to repeat and that still need to be redressed - moderated - edited - or deleted. Take your pick. They are against forum guidelines. And I, unlike any of you, am NOT guilty of any acts of slander.
Rosie Posie
. won't take an amendment. I'll post this again.
And MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 28, 1974, 08:07:53 AMLong exposure deep sky astrophotography is a piece of cake compared to some of the photography I can do...if it's important enough. But shooting impromptu documentation of demonstrations designed to entertain a small audience and to educate an even smaller one... heck. I'll hold the camera under my chin, dim the lights to encourage hallucinations, reduce the HD originals to .flv, show the dog and the NERD preventer, all of that. If someone doesn't like it, they really should take the issue up with whoever it is that forces them to watch my videos. And if they fail to Get The Message, they only have their early educational choices and experiences to thank for that.)
Here is the proof of TK's deliberate intention to lead us all 'up the garden path' with the insulting and open admission of this intention. He has NO respect for anyone's intelligence other than his own. Which he seems to think is substantial and which is shown to be less than such PRECISELY by this kind of rather ill-considered admission.
Rosie pose
Rosemary:
Just keep your composure and stop acting like a jackass by denigrating other people and their ideas and stop being a compulsive or pathological liar and you will be fine. You denigrated myself and TK tonight and I call that slander.
Don't even bother trying to deny this because it's archived in the thread.
MileHigh
Quote'do you still wear loin cloths?' including ' remind me not to buy a car from South Africa' ... that's from the top of my head.
Those are two more LIES off the top of your hallucinations. Post a link. I never said any such thing, either one.
What I did say was something like this: Do they make airliners in South Africa? I think I'll walk.
Ainslie you are a baldfaced liar.
And I've been reading the story of the mixed-up mosfets and it is perfectly clear that you are lying there too. You had no clue at all that your mosfets were not in parallel until .99 told you so, and then you started accusing HIM of covering something up. You are transparent in your neurosis and you are ridiculous in your ineffectuality. Flail about, threaten our good host with your fake lawyers, get yourself banned, so that you don't have to prove your ridiculous assertions.
You are a liar and a hypocrite, Ainslie, and I have a data base full of your own words to prove it. I'll even post it in a zip file so that your lawyers can review it and ask you about all the lies and insults and namecalling that YOU have indulged in yourself.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 18, 2012, 01:01:34 AM
And MileHigh
Here is the proof of TK's deliberate intention to lead us all 'up the garden path' with the insulting and open admission of this intention. He has NO respect for anyone's intelligence other than his own. Which he seems to think is substantial and which is shown to be less than such PRECISELY by this kind of rather ill-considered admission.
Rosie pose
I have NO respect for YOU at all, that's for sure. You with as much intelligence as a parrot and less electronic assembly skill than a preschooler. You have earned my disrespect totally.
Golly. "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO".
But in fact.... you did. It is on your YT account. You uploaded it. You talked about it before and after you uploaded it, and you posted links to it right after you uploaded it.
In other words, you are a liar and I have many more examples that your lawyers can take a look at.
For another example, THIS execrable claim has not been corrected or retracted, and it is manifestly false, and since AINSLIE knows how to do power calculations correctly, it is A DELIBERATE LIE to leave this claim uncorrected.
Quote
NOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
If your lawyers have trouble with the math, I'm sure that I can recommend someone who can help them out. I've highlighted just some of the problem areas. There are more, to be discovered when you DO THE MATH (tm RA).
Deliberate misrepresentation of the circuit used, or post hoc CYA action? One or the other OR BOTH.
1. Here's the "full disclosure" of the mosfet mixup that .99 asked her for ... this is the only mention on her blog where she announces the discovery of the error in wiring.
2. Followed by the admission of misrepresentation of the true state of affairs with respect to the Case of the Miswired Mosfets.
3. And this was immediately followed by a vicious attack against .99 where she accuses HIM of hiding something... a clear attempt to divert attention from her amazing attempt to cover up the true state of affairs.
4. And finally, an earlier admission from her, inadvertent I'm sure, that she has misrepresented the data from her trials and has cherry-picked what she reports and has failed to report negative results and the conditions that produced them.
What do you think of THAT, imaginary counselors?
Back on track... I noticed that .99 in the simulator checked on the effect of removing the Q2s one at a time.
My results in the Tar Baby hardware agree with what he found and described last year.
There is one interesting thing: with just one Q2 and the Q1, when I first ramp up the negative gate drive voltage from the elenco ps or another source, there is only a small, different, high freq oscillation that is nothing like the "real thing". Then... just a tiny touch with a finger to the heatsinks and WHHHHHHHH the oscillations emerge, and once they start they continue. That first non-osc stage is stable until perturbed.
I also found the same effect on voltage and frequency that .99 noted in the sim.
In other words, except for a current handling capacity, the single Q2 version worked better than the "gang of four" version.
I've found so much of interest in reading through the old locked threads.
I'm glad I did this discovery process on the hardware myself, "blind" as it were, because my thoughts weren't influenced by the work that had gone before... and I was able to come to the same analysis and basic conclusions, now, as .99 and the other "dogs" as Ainslie calls her detractors, did then.
What is even more amazing is that he seems to have completely analyzed the real circuit in about 10 days or less after the true circuit schematic (the Case of the Mosfet Mistake) was traced out by him and finally acknowledged by Ainslie.
By two weeks after, .99, Humbugger (cHeeseburger), MH and a few others had fully explained everything...even the current path through the Q1 zener, the problem with the CVR location, the need (and the non-need) for a floating bias source.... all of it, from the sim and a few basic hardware tests and comparisons.
And as far as I can see, there really hasn't been much actual progress in any direction since then, over a year ago, in April 2011. Ainslie is no closer to performing actual tests of her central claim now, and in fact her attitude appears to have congealed into some kind of sticky mess that is no longer in the least cooperative. Rather, due to her extreme defensiveness in the face of the threat against her ego integrity posed by the falsification of her experimental hypotheses (ill formed though they are), she has become sealed off from real participatory activity. Now she can only engage in rants, insults, and threats rather than constructive cooperation in the effort to understand her errors. It's a shame, but it's also completely consistent with the general pathology she exhibits, and it illustrates the decompensation that has occurred over the past year -- and that will continue to worsen and interfere with her ability to perform constructive and valid work in the future.
But anyway, be that as it may, here we all are today, and at least my work with Tar Baby has shown that the measurements can be repeated in hardware as well as in .99's sim, that they are in fact easy to reproduce in many different circuit variants, and that fancy and expensive digital equipment is not even needed to show the same evidence that Ainslie claims supports her contentions.
Meanwhile, Ainslie acknowledges that DC current flowing in the Q1 mosfet, which is turned on by a positive Gate HI signal, is important for the large load heating that occurs when... the Q1 mosfet is turned on by Gate HI. (See post image below.)
There is no magic possible here, folks.... the Q1 ON situation is no different from straight DC supplied by some slightly resistive wires hooked up directly between the battery and the load.
Short duty cycles? OK fine.... the situation is still STRAIGHT DC during the Gate Hi portions of any duty cycle/period combination and whatever "effect" Ainslie claims must be happening during the oscillations, the Gate LO times. Consider the case with a 15 percent ON duty cycle..... and a 2 minute total period like some of the trials Ainslie has illustrated as being the "desired mode" of operation. For 18 seconds straight during each two minutes, there is simple plain ordinary DC current, and lots of it, flowing through the Q1 mosfet. No battery recharging could be happening, there is nothing preventing the battery from discharging, there is just a battery, wires and a closed "switch" in the fully ON Q1 mosfet.
Whatever the Ainslie effect is, IF it is, it must be happening during the oscillation portion....AND it must be able to affect or cancel out the REAL battery discharging effect of the STRAIGHT DC that is supplied by a simple closed switch during the Gate HI portion of the period. (Getting near the point of the whole SCRN0235 power discussion.)
Note that Ainslie acknowledges that high current through Q1 is necessary for her load heating "efficiencies".
SCRN0150.
This shot shows another high-current trial.... this time with only 48 volts nominal in the battery, so things stay under control. There is substantial DC power shown during the Gate HI signal, and even though the duty cycle is about 16 percent ON (not even including most of the ramp-up to steady state) the mosfet still will heat substantially at the 2.4 Amps it is carrying during that ON time.
Of course all this assumes that the same 0.25R current-viewing resistor stack was used for these trials. Who really knows.
So what magic happens during the oscillations, to prevent the NON oscillating DC current that happens at a DIFFERENT TIME from discharging the batteries? It must be magic indeed if the oscillations are NOT RECHARGING the batteries, as Ainslie acknowledges they are not, but rather are preventing the batteries from discharging -- during a time when the oscillations aren't even present.
I will include a graphic showing my estimations from the traces for the DC portion of the period.
(ETA: I calculated the frequency based on my rough measurement using calipers against the blowup trace of 675 microseconds for the period and got 1481.481481481 Hz ( a repeating decimal, all digits included here for the Lulz only). Note the frequency given for the gate signal in the parameters box: 1.462 kHz. My eyeball measurement is different from the scope's computation by 19 Hz.... and 19/1462 is a little over ONE PERCENT. )
And guys
Just another red alert. The shots that TK references do NOT show a 'high' current. On the contrary. His conclusions here are completely and utterly spurious together with his calculations. I would earnestly caution you to simply ignore these posts of his. They're hopelessly out. I won't even bother posting those shots. Even his comment regarding the LeCroy frequency is wrong. This whole post an entire waste of time. As usual.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 18, 2012, 11:15:55 AM
SCRN0150.
This shot shows another high-current trial.... this time with only 48 volts nominal in the battery, so things stay under control. There is substantial DC power shown during the Gate HI signal, and even though the duty cycle is about 16 percent ON (not even including most of the ramp-up to steady state) the mosfet still will heat substantially at the 2.4 Amps it is carrying during that ON time.
Of course all this assumes that the same 0.25R current-viewing resistor stack was used for these trials. Who really knows.
So what magic happens during the oscillations, to prevent the NON oscillating DC current that happens at a DIFFERENT TIME from discharging the batteries? It must be magic indeed if the oscillations are NOT RECHARGING the batteries, as Ainslie acknowledges they are not, but rather are preventing the batteries from discharging -- during a time when the oscillations aren't even present.
I will include a graphic showing my estimations from the traces for the DC portion of the period.
(ETA: I calculated the frequency based on my rough measurement using calipers against the blowup trace of 675 microseconds for the period and got 1481.481481481 Hz ( a repeating decimal, all digits included here for the Lulz only). Note the frequency given for the gate signal in the parameters box: 1.462 kHz. My eyeball measurement is different from the scope's computation by 19 Hz.... and 19/1462 is a little over ONE PERCENT. )
"...This whole post an entire waste of time. As usual."
I'll say.
But that's enough about your contribution.
Do you have information to divulge about the CVR? Did it have a different value rendering the calculation incorrect? Why do you dispute the frequency? It's a simple calculation from the information on the screenshot.
What specifically is incorrect?
Ainslie: you idiot. I SHOW THE SHOT, you don't have to "bother to post" it BECAUSE IT'S THERE IN MY POST and I SHOW THE BLOWUP.
You don't think 2.4 amps is high current?
WHY DID YOU USE ONLY 48 VOLTS?
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE FREQUENCY SHOWN IN THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN AFTER THE WORD "LECROY"?
@MrS2k:
She just makes stuff up out of her hallucinations. She probably cannot display images inline like the rest of us and is too blind to see the filename and look at HER OWN SCREENSHOT and HER OWN FREQUENCY DISPLAY of the blue trace shown on the scopeshot.
In other words she is a bloviating, lying idiot: she complains about something that she refuses to check, she makes false statements about it and insults people and tries to push her bogus agenda all at the same time: a willfully ignorant, lying, bloviating idiot, and that last post of hers proves it.
ETA: I'll allow that I may have overestimated the current. The voltage drop across the CVR may not be a full 0.6 volts but could be as low as 0.5 volts which would give a current of "only" 2 amps. This will still heat the mosfet Q1 substantially in part because, as GL has pointed out, its Rds is not going to be 2 Ohms in this linear amplification region but will be higher. And of course since I am just considering the DC portion of the signal, the DC resistances are all that matter, no inductive effects come into the picture.
She has claimed "Upwards of 40 Watts" for this trial. Where does that figure come from? Does it come from the scope's numbers box? Is there anything on the screenshot that corresponds to the "40 Watts" figure? I see a -40.21 number there on the integration of the math trace values... but its units are
mVVs. Anybody like to try to decode that? I get milli Volt x Volt x seconds. Which is NOT "upwards of 40 Watts" so that Ainslie claim must be coming from somewhere else. Where?
ETA: Looking at the numbers in the parameters box for the "minimum" value of the math trace integral, and multiplying that first mV by 4 to convert to amperes we have -160 milliWattseconds.... an answer in Joules as it should be from integrating a power curve.... and if that is over the entire 5 milliseconds of the screen..... we arrive at -0.160 Joules/0.005 seconds == -32 Watts, so we have indeed come close to the -40 Watt figure. Is this where it came from?
By the way.... THIS is what an Integral of a (current x voltage) instantaneous power curve looks like, during the oscillations, making the NEGATIVE power product. Because, you see, the INTEGRAL of anything is a sum total, and if the bits that are "added" to a sum total over time are NEGATIVE.... then the value of that sum total MUST DECREASE over that time interval.
Like the RED trace in the scopeshot from Tar Baby below. The RED TRACE is performing the calculation INTEGRAL from t=0 to t= T of (CURRENT X VOLTAGE) dt, where the t=0 is the left end of the screen and t=T is whatever horizontal position you choose to look at for a vertical measurement of the trace. (Uncorrected for inductive reactance, which is only a scaling factor, it does not change the sign of the integral only the magnitude.)
Those numbers that the LeCroy shows in its parameters box when asked to compute the value of the integral of the displayed math trace... Can anyone tell me how those are to be interpreted? I know fully well how to interpret the actual INTEGRAL, as shown below, but that is not shown on the LeCroy, even though I think it could be.
I thought that the value displayed in the numbers box for the "integral" of the CH1 CVR trace was not too informative.... but actually, now I realise that it IS informative, since I see it here in SCRN0150 displayed in a trial with substantial Q1 current.
Think about it. The value of the INTEGRAL of the CURRENT TRACE.... over the whole screen, I believe.... NEVER IS NEGATIVE, according to the scope's own calculations.
Of course.... the oscillation portion of the signal is undersampled..... so I don't really think that the scope's number boxes are correct for this type of mixed signal. The power in the oscillations and the DC power should be measured separately at different scope settings; the one used below is appropriate for the DC power level but not for the oscillations and certainly not for the mixed signal because the higher-frequency one is relatively undersampled. (Picket fence, Ainslie: you are looking at the oscillations through a picket fence with very large pickets and very small gaps. This is what is meant by undersampling.)
OK, so looking at SCRN0150 again, if we take the roughly -40 mVVs value from the "minimum integral" box and divide by 0.25 Ohms for the uncorrected value of the CVR we get -160mAVs, in other words, -160 milliWattSeconds, or Joules.
This is correct, units-wise which is encouraging. So if the LeCroy is integrating across the whole screen, then this value should be at the extreme right, if the integral trace was actually displayed. Like in the Tek shot from Tar Baby: the integral decreases to the right so the minimum value is at the right edge.
SO that means 160 milliJoules NET TOTAL went past the measuring point (the CVR) per the 5 milliseconds of the entire screen (10 divisions at 500 us per division). So that gives us 0.160 J / 0.005 sec == 32 Watts, in the "negative" direction, overall average power.
Or if they use 1 Ohm for the inductive reactance at 1.5 MHz this becomes 8 Watts negative. And so on, scaled by whatever the impedance you use for the CVR.
Ok, fine. That is presumably the scope's calculation over the entire waveform, oscs and not oscs, across the whole screen.
But the DC power has already been shown to be POSITIVE 110 Watts or so for its 16 percent of the duty cycle.
So for the average power to be -32 Watts, the following equation using the duty cycle must be satisfied:
(110 Watts x 16 percent ) + (OSCpower x 84 percent ) = -32 Watts.
Solving for OSCpower:
(OSCpower x 0.84) = -32 - (110 W x 0.16)
OSCpower = (-32 -(110 x 0.16)) / 0.84
OSCpower needed to average -32 Watts overall = a bit over -59 Watts. (edited to correct the earlier miscalc, sorry)
Or, if a 1 Ohm impedance for the CVR at 1.5 MHz is used, the overall average power "-32" becomes "-8" and the equation becomes
OSCpower = (-8 -(110 x 0.16))/0.84
Oscpower needed to average -8 Watts overall = about -30.5 Watts.
So we need a fair amount of NEGATIVE power in the oscs to offset the POSITIVE power in order to give us an average power in Watts that agrees with the scope's displayed value in Joules for the Integral of the Math Trace.
I think. It's been a long day. Please go over this math and comment or correct as needed. Anyone's comments will be helpful IF THEY SHOW THEIR WORK AND REFERENCES TO COMMON KNOWLEDGE BASES.
So now the question I am asking is simply this:
What is the correct power dissipated by the circuit?
By analogy to the toaster, where the power in BOTH phases of the AC signal are dissipated in the circuit, is this "negative" power actually delivered and dissipated to the "toaster" or is it delivered to the "wall"?
Is the correct power the average shown by using the integral?
Or is it the DC power + the AC power, or is it the DC power - the AC power, or some other value?
I think it's simply the average power as computed using the integral properly as I hope I have done here. Negative 32 Watts (or negative whatever, scaled by the total impedance of the shunt).
SO.... IF THIS NEGATIVE WATTAGE IS NOT DUE TO THE MEASUREMENT ERRORS we have been discussing, which it most certainly is, I still maintain that it must be dissipated in the circuit: the load and the mosfet(s).
Simply recall the toaster: half of the power it is using to toast your bagel is "negative" by the definition we are using here, isn't it? Yet the toaster does not cool off during that part of the cycle, nor does the utility company deduct anything from your bill. And all it would mean in the present case is that the current "through the load" is being reversed part of the time by the clever..... inverting AC power supply..... kludged together by the NERDs. Does your inverter charge up the battery it's running from while it's providing AC power to your toaster? NO.... the AC goes into the load, not the battery.
The Truth is "Out There"....
Way out there.
:o
Let me recap.
"He" is of course .99, and "he" is here being accused of holding back HIS data, when in fact it was she who either was oblivious to or was deliberately concealing her Mosfet Mistake.
But perhaps even more hilarious than that: She says his schematic is WRONG, then in the next paragraph admits that she has neither the skill nor the knowledge to DRAW an accurate schematic. A rather obvious question arises: How does she know his yayhoo is wrong, if she can't even find her own yayhoo in the dark? So to speak.
And I really wonder what happened to that government interest and that of the "highly respectable" English institution. After all this post was made on the 30th of April.....2011. Yet I don't think we have heard another word about either one of these things. Have we?
TK,
Regarding SCRN0150, assuming zero NET power during the oscillation phase, and therefore computing only the power while the FG is HI, I get the following rough average power from the batteries:
49.5 x 0.5/0.25 x 1.5/7 = +21.21W = PAVG
That's VBat x VCSR/RCSR x duty-cycle
Quote from: poynt99 on May 18, 2012, 06:58:36 PM
TK,
Regarding SCRN0150, assuming zero NET power during the oscillation phase, and therefore computing only the power while the FG is HI, I get the following rough average power from the batteries:
49.5 x 0.5/0.25 x 1.5/7 = +21.21W = PAVG
That's VBat x VCSR/RCSR x duty-cycle
OK... I am NOT including the ramp-up to steady state but am conservatively using 105 microseconds as the ON time, and the total period seems to me to be 675 microseconds. But perhaps it is closer to 690 microseconds. I see you are using 150 microseconds and 700 for the period. And I _initially_ estimated the voltage drop across the CVR as 0.6 V.
I still think it's a little higher than 0.5 V.
However, we are both using the same calculation and the same method. If I use your numbers I get your answer and if you use my numbers you get my answer. So we are both right ! ;)
So using my more "precise" readings I get
49.5 x (0.53/0.25) x (105/690) =
+15.96 W = P
avg which does not include the ramp-up time.
If I include the ramp up I need to reduce the "average" voltage slightly, so I might use 130 microsec for the ON time and 0.51 V for the voltage drop.
49.5 x (0.51/0.25) x (130/690) =
+19.02 W = P
avgSo it appears the major discrepancy between your calculation and mine is our different readings of the duty cycle. You are reading the ON time as 150 microseconds, and I can't see it being that long.
Here's the blowup I did again, where I used my most careful and optimistic reads of the trace values and obtained +20.4 Watts. (REVISION B)
I am measuring these things against a blowup on a 24 inch monitor and I'm using fine dividers against the screen scale. Since I know that I am always getting screwed up by the LeCroy's crazy minor division scheme: 5 per major div horizontally but only 4 per major div vertically, I try to check several times and in several places on the screen. I'd really like to meet the designer who came up with that little joke.
At any rate, using the revised numbers we still have the instantaneous power of 49.5 x (0.55/0.25) = 109 W acting during the DC portion of 19 percent ON. So... what is the instantaneous power required in the OSCS portion of 81 percent of the time to bring the overall average down to the -30 or -40 or whatever is claimed for this shot?
Longest weekend... ever.
ROFL!
;D
A long.... lost weekend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6yi_2pLLM
Dear Stefan,
In answer to your question 'which post requires editing or deletion?' I'll start with the latest and then work backwards. That way I may be able to get some small section of this appalling thread partially scrubbed by tomorrow evening. I'll post that schedule here so that our readers can see that sheer quantity of spin and tar that little TK and his team are spreading with their criminal and slanderous misrepresentation of our work and my good name. Nor sure how to categorise the sundry and multiple breaches but will work something out for 'easy reference' and propose the required treatment of each of those posts accordingly.
Regards,
Rosemary
Well Rosie Posie, don't forget to include your own postings in that list. You know the low-life down-in-the-gutter despicable postings where you try denigrate and try to make fun of serious technical discussions and try to pretend that your audience is going along with you? Also, don't forget to include all of your own postings where you have been caught lying red-handed. That's one hell of a lot of postings.
Also, you might want to include all of the postings were you are so clueless and/or completely lost and/or making technical statements that are so ridiculous that they are right out of the Bizarro Universe. It's the anguish factor that you inflict on your audience that's so offensive. That's one hell of a lot of postings.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 19, 2012, 02:48:04 AM
Well Rosie Posie, don't forget to include your own postings in that list. You know the low-life down-in-the-gutter despicable postings where you try denigrate and try to make fun of serious technical discussions and try to pretend that your audience is going along with you? Also, don't forget to include all of your own postings where you have been caught lying red-handed. That's one hell of a lot of postings.
Also, you might want to include all of the postings were you are so clueless and/or completely lost and/or making technical statements that are so ridiculous that they are right out of the Bizarro Universe. It's the anguish factor that you inflict on your audience that's so offensive. That's one hell of a lot of postings.
MileHigh
Hey MileHigh,
I think Rosemary also has forgotten that each posting she will want editing or removal "SHE" has quoted sentence by sentence in her postings with her reply's to each one of those quotes. ???
Whats Stefan going to do ?? Is he going to edit Rosemary's complains on someones postings and leave the quotes in her postings ? Is Stefan going to also edit Rosemary's postings with the replys she made to each quote from someones posting ?
That's why whats said is whats said, no editing should be applied unless some life threatening comments were made or weird spamming including and or links.
FTC
;)
Quote from: MileHigh on May 19, 2012, 02:48:04 AM
Well Rosie Posie, don't forget to include your own postings in that list. You know the low-life down-in-the-gutter despicable postings where you try denigrate and try to make fun of serious technical discussions and try to pretend that your audience is going along with you? Also, don't forget to include all of your own postings where you have been caught lying red-handed. That's one hell of a lot of postings.
Also, you might want to include all of the postings were you are so clueless and/or completely lost and/or making technical statements that are so ridiculous that they are right out of the Bizarro Universe. It's the anguish factor that you inflict on your audience that's so offensive. That's one hell of a lot of postings.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh
Your general contributions here are somewhat trivial and I would recommend that there are those posts you've made that are retained for their sheer comic value. It would be a shame to see such artistry deleted from public record.
Rosie Pose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4
for some reason, this clip came to mind today.
How ridiculous some people can be.
@All,
Did some testing on the oscillation cycle.
TEST OF BIAS CURRENT IN OSCILLATION MODE:
With Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 4,98 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 2,04 Watt.
Pulled Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 3,36 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 1,68 Watt.
Circuit did oscillate in both cases and the Q1 MOSFET did operate in the linear region.
This test shows us that there is some energy going through the Q2 internal diode from the BIAS
supply and not all energy is going through the RLOAD. So in the first case the BIAS supply is adding
1.68 Watt to RLOAD and 0,36 Watt is returned to the BIAS supply because of Q2 internal diode.
GL.
How about if we START by going back to the FIRST time Stefan asked you to STOP posting your rants, Ainslie, and to instead post your TESTS which might address or refute some of the things I've pointed out in my videos?
I'll tell you something right here: I do not respond well to censorship. I've worked hard on this project, and before me others have worked hard on it, .99 especially, while Ainslie herself only types and types and insult and threatens and types. NOTHING USEFUL has been uttered by AINSLIE regarding this circuit or the general program of testing and characterising it for over a year. OTHER PEOPLE, though, are working hard, at their own expense, and it is AINSLIE who is trying to suppress, cover up, and censor that work. AGAIN.
If anyone needs to be restrained, prevented from polluting threads with rants, spam, insults, slander and libel.... it is AINSLIE HERSELF, who stopped contributing anything constructive months and months ago.
Besides, Ainslie is making no claims any more. See the post image below.
THIS thread isn't even about her or her circuit..... it is about trying to get TAR BABY to perform just like her circuit, and to do that we have to understand fully those scopeshots and other REAL ACTUAL DATA from the NERD device. And since Ainslie's statements about the trials and the data collection and even the circuit diagram itself CANNOT BE TRUSTED, as shown by many many citations and references to her own words..... Her presence and feedback is NO LONGER REQUIRED and it would be better for this project if she would just GO AHEAD AND PERFORM HER OWN TESTS... or just go away completely.
As long as I have experimental reports from MY APPARATUS, there will be a "need" for this thread. As long as OTHER PEOPLE have questions about the NERD device and its performance, there will be a "need" for this thread. If AINSLIE wants to REFUTE anything in this thread, let her do so with demonstrations of her own, with references to checkable sources, and with CORRECTED ARITHMETIC. Her normal posts consisting of rants, insults, threats, and continued bloviating without content.... those are not needed.
This particular thread right here, if ALL of Ainslie's useless and insulting comments were deleted, would become one of the most scientific and educational threads on this forum. Ainslie's rants, coverups, refusals to answer simple questions, attacks, and so on.... her REFUSAL EVEN TO WATCH my video demonstrations.... illustrate just what kind of a person she is and how she attempts to cover up and censor the real truth about her, her "experiments" and the NERD circuit's performance. But in her ignorance of oscilloscopes, she has failed to realise that the DATA reveal everything and cannot lie.
Her normal posts consisting of rants, insults, threats, outright lies, and continued bloviating without content.... those are not needed.
How about if we take a simple vote. Let whoever wishes to speak out on Ainslie's behalf, do so here. After a few days, let's count the number of supporters who want this thread deleted, and compare that to the number of people who DON'T want to see this thread censored.
And if AINSLIE herself objects to being called an arrogant idiot ignoramus without skills and who continues to be arrogant and mendacious.... well, let her STOP DOING THOSE THINGS then that illustrate her idiocy and arrogant mendacity. Start by letting her correct her many math errors and the conclusions she has falsely drawn from them. And let her learn some basic skills, like how to draw simple schematics for example, and how to conform to standard scientific terminology.
And of course there is a very simple way for her to put a stop to all this criticism and we all know what it is.
But that will never happen. Ainslie will not be performing any real tests of her apparatus.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 19, 2012, 05:19:40 AM
@All,
Did some testing on the oscillation cycle.
TEST OF BIAS CURRENT IN OSCILLATION MODE:
With Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 4,98 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 2,04 Watt.
Pulled Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 3,36 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 1,68 Watt.
Circuit did oscillate in both cases and the Q1 MOSFET did operate in the linear region.
This test shows us that there is some energy going through the Q2 internal diode from the BIAS
supply and not all energy is going through the RLOAD. So in the first case the BIAS supply is adding
1.68 Watt to RLOAD and 0,36 Watt is returned to the BIAS supply because of Q2 internal diode.
GL.
@GL: I am confused by your drawing. Do your Q1 and Q1 designations correspond to what we have been using here? When the circuit is in NEGATIVE BIAS mode and oscillating, it is the gate of Q1 (and source of Q2) that receives the negative bias polarity, and it is the gate of Q2 (and source of Q1) that receives the positive bias polarity.
In your diagram it looks like you are calling "Q1" what we have been calling Q2. It does matter. Could you explain how your diagram relates to the one below, which preserves the Q1 and Q2 designations that Ainslie has assured us is correct?
(ETA: Is it that you are applying a NEGATIVE polarity to the "red" FG input marked
+ your drawing? ) That is why I have recommended against labelling these FG INPUT points to the board with "positive" and "negative" symbols. Just use RED and BLACK to correspond to the Ainslie FG alligator clips.
Then when the FG puts a NEGATIVE polarity into the RED terminal, nobody will get confused. At least maybe I won't.
I think I see now how GL's mosfet designation is correct.
In the "oscillation" mode I think he must be applying a NEGATIVE voltage to the Bias input point marked RED + on his diagram and the corresponding positive polarity to the Bias input point marked - GREEN.
Is that right, GL?
ETA: GL, last night I found your opto-isolated half-bridge circuit that you posted in Ainslie's old thread ... I think I'll build a solid-state Tesla coil using your circuit for the primary driver. It's too bad the PG50 is too slow and resistive for a good HF TC primary driver, but maybe I can get them to work with some pulse-shaping on the output before the primary coil itself. The TinselKoil uses a full H-bridge of all N-channel mosfets that are driven by "trifilar" or three-winding toroidal gate pulse phase transformers which are in turn driven by a PNP/NPN transistor current amplifier stage just like in your half-bridge, but doubled. The gate pulse phase transformers isolate the switching circuit similarly to the optoisolators in your half-bridge. The whole TinselKoil project actually developed out of an attempt to show Ainslie just what one could in fact do with the "spike" from the collapse of a charged inductor using properly switched mosfets. As I have tried to explain before.... the TinselKoil is actually an "Ainslie" circuit using properly driven mosfets, TRUE resonance and voltage rise through standing wave resonance, to produce what her measurements would no doubt call MASSIVE OU performance. Try reconciling a power curve that shows peaks of 7 AMPS multiplied by 30,000 VOLTS with what the TinselKoil is drawing from the mains supply, using Ainslie math.
Thanks for all the good work you have been doing on this over the years, GL. You have a lot of patience and a good attitude, and I know you are still having fun.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
I think I see now how GL's mosfet designation is correct.
In the "oscillation" mode he is applying a NEGATIVE voltage to the Bias input point marked RED + on his diagram and the corresponding positive polarity to the Bias input point marked - GREEN.
Is that right, GL?
(ETA: GL, last night I found your opto-isolated half-bridge circuit that you posted in Ainslie's old thread ... I think I'll build a solid-state Tesla coil using your circuit for the primary driver. It's too bad the PG50 is too slow and resistive for a good HF TC primary driver, but maybe I can get them to work with some pulse-shaping on the output before the primary coil itself. Thanks for all the good work you have been doing on this over the years... )
TK,
No, I'm using the voltages as shown in my drawing. Negative is green, positive is red. So in my drawing I'm
using negative voltage input on the green pad on the bias input.
I think it will be clearer if I just remove the Q1 and Q2 reference and just say "the mosfet that oscillates" and the "mosfet that is off".
The labeling is not that important. It is how the circuit works as described in the drawing that matter.
What is more important is the fact that not all bias energy is going to RLOAD. Some of the energy goes through
the body diode on "the mosfet that is off".
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 19, 2012, 11:57:32 AM
TK,
No, I'm using the voltages as shown in my drawing. Negative is green, positive is red. So in my drawing I'm
using negative voltage input on the green pad on the bias input.
I think it will be clearer if I just remove the Q1 and Q2 reference and just say "the mosfet that oscillates" and the "mosfet that is off".
The labeling is not that important. It is how the circuit works as described in the drawing that matter.
What is more important is the fact that not all bias energy is going to RLOAD. Some of the energy goes through
the body diode on "the mosfet that is off".
GL.
OK, with the polarities you have shown, your remaining full mosfet must be the Q2 mosfet and the lone Zener is in the Q1 mosfet. PLEASE PLEASE let us stick to the mosfet names that are used in the AINSLIE approved diagram. And also please PLEASE let us use the simple colors RED and BLACK to indicate the bias inputs to the board, which correspond to the simple FG alligator cliplead colors and positions shown in the Ainslie board photograph. Then when one puts a negative voltage to the RED input perhaps nobody will be confused.
IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
In the High Heat mode that uses NO OSCILLATIONS, it makes a HUGE difference whether a single mosfet is turned on or a stack of 4 is turned on. 5 or six amps will go through a stack of 4 in parallel without difficulty. 5 or 6 amps through the single Q1 during the high-heat mode is not so easy.
SO EVEN THOUGH the Q1-Q2 designation might not be important during the oscillation mode, the designation DOES make a difference during the other high heat positive bias mode.
And here is a good time to point out: THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that shows high heat WITH OSCILLATIONS ONLY. All of the Ainslie data showing high heat in the load has used a bipolar pulse with substantial current evident during the NON OSCILLATION mode: high current flowing through the single Q1, NOT the gang of 4 Q2s, if the schematic in use was the one which Ainslie has repeatedly affirmed is correct.
So Please, GL, use the Q1-Q2 naming convention that Ainslie and .99 and MH and I have been using.
TK,
GL's diagram is essentially the same as mine (attached). He is still calling Q1 "Q2" and vice versa according to Rosemary's First paper diagram though. I've not shown Q1's diode because it has no effect to the measurements in my simulation.
The conclusion from GL's test is this (GL, check your Main Input power calc. it has a typo):
The FG contributes power to the circuit (with or without the other MOSFET installed), which is half as much power as the battery supply (in this case), while the circuit is in the "negative bias" oscillation mode of operation.
Dear Stefan,
Frankly I also dislike censorship. And there is no way that this can be applied without insulting the intelligence of the readers of this thread. Here's what I propose as a solution.
No member may accuse another member of
. fraudulent misrepresentation
. mendacity
. lunacy
. ignorance
. stupidity
. senility
or any other malicious insult, unless that member makes a full disclosure of his name and address that the issue can be resolved in a Court of Law as required by either member.
No member may discredit another member's work variously based on
. a 'failed' replication of the experiments under discussion
. a departure from standard measurement protocols
. disgusting and disrespectful inferences
. disgusting and disrespectful utterances
. disgusting and disrespectful addresses
or any other malicious insult, unless that member makes a full disclosure of his name and address that the issue can be resolved in a Court of Law as required by either member.
No member is entitled to
. allege
. infer
. imply
anything at all against another member unless it is satirical or unless that member makes a full disclosure of his name and address that the issue can be resolved in a Court of Laws as required by either member.
Now. In terms of this thread, there have been multiple breaches - specifically by those such as picowatt - MileHigh - TK - FTC - The Boss - Mrsean - PhiChaser. And therefore - in fairness - they must come forward with a full and public disclosure of their actual identities or you must disclose this information to me on their behalf - that I may then exercise my options in terms of acknowledged legal recourse to redress this. Failing which, if this slander and traducement is only enabled by their ability to hide their identities and thereby escape reasonable accountability - then I would strongly propose that you lock this thread that you can then bring these legal transgressions to a close. And if you want examples of these multiple breaches of your forum guidelines, then I must impose on you to read through this thread - in its entirety. Then. Thereafter, IF and as required - these members wish to discuss the science related to this claim with a renewed sense of decorum and decency, gravitas and sincerity - then they can start another thread that deals appropriately with this subject with the required respect shown to ALL participating members.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Groundloop on May 19, 2012, 05:19:40 AM
@All,
Did some testing on the oscillation cycle.
TEST OF BIAS CURRENT IN OSCILLATION MODE:
With Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 4,98 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 2,04 Watt.
Hang on a second here GL, something is wrong; check your numbers again for the Main Input calculation. :o
24V x 0.17A = 4.08W, not 4.98W. I think you mistakenly hit the "9" key instead of the "0" key when you were typing.
So, it holds.
1/3 of the total power is contributed by the FG (in this case with 12V and 24V supplies).
And HERE Stefan is another MISREPRESENTATION. TK states that...
>> And here is a good time to point out: THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that shows high heat WITH OSCILLATIONS ONLY. All of the Ainslie data showing high heat in the load has used a bipolar pulse with substantial current evident during the NON OSCILLATION mode: high current flowing through the single Q1, NOT the gang of 4 Q2s, if the schematic in use was the one which Ainslie has repeatedly affirmed is correct.
The final 10 minutes of the 'water to boil test' showed ZERO current flow during the 'on' period of the duty cycle - with the heat at a 'runaway' level that we discontinued the test in the interests of safety. And at the conclusion of that test had NO need to change any of the MOSFET transistors.
Therefore this statement is yet more evidence of the spin that TK relies on to contradict our claim
Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
I believe we have changed one MOSFET subsequent to that test. It occurred after the incident where the batteries caught fire and was not a consequence of any transistor degradation from that 'water to boil' test.
I've relabeled GL's diagram to correspond with the usages we have been using here.
Could you please check, GL, to see if I've done this correctly? Thanks... I hope you don't mind my edits and that they are correct in making your diagram correspond to mine and Ainslie's.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 12:30:47 PM
And HERE Stefan is another MISREPRESENTATION. TK states that...
>> And here is a good time to point out: THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that shows high heat WITH OSCILLATIONS ONLY. All of the Ainslie data showing high heat in the load has used a bipolar pulse with substantial current evident during the NON OSCILLATION mode: high current flowing through the single Q1, NOT the gang of 4 Q2s, if the schematic in use was the one which Ainslie has repeatedly affirmed is correct.
The final 10 minutes of the 'water to boil test' showed ZERO current flow during the 'on' period of the duty cycle - with the heat at a 'runaway' level that we discontinued the test in the interests of safety. And at the conclusion of that test and since that time we have NOT had need to change any of the MOSFET transistors that are still on that same apparatus.
Therefore this statement is yet more evidence of the spin that TK relies on to contradict our claim
Regards,
Rosemary
PROVE IT.
It is impossible for a mosfet that is functioning properly to receive a +10 or +12 volt positive gate drive and NOT turn on and pass current. Stefan knows this and so does everybody else who has ever used a mosfet. Except maybe Ashtweth and Aaron.
You blew a mosfet in that trial and SINCE THEN you have NEVER used a long duty cycle with a 72 volt battery pack and a long ON time for Q1. And I know why and so do your collaborators, even if you don't.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 12:14:11 PM
TK,
GL's diagram is essentially the same as mine (attached). He is still calling Q1 "Q2" and vice versa according to Rosemary's First paper diagram though. I've not shown Q1's diode because it has no effect to the measurements in my simulation.
The conclusion from GL's test is this:
The FG contributes power to the circuit, which is half as much power as the battery supply (in this case), while the circuit is in the "negative bias" oscillation mode of operation.
I agree and I thank you both for your work. But can we PLEASE agree on the designations? In the NON-oscillation mode it makes a big difference whether one mosfet or four are carrying the larger DC current, and I still contend that it is this mode that makes the high heat in Ainslie's trials.
And Stefan, I write this because I see that you're on line.
If you simply allow this work to be discussed in association with this thread and it's racially demeaning title and all the utterances that it contains with specific reference to our work and to my good name - then you are allowing this to progress in a context that is most certainly diminishing and negating by association - all the hard work that we have applied to this technology.
Regards again
Rosemary
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
I agree and I thank you both for your work. But can we PLEASE agree on the designations? In the NON-oscillation mode it makes a big difference whether one mosfet or four are carrying the larger DC current, and I still contend that it is this mode that makes the high heat in Ainslie's trials.
Then you CONTINUE TO CONTEND THIS in spite of EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. That is hardly scientific. It is certainly NOT logical. And it does NOTHING to advance an understanding of this technology. So. WHAT ARE THE BASES OF YOUR CONTENTION?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 12:43:56 PM
PROVE IT.
It is impossible for a mosfet that is functioning properly to receive a +10 or +12 volt positive gate drive and NOT turn on and pass current. Stefan knows this and so does everybody else who has ever used a mosfet. Except maybe Ashtweth and Aaron.
You blew a mosfet in that trial and SINCE THEN you have NEVER used a long duty cycle with a 72 volt battery pack and a long ON time for Q1. And I know why and so do your collaborators, even if you don't.
I MOST CERTAINLY WILL PROVE IT. BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT OUR TESTS. IT WOULD DIMINISH OUR WORK BY ASSOCIATION
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
Dear Stefan,
Frankly I also dislike censorship. And there is no way that this can be applied without insulting the intelligence of the readers of this thread. Here's what I propose as a solution.
(snip bloviation)
Here's what I propose: NOBODY should be able to make any claims that they cannot substantiate by DATA, CHECKABLE REFERENCES and CORRECT MATHEMATICS. And if ANY claim is shown to be incorrect by proper math, references to outside common knowledge or repeatable experiment, that claim must be PUBLICLY RETRACTED and corrected.
In ADDITION, NOBODY is allowed to redefine terms but must use common scientific terminology in the way it is defined and commonly used in the collegelevel texts that most of us have studied and applied for YEARS.
FINALLY, when somebody is shown to be lying over and over about things like video postings, schematic diagrams, "boiling water" and so on.... that person's posts should always appear highlighted in BRILLIANT YELLOW as a warning to others who might want to "replicate" her claims.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 12:14:11 PM
TK,
GL's diagram is essentially the same as mine (attached). He is still calling Q1 "Q2" and vice versa according to Rosemary's First paper diagram though. I've not shown Q1's diode because it has no effect to the measurements in my simulation.
The conclusion from GL's test is this (GL, check your Main Input power calc. it has a typo):
The FG contributes power to the circuit (with or without the other MOSFET installed), which is half as much power as the battery supply (in this case), while the circuit is in the "negative bias" oscillation mode of operation.
.99
No. You must also simulate the body diode of the mosfet that is switched off. There is also a current path
for the bias through that diode. This current path is small, but it is there. I have measured this.
GL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 12:55:13 PM
Then you CONTINUE TO CONTEND THIS in spite of EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. That is hardly scientific. It is certainly NOT logical. And it does NOTHING to advance an understanding of this technology. So. WHAT ARE THE BASES OF YOUR CONTENTION?
Rosie Pose
They are all over this thread, shown in your own scopeshots if you would only learn to read them.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
I agree and I thank you both for your work. But can we PLEASE agree on the designations? In the NON-oscillation mode it makes a big difference whether one mosfet or four are carrying the larger DC current, and I still contend that it is this mode that makes the high heat in Ainslie's trials.
TK,
Until Rosemary advises us otherwise, the diagram and MOSFET designations are as per her first paper, as per my diagram.
@GL, it would be helpful to the discussion here if you adopt the same designations so we can all be on the same page...thanks. ;) It does make a difference when considering the big picture.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
Hang on a second here GL, something is wrong; check your numbers again for the Main Input calculation. :o
24V x 0.17A = 4.08W, not 4.98W. I think you mistakenly hit the "9" key instead of the "0" key when you were typing.
So, it holds. 1/3 of the total power is contributed by the FG (in this case with 12V and 24V supplies).
yes, it was a typo.
YOU ALLEGE that I have been lying. I INTEND GETTING THAT ESTABLISHED IN A COURT OF LAW. NOT IN SOME KANGAROO COURT OF A FORUM ADJUDICATED BY A BIASED MEMBER WITH A DECLARED AGENDA TO DISPROVE OUR CLAIM ON ANY BASES AT ALL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 12:58:30 PM
Here's what I propose: NOBODY should be able to make any claims that they cannot substantiate by DATA, CHECKABLE REFERENCES and CORRECT MATHEMATICS. And if ANY claim is shown to be incorrect by proper math, references to outside common knowledge or repeatable experiment, that claim must be PUBLICLY RETRACTED and corrected.
In ADDITION, NOBODY is allowed to redefine terms but must use common scientific terminology in the way it is defined and commonly used in the collegelevel texts that most of us have studied and applied for YEARS.
FINALLY, when somebody is shown to be lying over and over about things like video postings, schematic diagrams, "boiling water" and so on.... that person's posts should always appear highlighted in BRILLIANT YELLOW as a warning to others who might want to "replicate" her claims.
AND YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO QUESTION MY COMPETENCE WHEN YOUR OWN IS CLEARLY WANTING. YOU ARE STILL PRESUMING TO CALCULATE POWER WITH QUIXOTIC UNACCEPTABLE AND NON STANDARD PROTOCOLS
Rose Pose
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 01:00:48 PM
TK,
Until Rosemary advises us otherwise, the diagram and MOSFET designations are as per her first paper, as per my diagram.
@GL, it would be helpful to the discussion here if you adopt the same designations so we can all be on the same page...thanks. ;) It does make a difference when considering the big picture.
And as per my diagram as well, right?
Including the CVR position and the FG cliplead colors as connected in the video.
The only difference is that the video shows the BLACK FG connector at the common ground point instead of the paper's and our diagrams showing it on the transistor side of the CVR.
Right?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 12:40:02 PM
I've relabeled GL's diagram to correspond with the usages we have been using here.
Could you please check, GL, to see if I've done this correctly? Thanks... I hope you don't mind my edits and that they are correct in making your diagram correspond to mine and Ainslie's.
TK,
Yes, that is how it is used.
GL.
THAT SCOPESHOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A HIGH ENERGY. IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW - NOTWITHSTANDING THE EVIDENCE OF CURRENT DURING THE ON PERIOD OF A DUTY CYCLE - THE COMPUTATIONS OF WATTAGE REMAIN NEGATIVE.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 12:59:59 PM
They are all over this thread, shown in your own scopeshots if you would only learn to read them.
YOU ARE GROSSLY MISREPRESENTING OUR WORK.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:02:17 PM
YOU ALLEGE that I have been lying. I INTEND GETTING THAT ESTABLISHED IN A COURT OF LAW. NOT IN SOME KANGAROO COURT OF A FORUM ADJUDICATED BY A BIASED MEMBER WITH A DECLARED AGENDA TO DISPROVE OUR CLAIM ON ANY BASES AT ALL.
AND YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO QUESTION MY COMPETENCE WHEN YOUR OWN IS CLEARLY WANTING. YOU ARE STILL PRESUMING TO CALCULATE POWER WITH QUIXOTIC UNACCEPTABLE AND NON STANDARD PROTOCOLS
Rose Pose
You are wrong.
SHOW US HOW YOU CALCULATE POWER.
AND SHOW US HOW IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY MH AND .99 AND I AND THE HYPERPHYSICS SITE AND ALL THE WIKI AND TEXBOOKS DO IT.
Demonstrate your claims, AINSLIE. You cannot.
And I can and have demonstrated many instances when you have clearly lied and also many cases when what you say is not true, for one reason or another, yet you have not corrected it when pointed out. Many of the things you have said about me are clearly lies.
But the biggest whopper is the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" whopper. That one is nothing but a baldfaced lie. And then there is the claim of the 25.6 million Joules whopper. YOU ARE A LIAR, AINSLIE and there is ample evidence of it. Almost 2 GB, in fact, in my database.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:06:53 PM
THAT SCOPESHOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A HIGH ENERGY. IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW - NOTWITHSTANDING THE EVIDENCE OF CURRENT DURING THE ON PERIOD OF A DUTY CYCLE - THE COMPUTATIONS OF WATTAGE REMAIN NEGATIVE.
YOU ARE GROSSLY MISREPRESENTING OUR WORK.
CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN WORDS?
You are indeed an idiot and a liar. YOU are misrepresenting MY work and your own as well.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 01:08:51 PM
CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN WORDS?
You are indeed an idiot and a liar. YOU are misrepresenting MY work and your own as well.
I SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT IT IS NOT THE 80 WATTS THAT I THOUGHT BUT ONLY THE 40 WATTS AT MOST. 40 WATT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH HEAT. NOR IS THIS SCREENSHOT AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH CURRENT. YOUR COMPUTATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW IS WRONG. NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT. JUST WRONG.
AMENDED FOR CLARITY
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:11:34 PM
I SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT IT IS NOT THE 80 WATTS THAT I THOUGHT BUT ONLY THE 40 WATTS AT MOST. 40 WATT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH HEAT. NOR IS IT AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH CURRENT. YOUR COMPUTATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW IS WRONG. NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT. JUST WRONG.
Yes Ainslie, there is another way to put it. SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS of the current flow and show how mine is wrong. Use your presumed total impedance value for the shunt of 0.9 ohms or the more correct one of 1.15 ohms for the 1.5 MH oscs, or whatever you like. SHOW YOUR WORK THAT CONTRADICTS MINE.
You cannot.
Here, I'll even make it easy by reposting my analysis so YOU can SHOW WHERE IT IS WRONG. NOTE that I am ONLY concerned with the DC power, so the shunt's reactance is irrelevant.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 01:07:38 PM
You are wrong.
SHOW US HOW YOU CALCULATE POWER.
AND SHOW US HOW IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY MH AND .99 AND I AND THE HYPERPHYSICS SITE AND ALL THE WIKI AND TEXBOOKS DO IT.
Demonstrate your claims, AINSLIE. You cannot.
And I can and have demonstrated many instances when you have clearly lied and also many cases when what you say is not true, for one reason or another, yet you have not corrected it when pointed out. Many of the things you have said about me are clearly lies.
But the biggest whopper is the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" whopper. That one is nothing but a baldfaced lie. And then there is the claim of the 25.6 million Joules whopper. YOU ARE A LIAR, AINSLIE and there is ample evidence of it. Almost 2 GB, in fact, in my database.
We have ENTIRELY COVERED THIS POINT. YOU PERSIST IN ASSUMING THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT FLOW OUTSIDE OF ITS TIME REFERENCE. IT CANNOT BE DONE. NOT EVER. NOT WITHIN STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
You persist in REPEATEDLY assuming that battery voltage can be taken as an average over time. AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
We have ENTIRELY COVERED THIS POINT. YOU PERSIST IN ASSUMING THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT FLOW OUTSIDE OF ITS TIME REFERENCE. IT CANNOT BE DONE. NOT EVER. NOT WITHIN STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
You persist in REPEATEDLY assuming that battery voltage can be taken as an average over time. AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG.
NO, Ainslie, YOU ARE WRONG. IN ADDITION, you are once again LYING and misrepresenting my work and what I actually DO show.
SHOW YOUR WORK refuting me. You cannot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
Yes Ainslie, there is another way to put it. SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS of the current flow and show how mine is wrong. Use your presumed total impedance value of 0.9 ohms or the more correct one of 1.15 ohms, or whatever you like. SHOW YOUR WORK THAT CONTRADICTS MINE.
You cannot.
Here, I'll even make it easy by reposting my analysis so YOU can SHOW WHERE IT IS WRONG.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INSTANTANEOUS POWER - ON A SWITCHED CIRCUIT - UNLESS IT INCORPORATES TIME FACTORED IN TO THE APPLIED VOLTAGE AND THE APPLIED AMPERAGE BOTH. YOU ARE ASSUMING QUIXOTIC NON-STANDARD POWER ANALYSIS THAT IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE
ON THE CONTRARY. OUR WORK IS SHOWN IN GREAT DEPTH AND DETAIL IN OUR PAPER. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY REQUIREMENT BEYOND SUCH DETAILED REPRESENTATION REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM. WE INTEND GOING BEYOND THIS REQUIREMENT NONETHELESS TO INCORPORATE OUR FULL DEMONSTRATION TO SHOW THAT THE BATTERY IS ALSO ABLE TO EXCEED IT'S RATED PERFORMANCE. BUT THAT TEST WILL NEVER BE DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD OR YOUR SPURIOUS AND INSULTING ANALYSIS OF OUR WORK.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 01:19:25 PM
NO, Ainslie, YOU ARE WRONG. IN ADDITION, you are once again LYING and misrepresenting my work and what I actually DO show.
SHOW YOUR WORK refuting me. You cannot.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:20:02 PM
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INSTANTANEOUS POWER - ON A SWITCHED CIRCUIT - UNLESS IT INCORPORATES TIME FACTORED IN TO THE APPLIED VOLTAGE AND THE APPLIED AMPERAGE BOTH. YOU ARE ASSUMING QUIXOTIC NON-STANDARD POWER ANALYSIS THAT IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE
Once again you are showing your ignorance. It does not matter in the least about "switched circuits" or complex waveforms or any of that: the INTEGRAL of the INSTANTANEOUS POWER CURVE, found by multiplying the INSTANTANEOUS VALUES of the voltage and the current and integrating wrt time, will ALWAYS BE THE CORRECT MEASURE of the ENERGY IN JOULES passing your measurement point, and that value DIVIDED BY THE DURATION OF THE MEASUREMENT will ALWAYS give you the correct average POWER IN WATTS for that interval, even if it contains long gaps or complex mixed signals. That is the way it is done and if you only understood calculus you would see that THIS IS EVEN HOW YOU ARE DOING IT YOURSELF in your spreadsheets using a numerical approximation to the analytical technique.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 19, 2012, 12:59:44 PM
.99
No. You must also simulate the body diode of the mosfet that is switched off. There is also a current path
for the bias through that diode. This current path is small, but it is there. I have measured this.
GL.
GL,
I have simulated it, with the actual MOSFET in place. There was no significant change in any of the measurements.
In the simulation, the Q1 body diode is reverse-biased to about -22V, so other than a very small leakage current, there is almost no current through Q1. Your Q1 should also be reverse-biased, i.e. V
S-D should be negative 22V or so.
ETA: The actual measured current through Q1 is about 5uA.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 01:04:38 PM
And as per my diagram as well, right?
Including the CVR position and the FG cliplead colors as connected in the video.
The only difference is that the video shows the BLACK FG connector at the common ground point instead of the paper's and our diagrams showing it on the transistor side of the CVR.
Right?
Correct.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:22:35 PM
ON THE CONTRARY. OUR WORK IS SHOWN IN GREAT DEPTH AND DETAIL IN OUR PAPER. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY REQUIREMENT BEYOND SUCH DETAILED REPRESENTATION REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM. WE INTEND GOING BEYOND THIS REQUIREMENT NONETHELESS TO INCORPORATE OUR FULL DEMONSTRATION TO SHOW THAT THE BATTERY IS ALSO ABLE TO EXCEED IT'S RATED PERFORMANCE. BUT THAT TEST WILL NEVER BE DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD OR YOUR SPURIOUS AND INSULTING ANALYSIS OF OUR WORK.
Where in your great detail paper is the refutation of my current calculation of your SCRN0150 shot WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING?
Nowhere.
YOU need to SUPPORT YOUR PRESENT CLAIM, which is that my calculations of that shot are somehow wrong.
YOU CANNOT, so you point to your word-salad many times rejected "paper". And I laugh at your pitiful squawking, Polly Parrot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 01:24:43 PM
Once again you are showing your ignorance. It does not matter in the least about "switched circuits" or complex waveforms or any of that: the INTEGRAL of the INSTANTANEOUS POWER CURVE, found by multiplying the INSTANTANEOUS VALUES of the voltage and the current, will ALWAYS BE THE CORRECT MEASURE of the ENERGY IN JOULES passing your measurement point, and that value DIVIDED BY THE DURATION OF THE MEASUREMENT will ALWAYS give you the correct average POWER IN WATTS for that interval, even if it contains long gaps or complex mixed signals. That is the way it is done and if you only understood calculus you would see that THIS IS EVEN HOW YOU ARE DOING IT YOURSELF in your spreadsheets using a numerical approximation to the analytical technique.
AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG. SPREAD SHEET ANALYSIS FACTORS IN THE SAMPLES WHICH ARE TAKEN OVER TIME. YOU ARE TRYING TO SEPARATE ONE PART OF A CYCLE FROM THE WHOLE CYCLE. THAT IS WRONG. UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY AND SELF-EVIDENTLY AND ENTIRELY WRONG.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:22:35 PM
FULL DEMONSTRATION TO SHOW THAT THE BATTERY IS ALSO ABLE TO EXCEED IT'S RATED PERFORMANCE. BUT THAT TEST WILL NEVER BE DONE.
Edited for accuracy.
Rosemary
So far I've limited my comments to following TKs calculations and agreeing with his methods from a position of ignorance, but cross referencing to standard texts and definitions, discussing analysis of terms with GL in what I thought was a polite, mutually respectful and enlightening way, and taking the trouble to correct what seems to be a common source of confusion for you WRT employing the terms energy and power, by directly approaching the source you've been relying on. The latter as much through feeling embarrassed for you than anything else.
But your laundry list of complaints shows you to be something of a fantasist and / or self deluded.
My full name is Sean Inglis, my twitter handle is, no surprises, @mrsean2k, and if your "legal" representatives want to contact me - on the offchance they're total idiots - they can use idiots(at)seani(dot)justemail(dot)net
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:29:18 PM
AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG. SPREAD SHEET ANALYSIS FACTORS IN THE SAMPLES WHICH ARE TAKEN OVER TIME. YOU ARE TRYING TO SEPARATE ONE PART OF A CYCLE FROM THE WHOLE CYCLE. THAT IS WRONG. UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY AND SELF-EVIDENTLY AND ENTIRELY WRONG.
No, it's not wrong.
Imagine that you are using your very long 2 minute period, with your typical 15-20 percent ON duty cycle as shown in SCRN0150. This means that your Q1 mosfet is ON, carrying DC current, for 18-24 SECONDS. During that time interval only, can I not calculate the DC power level? How is it different from switching on a flashlight, counting to 20, and then switching it off, and calculating the power from that?
IT IS NOT DIFFERENT. DC is DC, even if it only happens for a short time interval.
My calculation of the DC power level is strictly legitimate, as is the calculation of the contribution to the total average.
(Go ask a tenth-grader if this is correct: The sum of the integrals is equal to the integral of the sums.)
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 01:31:04 PM
Edited for accuracy.
And THIS evolvingape IS AN UNADULTERATED EXAMPLE OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION. Correctly this should be accompanied by a disclosure of your name. Else you too are simply a coward - abusing forum guidelines with the certainty that you will NEVER be accountable for this level of slander. Which puts you in the same league as TK and his cohorts - Groundloop and Poynty excepted.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 01:35:18 PM
No, it's not wrong.
Imagine that you are using your very long 2 minute period, with your typical 15-20 percent ON duty cycle as shown in SCRN0150. This means that your Q1 mosfet is ON, carrying DC current, for 18-24 SECONDS. During that time interval only, can I not calculate the DC power level? How is it different from switching on a flashlight, counting to 20, and then switching it off, and calculating the power from that?
IT IS NOT DIFFERENT. DC is DC, even if it only happens for a short time interval.
My calculation of the DC power level is strictly legitimate, as is the calculation of the contribution to the total average.
Dear God. This issue is SO fundamental - that to even argue it is absurd. And it is laughably obvious that YOU who claim to KNOW SO MUCH - have NO CLUE when it comes to power analysis. Your example is WRONG. If you switch on your flashlight and then switch it off and then swtich it on - you are NOT SIMULATING a switched circuit. You are simply periodically using your available power. They are ENTIRELY different scenarios.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 01:25:42 PM
GL,
I have simulated it, with the actual MOSFET in place. There was no significant change in any of the measurements.
In the simulation, the Q1 body diode is reverse-biased to about -22V, so other than a very small leakage current, there is almost no current through Q1. Your Q1 should also be reverse-biased, i.e. VS-D should be negative 22V or so.
ETA: The actual measured current through Q1 is about 5uA.
.99
I did measure 0,36 Watt difference in the bias energy usage with the non oscillating MOSFET pulled or not.
So you simulation is not showing what is happening in my circuit. I trust my measurement to be correct.
GL.
Sean Inglis - your contributions to this discussion are in, in my opinion, in the same league as FTC's and picowatts. I am not interested in them. And I do NOT want to know your identity. I want to know TK's.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 01:33:30 PM
Rosemary
So far I've limited my comments to following TKs calculations and agreeing with his methods from a position of ignorance, but cross referencing to standard texts and definitions, discussing analysis of terms with GL in what I thought was a polite, mutually respectful and enlightening way, and taking the trouble to correct what seems to be a common source of confusion for you WRT employing the terms energy and power, by directly approaching the source you've been relying on. The latter as much through feeling embarrassed for you than anything else.
But your laundry list of complaints shows you to be something of a fantasist and / or self deluded.
My full name is Sean Inglis, my twitter handle is, no surprises, @mrsean2k, and if your "legal" representatives want to contact me - on the offchance they're total idiots - they can use idiots(at)seani(dot)justemail(dot)net
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:37:19 PM
And THIS evolvingape IS AN UNADULTERATED EXAMPLE OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION. Correctly this should be accompanied by a disclosure of your name. Else you too are simply a coward - abusing forum guidelines with the certainty that you will NEVER be accountable for this level of slander. Which puts you in the same league as TK and his cohorts - Groundloop and Poynty excepted.
Rosie Pose
Quote:
I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason. I'm impressed that you disclose this. Thank you. And I apologise if I should have known this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318534/#msg318534)
Goldfish memory dumbass ?
::)
Quote from: Groundloop on May 19, 2012, 01:46:00 PM
.99
I did measure 0,36 Watt difference in the bias energy usage with the non oscillating MOSFET pulled or not.
So you simulation is not showing what is happening in my circuit. I trust my measurement to be correct.
GL.
Take your voltage meter (or scope) and measure across the D-S on each MOSFET. If the positive probe is on the Drain, the two voltages should be positive, and around 22V.
What is your circuit current?
THANK YOU evolvingape. I take it then that you are more than willing to allow HARTI to disclose your address? Does he have this? Or are you going to make that available as well? We still need that in order to address our complaint appropriately.
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 01:47:21 PM
Quote:
I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason. I'm impressed that you disclose this. Thank you. And I apologise if I should have known this.
Regards,
Rosemary
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318534/#msg318534)
Goldfish memory dumbass ?
::)
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 01:50:06 PM
Take your voltage meter (or scope) and measure across the D-S on each MOSFET. If the positive probe is on the Drain, the two voltages should be positive, and around 22V.
What is your circuit current?
.99
I don't have to. I did measure the input energy to the circuit in both cases.
And there is a 0,36 Watt difference in the input energy with or without the other mosfet pulled.
And if your simulator is not showing this then your simulator is not correct vs real life circuit.
GL.
@.99:
Does the sim allow for substituting a really LARGE capacitor, say 1000 F or so, for the battery? You could model the battery's ESR and inductance with simulated discrete components. If so, one could charge the capacitor to 75 volts and let the sim run, monitoring the voltage at the board (with the stray lead inductances) and also directly at the capacitor itself, along with the other usual parameters. The first should show the negative mean power product. Then you could also show the capacitor's voltage over the time interval that the circuit runs.
Apologies if you have already done this. Perhaps if you have, you could post a link to the results. Thanx...
--TK
Quote from: Groundloop on May 19, 2012, 01:58:29 PM
.99
I don't have to. I did measure the input energy to the circuit in both cases.
And there is a 0,36 Watt difference in the input energy with or without the other mosfet pulled.
And if your simulator is not showing this then your simulator is not correct vs real life circuit.
GL.
The .36W difference is coming from somewhere, but where? What is causing it, do you know? You said you wanted to know more about what is happening inside this circuit.
If you measure the voltage across the D-S of each MOSFET, you will then know if the body diode in either MOSFET is turning ON, i.e. being forward-biased to pass current. If they are, then you know that is the mechanism, and your assumption was correct. However, if they are reverse-biased, then you know it is something else.
Hint: My simulation is NOT oscillating.
Let's say your measurements indicate that the voltages are largely positive; what other mechanism(s) could be attributed to that 0.36W difference when Q1 is installed?
Oh but I might be interested in how *you* characterise *my* remarks, Rosemary. And I don't place the same value on privacy that TK does, so I don't labour under the same constraints if I get tired of you throwing shit in my direction.
TK has made a number of claims that you seem to believe are defamatory or actionable but you are thwarted by his anonymity.
Tell me which claims specifically and where I agree, ill repeat them and you are free to pursue me. Get on with it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 01:56:45 PM
THANK YOU evolvingape. I take it then that you are more than willing to allow HARTI to disclose your address? Does he have this? Or are you going to make that available as well? We still need that in order to address our complaint appropriately.
Until you perform a definitive battery draw down test my "Edited for accuracy" comment is perfectly valid based upon all available data. After all you have been at this for 15 years and have never performed the test yet, despite claiming you have, because you cannot do simple math.
Additionally, if you think I am going to provide you with my address after you have made death threats to TinselKoala, you are clearly insane.
Why would harti have my address ? You nuts woman ?
I have NEVER made death threats against anyone ever in my entire life. THAT IS ALSO SLANDEROUS
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 02:11:46 PM
Until you perform a definitive battery draw down test my "Edited for accuracy" comment is perfectly valid based upon all available data. After all you have been at this for 15 years and have never performed the test yet, despite claiming you have, because you cannot do simple math.
Additionally, if you think I am going to provide you with my address after you have made death threats to TinselKoala, you are clearly insane.
Why would harti have my address ? You nuts woman ?
WE MOST CERTAINLY HAVE PERFORMED DEFINITIVE BATTERY DRAW DOWN TESTS therefore your 'edited for accuracy' comment is UTTERLY INVALID. And your excuse to 'duck' accountability is clearly because you are that cowardly. But an email address may be enough for serving a complaint. I'm not sure about it. I know one needs to establish some kind of legal correspondent in the locale of any party to a legal action. But I'll check up on it. If an email address is enough then I'll certainly be forwarding you some notification in the near future.
Rosie Pose
ADDED
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 02:06:48 PM
@.99:
Does the sim allow for substituting a really LARGE capacitor, say 1000 F or so, for the battery? You could model the battery's ESR and inductance with simulated discrete components. If so, one could charge the capacitor to 75 volts and let the sim run, monitoring the voltage at the board (with the stray lead inductances) and also directly at the capacitor itself, along with the other usual parameters. The first should show the negative mean power product. Then you could also show the capacitor's voltage over the time interval that the circuit runs.
Apologies if you have already done this. Perhaps if you have, you could post a link to the results. Thanx...
--TK
TK,
Yes of course that could all be done, easily. But why do it?
sean - your extraordinary level of malice is somewhat inappropriate. I'm not sure that our engagement has been such to warrant it. It seems you are most anxious to join in the party with your insults? Is that it? You enjoy this public 'bashing'? You're happy to extend it despite it serving no value but your own vicarious enjoyment in gang bullying? Feel free. But may I also impose on you to make your email address available. I am not about to take the one on offer seriously.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 02:09:47 PM
Oh but I might be interested in how *you* characterise *my* remarks, Rosemary. And I don't place the same value on privacy that TK does, so I don't labour under the same constraints if I get tired of you throwing shit in my direction.
TK has made a number of claims that you seem to believe are defamatory or actionable but you are thwarted by his anonymity.
Tell me which claims specifically and where I agree, ill repeat them and you are free to pursue me. Get on with it.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 02:09:03 PM
The .36W difference is coming from somewhere, but where? What is causing it, do you know? You said you wanted to know more about what is happening inside this circuit.
If you measure the voltage across the D-S of each MOSFET, you will then know if the body diode in either MOSFET is turning ON, i.e. being forward-biased to pass current. If they are, then you know that is the mechanism, and your assumption was correct. However, if they are reverse-biased, then you know it is something else.
Hint: My simulation is NOT oscillating.
Let's say your measurements indicate that the voltages are largely positive; what other mechanism(s) could be attributed to that 0.36W difference when Q1 is installed?
.99
I can set up the circuit again and recheck my measurements but it have to wait until tomorrow.
GL.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 02:23:18 PM
TK,
Yes of course that could all be done, easily. But why do it?
Poynty? You know, TK knows - WE ALL KNOW - that a capacitor CANNOT enable that oscillation. And we ALL KNOW WHY. Why then are you getting cryptic. Just say it. Outright. And then TELL US WHY.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 02:17:24 PM
I have NEVER made death threats against anyone ever in my entire life. THAT IS SLANDEROUS
Yes you have I saw you do it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 02:17:24 PM
WE MOST CERTAINLY HAVE PERFORMED DEFINITIVE BATTERY DRAW DOWN TESTS therefore your 'edited for accuracy' comment is UTTERLY INVALID.
NO you have not. If you have
PROVE IT!Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 02:17:24 PM
And your excuse to 'duck' accountability is clearly because you are that cowardly. But an email address may be enough for serving a complaint. I'm not sure about it. I know one needs to establish some kind of legal correspondent in the locale of any party to a legal action. But I'll check up on it. If an email address is enough then I'll certainly be forwarding you some notification in the near future.
Rosie Pose
Go ask eatenbyagrue, your legal representative, I am sure you can advise yourself adequately.
What malice, Rosemary? Just facts and a straight statement of my position.
That email address is valid and under my total control, tough if you don't like it.
But note, assume I'll feel free to repeat any correspondence you or any representatives send to it, so you should only engage with that full understanding.
Now what matters technical opinion do you want me to consider for agreement?
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 02:29:13 PM
Yes you have I saw you do it.
Then evolvingape - you'll need to PROVE that I've made death threats.
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 02:29:13 PMNO you have not. If you have PROVE IT!
We have submitted more than adequate proof. We now intend going beyond adequate to CONCLUSIVE. But PROOF is there. In COPIOUS QUANTITIES. Starting with COP>17 and moving on to the EVIDENCE in these multiple scopeshots that TK's trying so hard to DISCOUNT.
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 02:29:13 PMGo ask eatenbyagrue, your legal representative, I am sure you can advise yourself adequately.
My legal representative is actually NOT eatenbyagrue - but is someone who actually shares your own surname. How's that for irony? And rest assured. You'll be hearing from him. Either through the good offices of our Forum Owner - or directly - if our Forum Owner sees fit to release this.
Rosie Pose[/quote]
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 02:26:53 PM
Poynty? You know, TK knows - WE ALL KNOW - that a capacitor CANNOT enable that oscillation. And we ALL KNOW WHY. Why then are you getting cryptic. Just say it. Outright. And then TELL US WHY.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary,
The simulation of your circuit will run perfectly fine using a big capacitor as the source rather than batteries, and with the oscillations abundantly intact as always. Why wouldn't it?
I am just curious why TK wants to see this.
My dear sean,
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 02:34:04 PM
What malice, Rosemary? Just facts and a straight statement of my position.
You stated - very clearly - that you wanted me to advise you on the insults to me or about me - that TK gratuitously offers in every second sentence. Then you proposed that you would 'repeat' them. Then you proposed that I could then take action against you. SHOULD you repeat those insults then that would be both malicious - and criminally actionable.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 02:34:04 PMThat email address is valid and under my total control, tough if you don't like it.
Since the email address is an insult in and of itself it will NEVER be accessed by any legal representative anywhere. You need to allow a viable service address. I'm not sure that an email address is EVER viable. I'll find out in due course. But I KNOW that the email you offered will NEVER be accessed by any self-respecting professional.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 02:34:04 PMBut note, assume I'll feel free to repeat any correspondence you or any representatives send to it, so you should only engage with that full understanding.
I have NO idea what you are trying to say here. It's gibberish.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 02:34:04 PMNow what matters technical opinion do you want me to consider for agreement?
I have no intention to engage with you on any discussion of any nature at all. I only wish to contradict any MISINFORMATION that anyone on this thread indulges.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 02:43:53 PM
Rosemary,
The simulation of your circuit will run perfectly fine using a big capacitor as the source rather than batteries, and with the oscillations abundantly intact as always. Why wouldn't it?
I am just curious why TK wants to see this.
THEN SHOW US POYNTY POINT. We have replaced those batteries with a capacitor and the OSCILLATIONS DIE. EVERY TIME. ON EVERY SINGLE SETTING.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
THEN SHOW US POYNTY POINT. We have replaced those batteries with a capacitor and the OSCILLATIONS DIE. EVERY TIME. ON EVERY SINGLE SETTING.
Rosie
Rosemary,
It will work just fine with a sufficiently-large capacitor(s). What size capacitor (in uF) did you try?
Rosemary:
QuotePoynty? You know, TK knows - WE ALL KNOW - that a capacitor CANNOT enable that oscillation. And we ALL KNOW WHY.
Really? Perhaps you can explain it for the readers here and now. I don't know why.
There are very little differences between a large charged capacitor and a battery from the perspective of them being power sources. Can you tell us what they are and how this relates back to your allegation that a capacitor cannot enable that oscillation? I am asking you for a technical explanation.
Meanwhile, I can just imagine the scene in my mind: "
Inherit the Zipon - The Scopes Electro-Monkey Trial." LOL LOL LOL
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 02:51:41 PM
Rosemary,
It will work just fine with a sufficiently-large capacitor(s). What size capacitor (in uF) did you try?
I don't have the details and my collaborator who did these tests is holidaying until Monday. I'll let you know.
Rosie
Rosemary, what specific technical claims of TKs do you consider insulting or actionable? If I agree with them I'll say so, and you can take whatever action you want.
As an adult you should be aware there's a distinction between you feeling insulted and an intention to insult specifically. Feel free to explore that distinction legally.
I'll make a further concession: I disagree with your reasoning on the matter, but I nevertheless make available legalcontact(at)seani(dot)justemail(dot)net - I presume that satisfies your sensitivity on that score.
And I invite our host to email at that address as proof its "mine" if he feels inclined.
My dear MilesOffAnyPointAtAll
Quote from: MileHigh on May 19, 2012, 02:54:11 PM
Rosemary:
Really? Perhaps you can explain it for the readers here and now. I don't know why.
There are very little differences between a large charged capacitor and a battery from the perspective of them being power sources. Can you tell us what they are and how this relates back to your allegation that a capacitor cannot enable that oscillation? I am asking you for a technical explanation.
Meanwhile, I can just imagine the scene in my mind: "Inherit the Zipon - The Scopes Electro-Monkey Trial." LOL LOL LOL
MileHigh
We've explained this FULLY in both our first and second part of that 2-part paper. And exactly WHAT 'scopes electro-monkey trial' are you referring to? Are you again indulging in your fantasies MilesOutOfReach? Some bewildering drug induced trip? Maybe? I'm reasonably certain that this is hardly of interest to science - unless it's to some branch of psychology that is dedicated to advanced mental confusions related to excessive use of hallucinogens.
Rosie Posie
Rosemary,
Multiple witnesses saw you make the "one bird is you" death threat to TK, and then edit it out quick and deny you did it. The proof is in this very thread, and other places, and non-editable by you.
Scopeshots are not proof of a battery draw down test. DUMBASS! a dim bulb test is though, ever done one of those ?
If you are suggesting harti has the ability and the intent to track down the members here and hand over that information to an unstable personality who makes death threats, on a whim, it would finish his forum the moment he did it. Try again eatenbyagrue.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 02:57:41 PM
Rosemary, what specific technical claims of TKs do you consider insulting or actionable? If I agree with them I'll say so, and you can take whatever action you want.
As an adult you should be aware there's a distinction between you feeling insulted and an intention to insult specifically. Feel free to explore that distinction legally.
I'll make a further concession: I disagree with your reasoning on the matter, but I nevertheless make available legalcontact(at)seani(dot)justemail(dot)net - I presume that satisfies your sensitivity on that score.
And I invite our host to email at that address as proof its "mine" if he feels inclined.
And now sean - repeat that slew of gratuitous insults that TK manages with such freedom against our work and against my good name - and I promise you that you'll hear from my attorney. Then we'll see if we can actually institute some action if we EVER determine your address.
Rosemary
You are making some reckless assumptions here evolvingape. I'll be glad to disabuse of those assumptions.
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 03:01:34 PM
Rosemary,
Multiple witnesses saw you make the "one bird is you" death threat to TK, and then edit it out quick and deny you did it. The proof is in this very thread, and other places, and non-editable by you.
Scopeshots are not proof of a battery draw down test. DUMBASS! a dim bulb test is though, ever done one of those ?
If you are suggesting harti has the ability and the intent to track down the members here and hand over that information to an unstable personality who makes death threats, on a whim, it would finish his forum the moment he did it. Try again eatenbyagrue.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 19, 2012, 02:23:18 PM
TK,
Yes of course that could all be done, easily. But why do it?
For the lulz, of course. It would be interesting and I believe amusing to see the scrolling negative power product in one window, the power dissipated by the load in another window, and the capacitor voltage in yet another window as the circuit ran.
guys - I am not about to sit back and allow our hard work and the potential benefits of that hard work be drowned out by the malicious interference of those personalities here who are disproportionately anxious to DISPROVE those benefits.
I am NOT rich. But I have more than one arrow to my bow - so to speak. And I have enough commitment to this general cause to use whatever liquidity is available to me - to COUNTER this rather disgusting attempt at silencing me and killing off the benefits of our hard work. If we make this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated on the internet - or if we make the this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated in a Court of Law - OR BOTH - is immaterial. Provided ONLY that the proof is made available and publicly and to as WIDE AN AUDIENCE AS POSSIBLE. And I would be DELIGHTED to engage on either or both options.
And if I am thereby somewhat impoverished... so be it. It is LONG OVERDUE that someone take a stand against this pernicious requirement to silence over unity claims - or better put - to silence 'claims of efficiency that DO NOT comply to classical prediction'.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Rosemary:
QuoteWe've explained this FULLY in both our first and second part of that 2-part paper.
Then explain it again for all of us right here and right now. If you don't then you are full of it and are just being evasive - again.
QuoteAnd exactly WHAT 'scopes electro-monkey trial' are you referring to?
Your Scopes Electro-Monkey trial. That's the one where your side argues for the devolution of science and technology so that we go back to the 18th century.
QuoteAre you again indulging in your fantasies MilesOutOfReach? Some bewildering drug induced trip? Maybe? I'm reasonably certain that this is hardly of interest to science - unless it's to some branch of psychology that is dedicated to advanced mental confusions related to excessive use of hallucinogens.
Slander! Slander! Pants on fire! You will be hearing from my team of attorneys.
MileHigh
Ainslie lies yet again when she says that I am attempting to discredit her scope shots.
ON THE CONTRARY, AINSLIE, you liar, your scope shots are the ONLY reliable data that you have presented. Even most of the descriptions of the conditions under which they were obtained are unreliable... but the SCOPE SHOTS THEMSELVES are telling us the entire story of your circuit's behaviour and your claims about it.
What I AM discrediting... and will do so in any forum anywhere.... are Ainslie's continued lies, her false claims and bogus mathematics and her unsupported conclusions about her circuit.
ETA: Here again is what Ainslie should have done for you: all the scopeshots I've been able to find, in one place. Don't forget that her 301kb "jpg" files are really .bmps. I've converted most of them. And there are a few more in here since I uploaded the first SCRN.zip file.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 03:11:11 PM
guys - I am not about to sit back and allow our hard work and the potential benefits of that hard work be drowned out by the malicious interference of those personalities here who are disproportionately anxious to DISPROVE those benefits.
I am NOT rich. But I have more than one arrow to my bow - so to speak. And I have enough commitment to this general cause to use whatever liquidity is available to me - to COUNTER this rather disgusting attempt at silencing me and killing off the benefits of our hard work. If we make this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated on the internet - or if we make the this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated in a Court of Law - OR BOTH - is immaterial. Provided ONLY that the proof is made available and publicly and to as WIDE AN AUDIENCE AS POSSIBLE. And I would be DELIGHTED to engage on either or both options.
And if I am thereby somewhat impoverished... so be it. It is LONG OVERDUE that someone take a stand against this pernicious requirement to silence over unity claims - or better put - to silence 'claims of efficiency that DO NOT comply to classical prediction'.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I perceive this as YET ANOTHER threat to my physical safety, however empty and feeble it might be.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 19, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
Rosemary:
Slander! Slander! Pants on fire! You will be hearing from my team of attorneys.
MileHigh
LOL MilesOutInOrbit
I'll PM you with a service address. Hang ten.
Rosie Posie
Rosemary
Some of what TK says I agree with unconditionally, some of it I don't, and some of it I am ambivalent on. It's up to you to be specific, however:
I agree with his analysis of your own scope shots WRT the power contributed by the DC pulsed component and that this alone would contribute significant energy.
I agree with him that you are ignorant WRT the calculations you are criticising; that your personal grasp of the difference between energy and power is inconsistent and fleeting and leads you into numerous qualitative and quantitative errors.
And that is a valid email address.
I request that email address of your legal representative so I can confirm this, or invite them to email to confirm.
Quick... before she buries it.... I uploaded SCRN2.zip, which contains all the screenshots I've been able to find, a few more than in SCRN.zip. There are about 65 screenshots and a couple of my analyses in there.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 03:19:23 PM
I perceive this as YET ANOTHER threat to my physical safety, however empty and feeble it might be.
Then that is the essential difference between us. You are not only a coward but a paranoid coward... sadly so. And THANKFULLY I am NOT.
Rosie pose
Oh.... and I just _hate_ it when my photography skills are slandered and libelled the way she does. I was so terribly anguished and suffering mentally from her deliberate attacks and threats against my personal safety that I went out last night and took this picture, from my back yard:
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
Rosemary
Some of what TK says I agree with unconditionally, some of it I don't, and some of it I am ambivalent on. It's up to you to be specific, however:
I agree with his analysis of your own scope shots WRT the power contributed by the DC pulsed component and that this alone would contribute significant energy.
I agree with him that you are ignorant WRT the calculations you are criticising; that your personal grasp of the difference between energy and power is inconsistent and fleeting and leads you into numerous qualitative and quantitative errors.
And that is a valid email address.
I request that email address of your legal representative so I can confirm this, or invite them to email to confirm.
I DO NOT AGREE with your opinion. But your opinion here does NOT comprise an offense. It is merely an opinion. I would need to see you act on your early offer to repeat TK's ALLEGATIONS - any or all of them - as you mentioned.
Rosie Pose
correction
Wow, and of course you know that Saturn gives off EM radiation because of the shoulder-to-shoulder Zipons circulating around it in an agitated state of imbalance.
Very cool, I hope you enjoyed that Jupiter transit behind the sun.
Again Rosemary, which opinions do you believe are actionable? I've quoted 2 or 3 I thought you'd already objected to. If you no longer object to these, what's left? Be specific and ill tell you if I concur or not.
What is the email address of your legal representation?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 03:26:30 PM
Quick... before she buries it.... I uploaded SCRN2.zip, which contains all the screenshots I've been able to find, a few more than in SCRN.zip. There are about 65 screenshots and a couple of my analyses in there.
Sorry, where are these?
Here is SCRN2.zip
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 03:45:02 PM
Sorry, where are these?
See, buried already. They are attached to a post about a page back. I don't want to upload it yet again -- it's over 3 mb, compressed down from 16 or so --, so please go back and find it there. It was a quick afterthought edit so you might have not noticed it with all the realtime fluttering and squawking.
OH... and sorry, there aren't that many (65) discrete shots. Some are duplicates in different graphic formats. I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out, remembering that her 301.1kb "jpg" files aren't really .jpg but actually .bmp that she snuck past the forum software by simply changing the extension.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 03:41:32 PM
Again Rosemary, which opinions do you believe are actionable? I've quoted 2 or 3 I thought you'd already objected to. If you no longer object to these, what's left? Be specific and ill tell you if I concur or not.
What is the email address of your legal representation?
my dear sean,
It is NOT customary to invite anyone at all to check on one's legal representation. Nor is there any cause for this unless your intention is to annoy them with some early correspondence. And nor am I about to oblige you. On MONDAY you can PM evolvingape and even Harti. And IF either of them see fit - then I'm sure that either one of them will be able to oblige you. AND your opinion related to TK'S wattage analysis is simply YOUR OPINION. It is also ERRONEOUS. IF you factor out the TIME in order to compute that wattage then you are ALSO making a profound and fundamental error. IF a product of the instantaneous delivery of energy from a battery supply source and the amperage measured to have flowed from that battery is a reflection of the energy dissipated or delivered WITHOUT reference to the applied duty cycle period - then STANDARD computations of a switched cycle NEED TO BE COMPLETELY UPENDED AND REVISED. It is UTTERLY and PROFOUNDLY and COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS to assume otherwise.
But nor is THAT opinion the object of my complaint. It is merely part of a technical discussion - that is IRRELEVANT because it is ERRONEOUS
Rosie Pose
Silly old woman.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/powerac.html#c3 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/powerac.html#c3)
Please look at the link, and then scroll up and down a bit to look at the boxes immediately before and after this one.
Are they wrong?
Oh... that's right.... you don't have any algebra, much less calculus. Maybe you can get a tenth grader to explain what that funny stretched out "S" means.
Rosemary,
You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.
The rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.
TinselKoala
I've uploaded the screenshots to a website here for ease. If you want access to it to amend titles, PM me.
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
Rosemary, if you object to this, feel free to have your legal representation contact me, I've given you two suitable addresses.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
Rosemary,
You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.
The rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.
TinselKoala
I've uploaded the screenshots to a website here for ease. If you want access to it to amend titles, PM me.
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
Rosemary, if you object to this, feel free to have your legal representation contact me, I've given you two suitable addresses.
Guys - whatever is made available on that forum of sean's was NOT with my permission - and I believe my computer has again been rifled. It's ON GOING. I have NOT made 60 or more screenshots available to the public. And IF these have been accessed then it's been done without my permission. I will MOST CERTAINLY take action against this.
Rosemary
I'm not asking your permission, and I don't need it.
If you have any objections, take action, you have my full name and you can contact me at the two addresses I've already given you.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
Rosemary,
You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.
The rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.
TinselKoala
I've uploaded the screenshots to a website here for ease. If you want access to it to amend titles, PM me.
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
Rosemary, if you object to this, feel free to have your legal representation contact me, I've given you two suitable addresses.
That is beautiful, and you did it so fast. I am impressed, thank you. I have only this to say:
Yer Onner, may I present Exhibit A, this single page which shows for all the world that the Claimant of the First Parrot... er Part is engaging in the black art of Scopomancy of the most egregious kind. ANd therefore we petition the court to decree and require that she attend -- and complete successfully -- a course in Church-approved Scoposcopy before she be allowed access to the sacred King of Instruments again.
A little training in basic math would be cool, too, Yer Onner, if you could toss that in.
(And of course there are 65 "files" in there, not 65 unique screenshots. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression... which I actually did correct as well several posts ago. So be sure to put that into your complaint before you stuff it --er, sorry another typo, I meant before you MAIL it, Ainslie.)
@TK
Not my software, somebody else did all the clever stuff - I uploaded the zip, clicked "unzip", then "make a photo album" then "give it this address" (more or less). But it's good enough I think.
@RA
Offline for a bit but I'll check my email on return
Look, guys, she is NOT paranoid, OK, so would you PLEASE stop rifling her computer?
:-*
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.
I have no reason to DOUBT that the email addresses you provided are valid. But the onus is on ME to validate them. And NOT for you to validate my attorney's email address. And you will most CERTAINLY be hearing from them in the light of your publication of our work that has NOT yet been put in the public domain.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PMThe rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.
I take it then that the use of the term 'unique' is your own eccentric interpretation of SLANDER. Slander is still actionable and his 'unique' methods are also slanderous.
Rosemary
And Guys, here's the admission.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:21:46 PM
@TK
Not my software, somebody else did all the clever stuff - I uploaded the zip, clicked "unzip", then "make a photo album" then "give it this address" (more or less). But it's good enough I think.
@RA
Offline for a bit but I'll check my email on return
We have our own police that deal with this kind of thing. And I've made copies of all these posts.
Regards again
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 03:11:11 PM
guys - I am not about to sit back and allow our hard work and the potential benefits of that hard work be drowned out by the malicious interference of those personalities here who are disproportionately anxious to DISPROVE those benefits.
I am NOT rich. But I have more than one arrow to my bow - so to speak. And I have enough commitment to this general cause to use whatever liquidity is available to me - to COUNTER this rather disgusting attempt at silencing me and killing off the benefits of our hard work. If we make this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated on the internet - or if we make the this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated in a Court of Law - OR BOTH - is immaterial. Provided ONLY that the proof is made available and publicly and to as WIDE AN AUDIENCE AS POSSIBLE. And I would be DELIGHTED to engage on either or both options.
And if I am thereby somewhat impoverished... so be it. It is LONG OVERDUE that someone take a stand against this pernicious requirement to silence over unity claims - or better put - to silence 'claims of efficiency that DO NOT comply to classical prediction'.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I agree that this needs to be brought to the public and as wide an audience as possible. There should be a effort to spread the word to the other open source forums of the testing and evaluation done by Rosemary and the NERD RAT team. There are many of us that have "VALID" multiple memberships in forums that Rosemary has been banned from those should be posted to first. This would be a way that all the correct information can be compiled in many places to make it more difficult to have records of the truth removed and them to remain intact at multiple web site locations. If Rosemary can't get access to these sites that's her problem, and gives her cave dwelling attorneys Rosemary references something to do and get familiar with international litigation on internet public forum lawsuits.
As I stated before without a IP address from the forum site provider ( Stefan Hartmann of Hartmann Multimedia ) it is difficult to prove in court the accused person posing libel remarks true identity. Without that link between the person posing libel remarks and a physical location of the owners name with actual possession of the computer from where the remarks came any lawsuit cannot be proven because of reasonable doubt of "WHO" did what. The court claim of "it wasn't me" prove it was has to be addressed, any attorney would agree on proving "WHO" did what first.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316295/#msg316295 Reply #1375 on: March 21, 2012, 09:27:33 PM
Quote
Rosemary,
I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider. I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit, but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak. I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Lettenmaier
To: Stefan Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Libel Case - Rosemary Ainslie
Hi Stefan,
I was asked to get a listing of IP addresses that the Over Unity member Rosemary Ainslie has used to access
the Over Unity web site.
This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.
This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.
Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.
I am only asking this of you to avoid any legal process that would arise to get this information from you, in a
timely manner.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Glen Lettenmaier
We that are concerned on libel remarks from Rosemary have chosen at this time not to advance our legal intentions as it would require for us to go through Stefan to get to Rosemary for the proof of her true identity ( IP address ) at this forum and that all postings came from her computer at her place of residence. This although could change if conditions require a needed actionable response, all options are still on the table for consideration in this matter.
FTC
:P
@RA
I'll make one concession at the moment.
You seem to dispute that the screenshots are all yours.
If you choose to list which you confirm are yours, and which you deny are yours, I'll update the description and / or notes for each to reflect this.
If you only want to confirm which are yours. I'll update appropriately and leave the rest.
If you only want to deny which are yours, I'll update appropriately and leave the rest.
Entirely your choice if you feel you want to set the record straight on this particular point.
Also, as we've now established you're only claiming that a subset of these screenshots from your open source project are anything to do with you, this will helpfully narrow the range when you choose to take legal proceedings - only those you claim are yours can be a source of contention.
Apologies to everyone for the portentous double-spacing that keeps appearing - no idea why.
And, Rosemary, tomorrow there'll be another very modest website to encourage members of your team to identify themselves and engage directly. I don't think responses filtered through you are helpful.
Well, just to go back to the capacitor test for the fun of it.
It's not practical to have a very large 48 or 72-volt capacitor to power the real circuit but of course it is doable. What would happen is the circuit would behave almost identically to how the circuit behaves when powered by a set of batteries.
The one big difference is that the voltage on the very large capacitor would slowly decrease while the circuit was being powered. Now anybody that has mastered the basics of electronics would understand that observing the voltage on the capacitor slowly decrease is metaphysical proof that the circuit is burning off the energy provided by the capacitor and that the observed oscillations are not in fact returning energy to the capacitor. Of course then you can extrapolate this to the case where the circuit is powered by a battery.
You can make this direct connection between the behaviour of a large capacitor and the battery and if Rosemary objects to this then it's just a move of desperation. She is not knowledgeable enough in electronics one way or the other and she doesn't understand capacitors. Everyone that understands electronics understands the utility of substituting a battery for a large capacitor.
I don't recall anything in Rosemary's papers that dealt with the issue of using a capacitor and I don't recall any explanation in the papers that would explain why you can't use a capacitor. If Rosemary wants to copy and paste the explanation into the thread that would be fine and it can be discussed.
As far as Rosemary's claims about testing with a capacitor and it didn't work, well the answer to that is simple. It "didn't work" because the capacitor discharged and therefore the oscillations died. This is a case of Rosemary observing something an assigning an explanation that has nothing to do with the reality of what happened. In fact, she assigned this untrue explanation to "escape" from what the capacitor test was telling her.
"You can't use a capacitor because the capacitor will discharge" is just simply ridiculous. It's the willful denial of what the evidence is telling you.
All capacitor tests on all variations of the NERD circuit will demonstrate how the circuit is under unity. The circuit is not recharging the batteries, the circuit is not "only using potential" and not discharging the batteries. These allegations by Rosemary are frankly ridiculous and desperate.
MileHigh
With reference to SCRN0342, here is what she says about it, in part:
QuoteTherefore, conservatively speaking we were able to take water to boil at 0.12 watts of energy measured from the battery supply during this short 18 parts 'on' of every 82 parts off of each period of the duty cycle.
The link to the post:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg287455/#msg287455
And below are the images of the post itself, and the SCRN0342 for your own analyses of the power level during this "short 18 parts 'on' " portion of each period.
Just eyeballing it without blowing it up it looks to me like 0.090 V is indicated on the CVR trace during the short 18 parts 'on' portions. Using the DC resistance of the CVR, which is 0.25 Ohms, we obtain
0.090 V / 0.25 R == 0.360 A
And then using the battery voltage (measured from the trace, not from the boxes) we obtain the steady DC power in that interval:
0.360 A x 60 V == 21.6 Watts
And even if you multiply that by the duty cycle and assume no contribution from the oscs, you still get 21.6 x 0.18 == about 3.9 Watts.
Both are different results than Ainslie reports.
What accounts for the difference? Is it really my profound lack of math or my misunderstanding of power calculations? Really? I think it is libellous for her to accuse me of those things without providing calculations of her own to refute me. And I am experiencing profound distress and emotional anguish from it. It has already cost me thousands of dollars. And I have receipts from the bars to prove it.
(Just documenting, for the punitive and compensatory damages, you understand.)
And... by the way.... the water was NOT boiling, according to her original report made at the time the experiment was done.
This is documented in her blog posts 117 and 118, to which I have linked previously.
By the way.... in case there is actually any doubt in anyone's mind.... every one of those screenshots in the zip file came from Ainslie's blog or one of the locked threads on this forum, and they are reproduced and gathered together as an educational service to those who are working on this OPEN SOURCE project. There are a couple of blowups with notes that I made and these are of course freely donated, copy-lefted and with source attribution of course.
And this is something that Ainslie herself should have done long ago.
And further.... any attempt by her to remove or suppress these scopeshots or this collection is... well...... suppression, isn't it.
I'm sure you all can Do The Math (tm Ainslie).
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
And, Rosemary, tomorrow there'll be another very modest website to encourage members of your team to identify themselves and engage directly. I don't think responses filtered through you are helpful.
What's the website going to be called?
(It looks like soundofcricketschirping.com is still available.....)
;)
Quote from: MileHigh on May 19, 2012, 03:37:45 PM
Wow, and of course you know that Saturn gives off EM radiation because of the shoulder-to-shoulder Zipons circulating around it in an agitated state of imbalance.
Very cool, I hope you enjoyed that Jupiter transit behind the sun.
Heh.... yes, that was quite a video, very impressive indeed. I forgot to thank you for that one but I did bookmark it. It must be nice to have billions of dollars worth of kit to make your photos with.
That Saturn is a "personal best" for Saturn for me. It's a hard target. That shot is an "eyepiece projection" using the Baader Hyperion 3.5 mm EP (edit, it wasn't the zoom after all), in the Celestron EdgeHD 9.25 aplanatic Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope on the Celestron CGEM German equatorial mount. The image is a single jpeg, not a stack, taken with the Canon Xti at ISO 1600, 2 sec exposure. It was processed initially in PixInsightLE and then tweaked a bit more in the gimp. Still... it is in the nature of a "proof". I have a bunch of other frames in the Canon's higher-pixel-depth .CR2 format that I will try to use in a stacking process that may improve the overall image quite a bit if it works. You can see an example of this process and the amazing improvement it can provide in this astronomy video showing the process applied to Jupiter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2peHMc3wHs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2peHMc3wHs)
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 06:28:20 PM
What's the website going to be called?
(It looks like soundofcricketschirping.com is still available.....)
;)
How about theguysclassactionlawsuit.com ?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/class+action
a legal action undertaken by one or more people representing the interests of a large group of people with the same grievance
MrS2k said,
QuoteNot my software, somebody else did all the clever stuff - I uploaded the zip, clicked "unzip", then "make a photo album" then "give it this address" (more or less). But it's good enough I think.
And Ainslie replied,
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 04:28:34 PM
And Guys, here's the admission.
We have our own police that deal with this kind of thing. And I've made copies of all these posts.
Regards again
Rosemary
And TK asked,
What are they called, the "ZIPon Police" ?
And then he rofled all over the floor laughing.
What is a Zipon ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAM77oUjNos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAM77oUjNos)
My favourite, TK immortalised in caricature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_LjNBdSvc8&list=UUKCHRx4r_7Ozg5qZWN6dtsg&index=4&feature=plcp
Golly. Guys.... it's much bigger than I realised.
Quote from: evolvingape on May 19, 2012, 06:55:59 PM
What is a Zipon ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAM77oUjNos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAM77oUjNos)
My favourite, TK immortalised in caricature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_LjNBdSvc8&list=UUKCHRx4r_7Ozg5qZWN6dtsg&index=4&feature=plcp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_LjNBdSvc8&list=UUKCHRx4r_7Ozg5qZWN6dtsg&index=4&feature=plcp)
Awww.... Mile High, those are sure some cute knockers, er, I mean knickers, er... never mind.
I wonder what all those imaginary lawyers are gonna think about that. I can see them raising their rates already......
Following TKs realisation that there's evidence of significant power dissipation from the old fashioned pulsed DC component of that screenshot, a handy online calculator with diagrams to calculate common values.
Doubtless there's a graphical version somewhere
http://www.vishay.com/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/
Rosemary, if you can't get that video to play in your browser, try pressing Alt-F4. That will usually clean things up for you.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 07:18:47 PM
Following TKs realisation that there's evidence of significant power dissipation from the old fashioned pulsed DC component of that screenshot, a handy online calculator with diagrams to calculate common values.
Doubtless there's a graphical version somewhere
http://www.vishay.com/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/ (http://www.vishay.com/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/)
Wowsers. Thank you for posting that. Referring then to my analysis of the DC power on SCRN0150, then, and plugging in my numbers....
Damn. That's what I get for rounding.
You're making light of it, but you were *loads* of digits out.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 07:39:13 PM
You're making light of it, but you were *loads* of digits out.
Heh... thirty milliWatts is enough to *light* a LED to full brilliance. But compared to 20 Watts... it's a drop in a bucket.
And as far as *loads* go....
a musical interlude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjCw3-YTffo
(RIP Levon, it was a great ride.)
Can anyone tell me what the circuit was that produced THIS scopeshot, which doesn't seem to be numbered in the normal SCRN sequence?
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg287616/#msg287616
Well Guys,
There's no question that they've rifled files from my computer. I saw it in action - very briefly and then pulled out my flash drive. It strikes me as really extraordinary that they could do this - considering the security that's related to Apple computers. In any event. I'm strangely gratified. It shows the sheer unrelenting effort that they need to expend to try and get me 'gone' and our technology with it. Why would such a charming group of individuals feel so compelled to discredit this technology? Surely if there was nothing here then the ONLY sensible thing would be to let it well alone? No-one is that clever that they can claim exceptional energy performance without the evidence. And the only evidence that they've managed to snaffle is precisely what supports our claim. We've got well over 300 samples on one flash drive and a whole whack more on others. I look forward to making these readily accessible but will do so on a forum of our choice.
The forum that sean has established is showing information that DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN TH PUBLIC DOMAIN. Typically of the 'type' there is a flaunted criminal disregard and disrespect for the law. And NOTA BENE. This activity carries Harti's implicit approval. I've long doubted his commitment to new energy sources. And it entirely supports my contention that these forums are only here to dupe the unsuspecting to make disclosures. The minute they become exceptional and strong - then there is this unrelenting attack of the claimant and the claim - based on any reason at all. None of it needs validation. They're substantially out of reach of any accountability I'm prepared to invest a certain amount towards this to see if it IS possible to establish some kind of legal precedent. Much needed. But this kind of unremitting relentless attack is PRECISELY why you all need to consider the motives behind all this.
Regarding that instantaneous wattage that sean and TK are trying to advance. The principle is simple. Take your standard duty cycle and IF you did not factor in the time related to both the applied voltage and the applied current flow then you'll exaggerate the amount of energy delivered or dissipated. It's a standard and elementary mistake. In effect if, for example, one applied a 10% duty cycle to a switched circuit - then effectively the product of the voltage and current needs must be represented as that percentage over time. !0 volts * 2 amps is not 20 watt. Ever. It's 20 * 10% = 2 watts. And the amount of energy either dissipated or delivered that is computed as watts will NEVER supply nor dissipate more than that 2 watts. Not even 'instantaneously' as TK's trying to imply. Either they're hoping you don't realise this - or they don't know this themselves. Either way. It speaks rather sadly to their competence or to their intentions. As ever. Take your pick.
I'm afraid that I need to keep 'off line' for a while. They'll be back here - now that they've got that easy route. And the only way I can prevent any further incursions is if I stay off line.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 09:05:20 PM
Well Guys,
There's no question that they've rifled files from my computer. I saw it in action - very briefly and then pulled out my flash drive. It strikes me as really extraordinary that they could do this - considering the security that's related to Apple computers. In any event. I'm strangely gratified. It shows the sheer unrelenting effort that they need to expend to try and get me 'gone' and our technology with it. Why would such a charming group of individuals feel so compelled to discredit this technology? Surely if there was nothing here then the ONLY sensible thing would be to let it well alone? No-one is that clever that they can claim exceptional energy performance without the evidence. And the only evidence that they've managed to snaffle is precisely what supports our claim. We've got well over 300 samples on one flash drive and a whole whack more on others. I look forward to making these readily accessible but will do so on a forum of our choice.
The forum that sean has established is showing information that DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN TH PUBLIC DOMAIN. Typically of the 'type' there is a flaunted criminal disregard and disrespect for the law. And NOTA BENE. This activity carries Harti's implicit approval. I've long doubted his commitment to new energy sources. And it entirely supports my contention that these forums are only here to dupe the unsuspecting to make disclosures. The minute they become exceptional and strong - then there is this unrelenting attack of the claimant and the claim - based on any reason at all. None of it needs validation. They're substantially out of reach of any accountability I'm prepared to invest a certain amount towards this to see if it IS possible to establish some kind of legal precedent. Much needed. But this kind of unremitting relentless attack is PRECISELY why you all need to consider the motives behind all this.
Regarding that instantaneous wattage that sean and TK are trying to advance. The principle is simple. Take your standard duty cycle and IF you did not factor in the time related to both the applied voltage and the applied current flow then you'll exaggerate the amount of energy delivered or dissipated. It's a standard and elementary mistake. In effect if, for example, one applied a 10% duty cycle to a switched circuit - then effectively the product of the voltage and current needs must be represented as that percentage over time. !0 volts * 2 amps is not 20 watt. Ever. It's 20 * 10% = 2 watts. And the amount of energy either dissipated or delivered that is computed as watts will NEVER supply nor dissipate more than that 2 watts. Not even 'instantaneously' as TK's trying to imply. Either they're hoping you don't realise this - or they don't know this themselves. Either way. It speaks rather sadly to their competence or to their intentions. As ever. Take your pick.
I'm afraid that I need to keep 'off line' for a while. They'll be back here - now that they've got that easy route. And the only way I can prevent any further incursions is if I stay off line.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
That is another lie. You posted every one of those scopeshots on this forum or your blog. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
The only things that are in that zipfile that you did not post are the conversions to correct the filename duplicity that you perpetrated and my few blowups for analysis. Most of the files are there in duplicate: the actual file you uploaded but with the correct .bmp extension, and that same file converted to the much smaller jpg format for web display here. I kept both versions in there for obvious reasons, you litigious tort.
Stefan doesn't like bitmap images because they are so big. For example your bogus .jpgs which are really .bmp are 301.1 kb in size and the same file as a REAL jpg is only about 70 to 75 kb in size, a considerable savings. But you overrode that by duplicitously changing the file extension to get them uploaded ....without actually converting them to smaller filesizes like jpg or png.
And as far as Ainslie's present argument is concerned, clearly the LONG PERIOD of 2 minutes, where the 18 percent duty cycle results in an ON time of 21.6 seconds..... how do we calculate the power for that then? Huh? Have you ever held onto a 20 Watt soldering iron for 21 seconds? Huh? HAVE YOU? How does the middle ten seconds of that DC power know that it is anything other than DC power, so it can hide some of its watts?
I laugh at you Ainslie, because you are so wrong you are right once in a while and you are so stupid that you don't even realize it when other people are telling you that.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/powerac.html#c3 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/powerac.html#c3)
:-* :-*
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 09:05:20 PM
Well Guys,
There's no question that they've rifled files from my computer. (snip)
I'm afraid that I need to keep 'off line' for a while. They'll be back here - now that they've got that easy route. And the only way I can prevent any further incursions is if I stay off line.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
Bye bye now.
But we know that .... You'll be baaaack before we even know you're gone.
Because next you will accuse "them".... that is, us, meaning mostly ME, of destroying your files, which are only destroyed because you pulled your drive while it was being accessed.
Well well,
Is Rosie perhaps starting to get cold feet? Perhaps some self-doubt is creeping into her thoughts? Perhaps she is feeling that the tide is going against her?
Well the solution for that is to claim that your computer has been attacked! It seems to me that it has happened several times before under similar circumstances.
Run! Run! Run away!!! lol
QuoteRegarding that instantaneous wattage that sean and TK are trying to advance. The principle is simple. Take your standard duty cycle and IF you did not factor in the time related to both the applied voltage and the applied current flow then you'll exaggerate the amount of energy delivered or dissipated. It's a standard and elementary mistake. In effect if, for example, one applied a 10% duty cycle to a switched circuit - then effectively the product of the voltage and current needs must be represented as that percentage over time. !0 volts * 2 amps is not 20 watt. Ever. It's 20 * 10% = 2 watts. And the amount of energy either dissipated or delivered that is computed as watts will NEVER supply nor dissipate more than that 2 watts. Not even 'instantaneously' as TK's trying to imply. Either they're hoping you don't realise this - or they don't know this themselves. Either way. It speaks rather sadly to their competence or to their intentions.
Rosemary, the above is absolute nonsense. I have told you about five times already that
rational human beings have no reason whatsoever to argue about the concepts of instantaneous power and average power, NONE. These are concepts that can't be "spun" by anybody, they simply exist.
Are you a rational human being? What's your problem?
I have also highlighted your prose above where your brain is not working and you are spouting nonsense.
MileHigh
Her brain is not working, that is for sure.
She understands how to calculate DC power. I've seen her do it. Why she does not grasp that a 20 second ON time is DC.... well, I know why. It is because the answer is incompatible with her belief system and her ego defenses kick in and prevent her from thinking rationally.
Consider: She knows that ordinary DC power is nothing special. If there is magic in her circuit it MUST be happening during the oscillations. However, even she has got to be able to see that the oscillations CANNOT POSSIBLY affect what is happening during the non-oscillating DC portion that is 20 seconds long out of a 2 minute period.
And she is faced with the embarrassment of riches that I have been trying to point out over the past day or two. The oscillations themselves, in these few high heat trials that have substantial power in the DC portion, MUST have a high negative power in order to offset the high DC power and bring the average down into the negative numbers.
And I see NO EVIDENCE of that high negative power in the TRACES THEMSELVES.
Therefore she must deny the power in the DC portion. Especially since she's claimed that 1) THERE ISN'T ANY, and 2) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BATTERY POWER BEING SUPPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT. But there is, and there is, and it is this that is heating her load and making her mosfets fail when she tries 72 volts on her battery. She thinks her mosfets fail because of high voltage -- hence her choice of the silly expensive high voltage high-resistance IRFPG50 instead of the cheaper faster lower Rdss IRF830a for example.... but really it is because of HIGH DC CURRENTS and the heat they cause.
More Ainslie "math":
QuoteNow. Conservatively speaking on the water to boil test - we're running that battery current at an outside maximum of 0.1 volts over 0.9 Ohms x 60 volts x 18% duty cycle which represents the ONLY measurable discharge from the battery - and that during the ON period of each switching cycle. That comes to a wattage discharged at 1.19 watts. The capacity of each of those batteries is let's say 10 amp hour MAX. Therefore each battery's maximum wattage potential is 120 watts - being 10 amps x 1 hour. We use 5 in series to get it to that 'water to boil' point. The batteries are in series. So. 1.19/6 = 0.199 watts per battery. Again. Each battery has a capacity of 10 amps x 1 hour = 120 watts. This means that each battery will last 120/0.19 = about 630 hours or so. Theoretically. 5 batteries will therefore last a mere 3150 hours or so. 3150 hours / 24 means the test should be proved after a test run of only 131 days. So now the three of us will be able to give you a conclusive result over a little under a 4 months. That's assuming that any energy at all is being discharged at the battery. Because we can't find that in the results.
Alternatively - let us assume that we're dissipating not less than 100 watts as measured in the heat discharged. That would be the amount of energy needed to get a little under 1 liter of water to boiling point. Now we get to the following sum. The battery's capacity is 120 watts. We've got 6 in series giving us a maximum capacity of 720 watts. We're dissipating 100 watts as evident in the temperature of the water. Therefore in a mere 7 hours and 12 minutes we would have ENTIRELY discharged all those batteries.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291308/#msg291308 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291308/#msg291308)
Disregarding for the moment that 700 ml is quite a bit less than "just under a liter" and that the water didn't boil ...... has anybody actually DONE THE MATH to verify Ainslie's "calculation" here? Well.... even allowing for the continual confusion between the units of energy and the units of the rate of energy dissipation..... I just don't get the same result as Ainslie does. For example..... a 60 volt pack of 10 Amp hour batteries will still only have 10 Amp hours in it... but at 60 volts. Therefore the battery actually contains 60 x 10 or 600 Watt hours (not Watts) of energy. Say her "wattage discharged" was actually the 1.19 Watts she cites (based on the 0.1 volt drop on the imaginary CVR and the 18 percent duty cycle). Well, Do The Math. 600 Watt-hours divided by 1.19 Watts is equal to 504 hours, not the 3150 she arrives at through a combination of typos and conceptual errors. It's a long time.... but it's not nearly as long as she calculated.
Where is the evidence that water was boiled under the conditions of 1.2 Watts average DC power? There is none.
All the temperature and "boiling water" reports from Ainslie that exaggerate her original report of this trial should be take with a cup of oxtail soup and examined carefully for the obvious: significant current in Q1 during the NON oscillating phase of the period.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291615/#msg291615
QuoteThe second point is this. According to their rating each battery is capable of delivering about 430 000.00 Joules. 8 such batteries therefore affords a capacity of 3 456 000.00 Joules. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. This amounts to about 14 400 000.00 Joules which is more than 4 times it's rated capacity. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire.
ORLY?
I thought the batteries were 40 or 50 Amp-hour batteries. Or even 60. Let's start with 40 and see where that gets us. So... 40 Amp-hours at 12 volts is 480 Watt-hours. And 480 Watt-hours x 60 minutes/hour is 28800 Watt-minutes. And 28800 Watt-minutes x 60 seconds/minute is 1,728,000 Joules. Not 430,000 Joules. For Ainslie's figure to be correct the batteries would have to be 10 A-H and we know that isn't plausible. In fact they are likely to be 60 A-H.
8 such 40 A-H batteries then have a total energy capacity of 13,824,000 Joules, not the 3.4 million that she calculates and 8 such 60 A-h Batteries have 20,736,000 Joules in them.
Now... 20 Watts for 5 hours is 20x5x60x60=360000 Joules per 5-hour day. If she's expended 14,400,000 Joules overall -- which is quite a bit LESS than her battery capacity, actually ... (Where did this figure come from anyway?) then 14,400,000 / 360,000 will give us the number of days. Right? I get 40 days. Not bad for ten months... that's 4 days a month. (I did that one in my head!)
Something really doesn't add up, as they say. Either that or she has a funny idea about what a "work week" is.
Really, folks.... Ainslie's math and other reported numbers simply cannot be trusted unless they can be verified externally.
And a real irony of all this power measurement stuff and overloaded Q1 mosfets is this: If you just use the circuit in the SECOND PAPER, the one with the Q2x4 on the right instead of on the left.... you'd have no problem with overheating mosfets and you'd still be able to get the oscillations in the single mosfet when the gate is LO. In other words, let Q1 on my drawing be a stack of 4 and let Q2 be the lone mosfet and your high current and runaway "cooking" problems would be over.
But no.... we have been assured over and over that it is the single transistor Q1 version from the first paper that is correct. Even though it makes no sense..... since the big heatsinks are on the other mosfets but Q1 is the one carrying the big DC current.
TK:
I am just going to repeat my stance on all of Rosemary's battery energy "calculations" and water heating "calculations."
It's all junk, all of it, and it doesn't even merit any discussion at all.
It's all based on imprecise anecdotal observation and allegation. It's _pure_ junk. Rosemary should never even discuss it if she wants to try to be scientific and I think it's a waste of time for anybody to discuss it in the forums.
I am just giving you my personal opinion, not telling anybody what to do. For me in certain cases there are strict absolutes and this is one of them. Rosemary has probably recounted her various heating and boiling water stories about 20 times and I don't really pay any attention.
MileHigh
Guys,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 10:25:00 PM
Her brain is not working, that is for sure.
She understands how to calculate DC power. I've seen her do it. Why she does not grasp that a 20 second ON time is DC.... well, I know why. It is because the answer is incompatible with her belief system and her ego defenses kick in and prevent her from thinking rationally.
Consider: She knows that ordinary DC power is nothing special. If there is magic in her circuit it MUST be happening during the oscillations. However, even she has got to be able to see that the oscillations CANNOT POSSIBLY affect what is happening during the non-oscillating DC portion that is 20 seconds long out of a 2 minute period.
And she is faced with the embarrassment of riches that I have been trying to point out over the past day or two. The oscillations themselves, in these few high heat trials that have substantial power in the DC portion, MUST have a high negative power in order to offset the high DC power and bring the average down into the negative numbers.
And I see NO EVIDENCE of that high negative power in the TRACES THEMSELVES.
Therefore she must deny the power in the DC portion. Especially since she's claimed that 1) THERE ISN'T ANY, and 2) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BATTERY POWER BEING SUPPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT. But there is, and there is, and it is this that is heating her load and making her mosfets fail when she tries 72 volts on her battery. She thinks her mosfets fail because of high voltage -- hence her choice of the silly expensive high voltage high-resistance IRFPG50 instead of the cheaper faster lower Rdss IRF830a for example.... but really it is because of HIGH DC CURRENTS and the heat they cause.
I've said it before. The ONLY thing that is big about our little TK is the infinite range of his profound ignorance related to FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS. IT'S a lack that he shares in equal measure with picowatt and sean - boundless and infinite as it is. The pathetic reach that TK now indulges in trying to restructure physics to suit his sad argument - is simply further proof of the contempt he feels for you - our readers and for science - BOTH. There is the outside chance that all three of them have a passing knowledge of electronics. But electronics is not and nver has been enough to comment on matters scientific. And if their advices are NOT based on ignorance then the problem at hand is considerably more disturbing ... if possible.
Guys - again, in that 2 watt analogy that I drew? If your standard normal applied switching cycle - EVER enabled more dissipation of energy than 2 watts then you got something that needs URGENT investigation. And it would attract CONSIDERABLY more attention than any of the modest claims we make about our technology. Very tame by comparison.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291652/#msg291652
Quote
This is WRONG by the way. Q2 is responsible for the oscillation. I know this. But for the total control of the required heat outputs we need Q1. I'm not sure how else to increase the heat to get the system to work. It needs the oscillating cycle but the heat output is exponentially increased subject to some small required output from the battery during that short 18% ON time. It only needs to be a little under a quarter of a watt to get the element to that 240 degrees centigrade.
Well.... we need Q1 for the total control of the required heat outputs, don't we. Exponentially increased heat output during that short 18 % ON time.
Methinks that the "quarter of a watt" figure might not be accurate. Quarter of a volt drop on the CVR maybe? Who really knows. But it certainly is clear that Ainslie knows that she needs that Q1 in there, working, in order to get her high heat.
She understands her circuit better than she makes out. But this post shows that she also understands that it is a fake. Now with this kind of statement that PROVES she knows that Q1 contributes power during its DC current phase and that the oscillations have nothing to do with this phase ..... she has now proven that she is engaging not in simple error .... but in something far worse.
hello MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 20, 2012, 01:24:01 AM
TK:
I am just going to repeat my stance on all of Rosemary's battery energy "calculations" and water heating "calculations."
It's all junk, all of it, and it doesn't even merit any discussion at all.
It's all based on imprecise anecdotal observation and allegation. It's _pure_ junk. Rosemary should never even discuss it if she wants to try to be scientific and I think it's a waste of time for anybody to discuss it in the forums.
I am just giving you my personal opinion, not telling anybody what to do. For me in certain cases there are strict absolutes and this is one of them. Rosemary has probably recounted her various heating and boiling water stories about 20 times and I don't really pay any attention.
MileHigh
Are you referring to our claim that we dissipate energy while we measuring no energy delivered from a supply source? Or the claim that we can take water to boil with batteries that are disconnected from the circuit and thereby unable to supply any energy at all? Or. are you referring to our earlier COP>17 claim where we MEASURED a COP>17?
I agree. It's difficult to believe. Thankfully our readers' credibility will not be taxed when we demonstrate this. Sadly we WON'T be demonstrating it on this forum.
Regards
Rosie Pose
And guys, regarding this little contribution by our equally little TK...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 20, 2012, 01:30:00 AM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291652/#msg291652 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291652/#msg291652)
Well.... we need Q1 for the total control of the required heat outputs, don't we. Exponentially increased heat output during that short 18 % ON time.
Methinks that the "quarter of a watt" figure might not be accurate. Quarter of a volt drop on the CVR maybe? Who really knows. But it certainly is clear that Ainslie knows that she needs that Q1 in there, working, in order to get her high heat.
She understands her circuit better than she makes out. But this post shows that she also understands that it is a fake. Now with this kind of statement that PROVES she knows that Q1 contributes power during its DC current phase and that the oscillations have nothing to do with this phase ..... she has now proven that she is engaging not in simple error .... but in something far worse.
We have waveform samples that show that the current during the water to boil test defaulted to ZERO during the short on period of the duty cycle. I'll look forward to disclosing this as well. Seemingly TK didn't manage to snaffle the more significant numbers that we have.
Again - all the best and IGNORE ALL THAT SPIN
Rosemary
Rosemary:
QuoteI've said it before. The ONLY thing that is big about our little TK is the infinite range of his profound ignorance related to FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS. IT'S a lack that he shares in equal measure with picowatt and sean - boundless and infinite as it is. The pathetic reach that TK now indulges in trying to restructure physics to suit his sad argument - is simply further proof of the contempt he feels for you - our readers and for science - BOTH. There is the outside chance that all three of them have a passing knowledge of electronics.
Your little sales pitch, that "everybody else is clueless except for me" is not being bought by the "guys" or anybody else for that matter. It's the same old story, the
same old gutter talk. You can't even argue the technical points so your argument is "they're stupid." It's sad and pathetic when you do that.
If you only could get a bird's eye view and understand how your own technical credibility is zero. So you are just flailing your arms uselessly when you try to allege that other people are stupid.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 19, 2012, 10:25:00 PM
Her brain is not working, that is for sure.
She understands how to calculate DC power. I've seen her do it. Why she does not grasp that a 20 second ON time is DC.... well, I know why. It is because the answer is incompatible with her belief system and her ego defenses kick in and prevent her from thinking rationally.
Consider: She knows that ordinary DC power is nothing special. If there is magic in her circuit it MUST be happening during the oscillations. However, even she has got to be able to see that the oscillations CANNOT POSSIBLY affect what is happening during the non-oscillating DC portion that is 20 seconds long out of a 2 minute period.
And she is faced with the embarrassment of riches that I have been trying to point out over the past day or two. The oscillations themselves, in these few high heat trials that have substantial power in the DC portion, MUST have a high negative power in order to offset the high DC power and bring the average down into the negative numbers.
And I see NO EVIDENCE of that high negative power in the TRACES THEMSELVES.
Therefore she must deny the power in the DC portion. Especially since she's claimed that 1) THERE ISN'T ANY, and 2) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BATTERY POWER BEING SUPPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT. But there is, and there is, and it is this that is heating her load and making her mosfets fail when she tries 72 volts on her battery. She thinks her mosfets fail because of high voltage -- hence her choice of the silly expensive high voltage high-resistance IRFPG50 instead of the cheaper faster lower Rdss IRF830a for example.... but really it is because of HIGH DC CURRENTS and the heat they cause.
What he's doing here is spinning that our 3 minute test had anything at all to do with any high energy delivery of any nature at all. Our > 2.8 minute duty cycle measured ABSOLUTELY NO ENERGY delivered by the battery during that LONG 'on' period. He is deliberately confusing you with references that simply DO NOT APPLY.
TYPICAL. I trust that you're all clever enough to realise this. There is NO LIMIT of the extent to which he shows COMPLETE CONTEMPT for your combined intelligence. Which is why he needs to REPEATEDLY attempt to remind you all that he is GENIUS. The rule of thumb is this. IF anyone needs to remind and allege to anyone at all that they're a GENIUS - it's because they can give no PROOF of this.
Regards again
Rosemary
Rosemary:
When do you plan on doing the dim bulb test and what are your thoughts for my request for more complete data?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 20, 2012, 01:40:59 AM
Rosemary:
Your little sales pitch, that "everybody else is clueless except for me" is not being bought by the "guys" or anybody else for that matter. It's the same old story, the same old gutter talk. You can't even argue the technical points so your argument is "they're stupid." It's sad and pathetic when you do that.
If you only could get a bird's eye view and understand how your own technical credibility is zero. So you are just flailing your arms uselessly when you try to allege that other people are stupid.
Not actually MileHigh. I KNOW that are readers are NOT THE FOOLS that you and TK keep HOPING. That's the only real difference. What is really sad is how utterly ineffectual you guys are becoming. You will NEVER wrest the authority on the internet while you employ these tactics. THANK HEAVEN. You all need to go back to the drawing board and think of some kind of strategy that might work. Right now you're on a hiding to nowhere.
Rosie Posie
QuoteABSOLUTELY NO ENERGY delivered by the battery during that LONG 'on' period
The winner of the La Mancha Award speaks!!!! World saved!!!
QuoteNot actually MileHigh. I KNOW that are readers are NOT THE FOOLS that you and TK keep HOPING. That's the only real difference. What is really sad is how utterly ineffectual you guys are becoming. You will NEVER wrest the authority on the internet while you employ these tactics. THANK HEAVEN. You all need to go back to the drawing board and think of some kind of strategy that might work. Right now you're on a hiding to nowhere.
You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
MilesOFFcourse
Are you referring to this award by Refried?
Quote from: ReFried on May 12, 2012, 10:33:44 PM
Dearest Rosemary,
I've been reading this TarBaby thread for what is now over 125 highly fascinating pages. Your travails with expert and highly credible correspondents has been, quite frankly, incredible.
I have never before seen on the internet such a prolonged yet decisive battle between uniquely equipped combatants. There has also been a great deal of high level discussion on precise scientific and technical points, yet I digress from my primary message .
All can see that TarBaby exists simply as a type of tribute to your unique claims and persistence. A tribute indeed and what follows in its wake is an indelible record and testimony of your contribution to a completely new form of science ...
At every turn you have evaded direct and valid questions related to your technology. Skillful maneuvering in the field.
You have successfully avoided any practical testing of your device as required for discussion. Brilliant tactical delay.
When your technical knowledge and credibility has been called into question on focus of pristine point you have misdirected and asserted an opposing viewpoint, without basis. Simply remarkable.
These are your primary virtues. Not to be overlooked, when faced with an overwhelming opponent to your views you have insulted and libeled in text book fashion. The nuclear option. This approach usually silences the weak willed who have no true right to proffer a valid argument or dissenting opinion.
You have in fact blazed a trail here in opposition to the accepted values of the Open Source community. Yours is a new and innovative protocol ...
As other prizes and accolades are now out of reach, we have decided that an important step be taken. On behalf of the Committee, myself and the extended TarBaby family we would like to present you with:
The La Mancha Prize
Credo and Quotation -
"And so, to sum it all up, I perceive everything I say as absolutely true, and deficient in nothing whatever, and paint it all in my mind exactly as I want it to be." Miguel de Cervantes - The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (Volume 1, Chapter 25, pg. 157)
Congratulations on your accomplishments which will never be forgotten.
In the service of science, ever sincerely,
ReFried
I've answered it here...
My dear ReFried, It is not that OFTEN that my talents are lauded. Certainly not on this forum. Or in fact on any forum. Or, in fact, anywhere at all ... come to think of it. :-[ I feel that my 'light' has been 'hidden under a bushel'... so to speak. But being a senior citizen - which I am - and being therefore both frail and mentally arthritic - I am only able to hobble along as best I can. Therefore - while I'm delighted that you applaud these poor efforts of mine - I'm afraid that my innate 'modesty' is such that I would rather not have these efforts equated to those of TK's. His genius is to AVER that he KNOWS EVERYTHING. I - on the other hand - accept that I am a mere mortal. He, like MileHigh, claims to know the 'real truth'. I am obliged to confess that I am NOT that omnipotent. He catapults science into dimensions that have NOTHING to do with the standard model. I am hobbled by that model with ALL its attendant requirements. TK can perform miracles of measurement without reference to TIME. I cannot. He can deduce measurements without making them and can draw conclusions without concluding them. He can show one thing and ALLEGE another and IMPLY yet another and INFER YET another. I simply CANNOT. My science - unfortunately - depends on measured results.
So. Any perceived similarity between us - is certainly NOT based on the fact. Which really means that I must also, sadly, but in the interests of the 'real truth', decline that award of yours and recommend that you pass it to TK - as the 'really truly' quixotic genius of the two of us.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
@TK
I don't think she does much "lying" in the straightforward sense, but she manages to convince herself she has a case.
Most of the wilder claims she's documenting would need a seed of truth or misunderstood observation.
As far as the temperature measured for the water, I guess that would be confusing it with the temperature on the surface of the tortured heating element itself?
As far as the water temperature increasing with not power, that's the hot element cooling itself into it's surroundings and raising the temperature
And as far as "bubble" in the water, could they be developed on the surface of the element where it's in direct contact with the water?
20W although substantial, isn't *that* much; certainly you wouldn't want to wait for your morning tea from it, and at a brief google, those in-car 12V heating elements look to draw a lot more power, and most people complain about how long they take to work.
You can read for yourself her near realtime account of the "water to boil" trial in her blog posts number 117 and 118. These posts were made the same day as the events in question. Compare her account THEN with what it's morphed into now.
She does not use a steady state where she sets the controls and lets the system run. She "TUNES" until she sees the waveform she wants. Has the load heated at all during the TUNING process? Mine certainly does.
There is no trusting her accounts at all. 700 ml has morphed into "just under a liter." The thermocouple reads 104 degrees..... but this is attached to the element, it is NOT the water temperature as she now quotes it. And she says right there: the water was not actually boiling. In other words, she did NOT take just under a liter of water to boil.
And we know what happened. The element got hot. It was one of the trials where she describes "everything cooking" and "brittle offset". She tunes, goes over and sees her tiny bubbles, comes back and sees the flatline signal EVEN THOUGH SHE IS STILL PROVIDING +12 V to the gate of Q1...... and concludes that she is heating for free. Then the next few days she reports something wrong with the apparatus that needs to be fixed, that she gets oscillations but cannot get the load to heat.
Come on. She blew ANOTHER mosfet and doesn't want to admit it to anyone. The story is no longer one of error but one of fraud. She has covered up data, tried to hide variations in circuitry, lied about conditions and results of experiments, and she KNOWS that the current in Q1 is necessary for high heat and that this current can ONLY come from the battery and cannot in any way be affected by the oscillations, and she also knows that there is not enough REAL power in the oscillations to "cancel" this high DC power and make the overall average power actually become negative. She actively attempts to conceal this FACT with her bogus calculations and her willfull ignorance.
I maintain: she CANNOT produce high heat in the load without turning the Q1 mosfet on with a positive gate pulse; this current in Q1 will ALWAYS be there, visible on the CVR, when she is producing hight heat. Of course once the mosfet blows the element will take a while to cool down.
In addition.... the long time period trials she has actually posted scope shots from........ look like the one below, mostly. But I don't care.
Let her produce high heat in a load using only a negative bias, as we have been discussing lately here, with no Q1 current. She cannot. There is no evidence other than her statement, in the scenario I have described, that any high heat was produced in a trial that did not use Q1 ON.
And let her produce her high heat using a full 72 volt battery stack and the exact circuit and layout used in the video demonstration. That is, Q1 on the "right" of the diagram. She cannot... not for more than a few minutes. At the end of this few minutes the load will indeed be very hot and the CVR trace will indeed be flatlined.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 20, 2012, 02:03:44 AM
MilesOFFcourse
Are you referring to this award by Refried?
I've answered it here...
My dear ReFried, It is not that OFTEN that my talents are lauded. Certainly not on this forum. Or in fact on any forum. Or, in fact, anywhere at all ... come to think of it. :-[ I feel that my 'light' has been 'hidden under a bushel'... so to speak. But being a senior citizen - which I am - and being therefore both frail and mentally arthritic - I am only able to hobble along as best I can. Therefore - while I'm delighted that you applaud these poor efforts of mine - I'm afraid that my innate 'modesty' is such that I would rather not have these efforts equated to those of TK's. His genius is to AVER that he KNOWS EVERYTHING. I - on the other hand - accept that I am a mere mortal. He, like MileHigh, claims to know the 'real truth'. I am obliged to confess that I am NOT that omnipotent. He catapults science into dimensions that have NOTHING to do with the standard model. I am hobbled by that model with ALL its attendant requirements. TK can perform miracles of measurement without reference to TIME. I cannot. He can deduce measurements without making them and can draw conclusions without concluding them. He can show one thing and ALLEGE another and IMPLY yet another and INFER YET another. I simply CANNOT. My science - unfortunately - depends on measured results.
So. Any perceived similarity between us - is certainly NOT based on the fact. Which really means that I must also, sadly, but in the interests of the 'real truth', decline that award of yours and recommend that you pass it to TK - as the 'really truly' quixotic genius of the two of us.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.
SPAM, and full of lies to boot. Ainslie, you know nothing of any standard model. You parrot words and phrases about which you have no clue. And your posts drip with venom each and every one.
Get off your high horse and do some real work for a change, you thumbless dilettante. Careful you don't break a nail.
@TK
I thought I was paraphrasing the theories you'd advanced previously. All it needs is one plausible alternative for each of the claimed anomalous runs, and that's that, and you've more than covered it.
I'd agree whole-heartedly that very little of what she says in relation to her tests can be identified as objectively "true", in that there's any evidence of rigour in the way that the tests are carried out, or clarity in the way they're reported. She's unreliable as a source of information and I think it's obvious she won't be providing anything that could be confirmed as reliable here (except unwittingly). And maybe never again if she pops up somewhere else, in a way that could be challenged. Once bitten etc.
There will never be a "dim broad" test for the reasons people have already pointed out.
All the same, although I can't find any reason to disagree with your assertion that she's an outright fraud, I mostly prefer not to speculate on motivation - and I think you've fisked her shots and responses in a way that makes it largely unnecessary; there's nothing to her claims.
ETA: and lest I stand accused of being Wilby again, although we've had arguments before, I appreciate the effort that's gone into dissecting these claims, I've learnt a lot from watching the process.
Quote from: mrsean2k on May 20, 2012, 03:46:31 AM
@TK
I don't think she does much "lying" in the straightforward sense, but she manages to convince herself she has a case.
You are being excessively charitable. Yes, it is possible to reproduce the actual data, and in that sense she is telling some truth. However I have documented many real lies, like the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" howler, and the "IN THIS TRIAL ALONE" lie based on her admittedly bogus calculations which she still has not corrected and retracted. There are many more solidly untrue, flat out lies that she has told over the years and I've got many of them solidly documented, if the imaginary lawyers want to see them.
Quote
Most of the wilder claims she's documenting would need a seed of truth or misunderstood observation.
I'll go for "some". Many of the others are forced "stuffing" and bending of facts to conform to what she considers her "thesis" which is nothing more than an ignorant handwaving set of crazy conjectures with no connection to any "standard model" that she keeps squawking about. She doesn't even know what the Standard Model is, and she thinks her "zipon" theory will replace Quantum Electrodynamics as the correct understanding of electricity and magnetism. She doesn't have the education to be able correctly to interpret the things she sees in her twiddling and tinkering... which beggars the very term "experimentation".
Quote
As far as the temperature measured for the water, I guess that would be confusing it with the temperature on the surface of the tortured heating element itself?
She has never measured the temperature of the water. She heats the load in air, then when it is as hot as she likes, she plunges it into water. So all of her thermometry is fatally flawed and has nothing to do with measuring the real power at the load or the energy dissipated there. You are right: she is measuring the outside temperature of a big water heater element with very large thermal mass. Her fumbling temperature methods do not illustrate anything about the performance of her circuit: they illustrate the difficulty in performing proper calorimetry, mostly, and are the feeble tinkerings of a naive child playing with her play-oven set. She is someone who doesn't even cook for herself, probably.
Quote
As far as the water temperature increasing with not power, that's the hot element cooling itself into it's surroundings and raising the temperature
Bingo.
Quote
And as far as "bubble" in the water, could they be developed on the surface of the element where it's in direct contact with the water?
Could be. Tiny bubbles..... The whole description sounds like it's coming from someone who has never _actually_ boiled water at all ever. To blithely say that the "water" was at 104 CELSIUS degrees, and then just move along as if that were normal, or even possible ....... makes me laugh every time I think of it. She and Rossi are a perfect match.
Quote
20W although substantial, isn't *that* much; certainly you wouldn't want to wait for your morning tea from it, and at a brief google, those in-car 12V heating elements look to draw a lot more power, and most people complain about how long they take to work.
I invite you to take a mosfet, or anything that is that small, like a night light bulb, and send "20 Watts" of power through it. Hold it in your fingers for a while. People do solder with 20 Watt irons quite effectively, melting metal and causing the flux to waft its fragrant vapors upwards. And if you provide one of those in-car heating elements with 72 volts instead of 12..... well, you won't have to wait so long for your instant coffee after all.
The point is not really how hot the load gets. It is how hot the _mosfet itself_ gets. The mosfet we are using has an ON state resistance from source to drain of 2 Ohms when it is fully on and cool. If the circuit's voltage is 72 volts and the total circuit's resistance including this mosfet is 14 Ohms, there will be I=V/R = 72/14 = almost 5.2 amperes flowing through the mosfet. The power dissipated IN THE MOSFET is given by P=I^2R = (5.2 x 5.2 x 2.0) = 54 Watts, in a little thing about the size of a piece of hard candy. Sure, reduce the duty cycle. That will help. But if you use a LONG PERIOD the short duty cycle isn't going to help much. A 2.5 minute period with an 18 percent ON duty cycle leaves the mosfet ON for 27 seconds at a time, carrying 54 Watts. Do you have a 60 Watt light bulb handy? Hold it in your hand and turn it on and count slowly to 25 (since it's 60 not 54 Watts). Feel anything? Now imagine that power concentrated in a volume smaller than a US dime inside that plastic package that is the mosfet. I've attached the IRFPG50 data sheet below again so that one may look at its various graphs and charts to see that the IRFPG50 will NOT survive long at 5.2 amps on that inadequate heatsink.
And.... as the mosfet warms up, its resistance rises and its power handling capacity goes down. Mosfets in real use are always mounted on Good Heatsinks and are often fancooled. I invite you to look at the Ainslie breadboard used in the video demo, and also in the pix of the single-mosfet version and look at the "heatsink" that is used for Q1. I also ask you to recall that in the High Heat Demo in the video.... they removed a battery and used only 48 volts in the main battery and this has NEVER BEEN EXPLAINED by anyone but me. And several of the scopeshots we have where there is current in Q1 and high heat reported.... also only used 48 volts.
Recall as well that we KNOW about at least two and maybe a third failed mosfets in her apparatus -- two that she admitted to herself and one that her friend (Macey?) maybe blew during the "soldering iron" trials without FG (or was that a different "chip" that blew then?) -- and we suspect several more from her own reports and definitely from the screenshots which show high positive gate signals but no current in Q1.
She has NEVER explained how a properly functioning and connected mosfet can NOT turn on and pass current when given a plus gate signal of 10-12 volts. Yet that is manifestly happening in several of her scopeshots, as anyone can see in the SCRN database.
My position is that the mosfet MUST turn on in those conditions unless it is damaged or not connected, and I challenge Ainslie to prove her contention in this matter by SHOWING one that does not. SHOW, not talk about or claim.
"I invite you to take a mosfet, or anything that is that small, like a night light bulb, and send "20 Watts" of power through it. Hold it in your fingers for a while"
I take your point. To some degree I ask because my real world intuition for what 20W represents is poor - I attend only when the bill lands on the doorstep.
Heh..... Twenty watts doesn't seem like much, but there are other factors to consider like the volume. Take that twenty watts and cleverly concentrate it to the tip of a soldering iron and you can melt metals easily. Well, some metals anyway.
Now.... We have all the scopeshots in one place. And it's clear from the scopeshots that many of them have a MATH trace on them. And this MATH trace, by looking at the boxes, is always the Current Viewing Resistor Channel x the Battery Voltage Channel. Right? That is, the MATH trace is doing VxI, where the I is really a voltage across the CVR so is represented as another V. So the math trace is multiplying V x I at every sample instant, and is displaying those values as a function of time, and connecting them with a pretty colored line (RED) across the screen.
Right? In those crazy math terms, the MATH trace is displaying VI(t), the instantaneous product of current and voltage as a function of time. That is, an instantaneous power curve (or function).
And in the scope's parameters box Ainslie always has the scope calculate the MEAN of this trace, along with several other MEANS, and she uses this MEAN value, which is negative under the conditions of her measurements, as the main support for her claims. RIGHT?
I *mean*..... it is there in black and white and red, all over almost ALL of her scope shots. She multiplies VxI, displays that result as a function of time vi(t), and has the scope calculate a MEAN from that function. On almost every scope shot.
And yet..... she says this:
QuoteWe have never used MEAN vi EVER. And you absolutely CANNOT say MEAN[vi(t)] because that's INHERENTLY contradictory. Why don't you see this?
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292432/#msg292432
Of course .99 came back instantly and illustrated that she was lying with a reference to one of her scopeshots, and she just blithely continued on with one of her Fractured Fairy Tale "explanations" which only serve to illustrate her profound ignorance of her topic. She doesn't even know what "mean" means, apparently.
Here is the first test using a capacitor in the method as suggested by MH.
The bottom battery is removed and replaced with a charged (12V) 47uF capacitor. The simulation run is short (3ms) which is why I used such a relatively small value capacitor. I set the oscillation duty cycle to 80%.
The capacitor discharges to zero, then begins to charge in the negative direction. Meanwhile the oscillations continue, albeit in ever decreasing amplitude, the same as before the capacitor went negative.
Due to the capacitor charge going negative, I would not recommend this test, as electrolytic capacitors tend to blow up when reverse-charged.
The next test will be with a single capacitor replacing all of the batteries.
Dear Rosemary,
I remain concerned by the just treatment you have received at the hands of the highly credible ruffians assembled here. As you are now moving into the stage of legal action I think you will find the link provided will assist you in dealing with legal counsel and establishing basis for your compliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eGFqwWuU9c
Kind Regards,
(PS) Please do not be distracted by the Spanish or Portuguese definition of the word “manchaâ€. I was of course relating your prize to the celebrated area of Spain where our courageous Don Quixote struggled to right every wrong in his singularly unique way.
Ever,
ReFried
Here are the results when all the batteries are replaced with a single 8uF capacitor charged to the equivalent 72V.
Here from the same test with the single 8uF capacitor source, are the results showing the instantaneous and average power delivered by the capacitor, along with the capacitor voltage over the 3ms time period shown.
Keep in mind that the "capacitor voltage" measurements for the power computation are taken from the same measurement point as always, namely at the high side of the load resistor, NOT directly across the capacitor itself. The red capacitor voltage trace IS directly across the capacitor in each case.
Poynt:
Thank you very much for those simulations.
I will make a few comments for information purposes.
You note that the capacitance values used are quite small and the time frames are short. If you used a much larger capacitor then the same observed behaviour would take place but over a much longer time frame. Poynt wisely used a small capacitor so that you could get a snapshot of the entire discharge process.
In the first test where a single capacitor replaces one of the batteries you can see how the voltage will reverse on the capacitor. I actually warned about that a few times when I posted the suggested test.
You notice in the last test run that Poynt is showing the instantaneous power supplied by the capacitor. You can see how the instantaneous power is negative. Rosemary has had a few freakouts over the concept of negative power but it's all perfectly normal. All that the negative instantaneous power means is that power is being exported out of the capacitor to the outside world - the capacitor is discharging. Positive power relative to the capacitor means that it is charging.
There are what appear to be "gaps" or "missing teeth" in some of the waveforms. In all likelihood that is because of aliasing effects. That means that the waveform is still there but when you compress the resolution down to display it on the screen the waveform disappears because of the compression. There is a possibility that the waveforms actually do disappear or get reduced in amplitude also. This could be because of the way the circuit behaves at certain lower voltage ranges.
Note that Poynt got his simulation running with some tweaking so that it was a very close approximation of the waveforms that the NERDs captured with the DSO. The capacitor test simply confirms what we have all known all along - that the batteries are discharging.
MileHigh
MH,
There are no significant aliasing effects there. The "missing" sections are simply showing the circuit beginning to "sputter" due to the lower supply voltage.
The negative power computation is a result of the voltage measurement point. If the voltage measurement used for the power computation was taken directly across the capacitor (as it should be), the resulting power would be positive, as shown in my detailed analysis and various other times subsequent to that.
Poynt:
Thanks for the clarification on the power. I thought that you were using a power probe, but I now see that you are using a voltage probe at the load times the CVR current. I should read next time!
So for the blue negative instantaneous power trace, do negative values imply power being returned to the capacitor? In other words your simulation is so good it even shows how you can be "faked out" and made to believe that power is being returned to the battery/capacitor when in fact the decreasing capacitor voltage is clearly showing that power is being output by the battery/capacitor.
MileHigh
.99, thanks for doing that.
It is very telling, I think. It's neat how the cap voltage tracks right down the center of the oscillations, showing that the oscs "bounce off" the cap and don't affect its state of charge at all, other than being the "source of the drain" ha ha. I am especially struck by the "spindle' or turnip shape of the envelope bursts as the cap's charge decreases just before the oscillations die away completely.
So you have a computed negative power product virtually the whole time that the capacitor is discharging. But unlike a battery, we can know the energy in a cap simply by knowing its capacitance and the charge voltage. So a 8uF capacitor charged to 72 volts contains E=CVV/2 Joules in it. So that is (0.000008x72x72)/2 == 0.020736 Joules in there. And it ran the circuit, oscillating, for about 2.5 milliseconds.
So.... Do The Math (tm RA). We find that 0.0208 Joules have been dissipated in 0.0025 seconds, for a REAL average power of 0.0208/0.0025 == about 8.3 Watts _positive_, that is "flowing out" of the capacitor. Did I do that right?
This power is always flowing OUT of the capacitor as shown by its true voltage value, in spite of the negative mean power value resulting from the computation based on the contaminated measurement locations.
I've not been able to figure out how the weird spindles were made with the NERD circuit. None of Ainslie's "turnip" shots show the gate drive signal, nor do they show any DC current during the non-oscillation portion of the signal.
What do you think the explanation is for those particular shots from Ainslie? A good example is SCRN0284 but the shapes are weird in shots like SCRN0243 as well.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 20, 2012, 11:04:53 AM
So for the blue negative instantaneous power trace, do negative values imply power being returned to the capacitor? In other words your simulation is so good it even shows how you can be "faked out" and made to believe that power is being returned to the battery/capacitor when in fact the decreasing capacitor voltage is clearly showing that power is being output by the battery/capacitor.
MileHigh
YES.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 20, 2012, 11:17:56 AM
What do you think the explanation is for those particular shots from Ainslie? A good example is SCRN0284 but the shapes are weird in shots like SCRN0243 as well.
I recall Rosemary saying that they have used or tried a few different FG's for their tests. I can only assume that one FG they tried didn't cope as well with the oscillations through it. In SCRN0284 we see the oscillation amplitude begin to rise to it's usual level of over 160V, then suddenly it drops to roughly 40Vpp. Both the top and bottom excursions decreased.
My guess is that something to do with the FG caused it.
TK:
QuoteSo.... Do The Math (tm RA). We find that 0.0208 Joules have been dissipated in 0.0025 seconds, for a REAL average power of 0.0208/0.0025 == about 8.3 Watts _positive_, that is "flowing out" of the capacitor. Did I do that right?
No, because what you are interested in knowing is what the power consumption is for a constant voltage, and not a variable voltage.
If you can imagine using a much larger capacitor so that the voltage is much steadier, then the slope of the cap discharge at say, 72 volts, would be much easier to measure. So once you have the (nearly constant) slope of the change in voltage at 72 volts, and you know the capacitance, you can derive the current, i = C dv/dt. So you could then get the power consumption at 72 volts.
I believe that you can also simply drop a power probe on the capacitor itself. I am not sure if you can low-pass-filter the power probe data (i.e.; some sort of a running average), but I assume that you get the idea.
MileHigh
With the Watt probe directly on the 8uF capacitor, we get the TRUE instantaneous and average power over the 3ms period.
The average is correctly negative, because sources give up power, while loads dissipate power.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 20, 2012, 11:47:59 AM
TK:
No, because what you are interested in knowing is what the power consumption is for a constant voltage, and not a variable voltage.
If you can imagine using a much larger capacitor so that the voltage is much steadier, then the slope of the cap discharge at say, 72 volts, would be much easier to measure. So once you have the (nearly constant) slope of the change in voltage at 72 volts, and you know the capacitance, you can derive the current, i = C dv/dt. So you could then get the power consumption at 72 volts.
I believe that you can also simply drop a power probe on the capacitor itself. I am not sure if you can low-pass-filter the power probe data (i.e.; some sort of a running average), but I assume that you get the idea.
MileHigh
Ah....no. But thank you for confusing the issue further.
What I am interested in is the correct computation of average power dissipated during a time interval, and that is the number of Joules divided by the number of seconds. The waveshape is irrelevant to that computation, isn't it? Steady, wiggly, positive/negative....... as long as you count up the net Joules, adding all the positive ones and subtracting all the negative ones, you get the net ENERGY that passed your measurement point. And if you know the time interval from when you started counting (the full cap at t=0) to when you stopped counting Joules (oscillations stop and cap voltage flatlines) you know the average Joules Per Second "over" that interval. The average power in Watts, in other words.
And I am still asking: For the AVERAGE POWER levels cited by Ainslie, like -40 Watts, when there is a DC component that averages, say, 20 Watts .... what is the negative power level required during the oscillations to bring the average to the claim?
For example, say we have 100 Watts positive inst. power during the DC phase, gate HI, and it is 18 percent of the total period. This means we have an AVERAGE of 18 Watts positive over the whole period. But the average power computed somehow by the NERDS is -40 Watts. So whatever is happening in the oscillations is bringing down the DC average of 18 Watts down to -40 Watts.
I think the way to find this value is like this:
(100 W x 0.18) + ( OscPower x 0.82) = P
avg for the whole period.
Solving for OscPower,
(OscPower x 0.82) = Pavg - (100 x 0.18)
OscPower = (Pavg-(100x0.18))/0.82
Inserting the claimed Pavg value of -40 W we have
OscPower = (-40 - (100 x 0.18))/0.82
OscPower == about -71 Watts.
Right?
So now I am asking, where on the scope traces is this high negative power level to be found? I know that it is a spurious measurement caused by the probe locations and excess wiring; that is not the issue. I want to know where the numbers _come from_ that lead to the claims by the NERDS of the high negative power levels. If they claim a -40 average for a trial that includes substantial DC power during the non-oscs... then the oscs need to be even more powerful than the stated value, and I want to know where the numbers are coming from.
Shades of the Mandelbrot Set! :P
Quote from: poynt99 on May 20, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
With the Watt probe directly on the 8uF capacitor, we get the TRUE instantaneous and average power over the 3ms period.
The average is correctly negative, because sources give up power, while loads dissipate power.
And it looks like about the same value that I got using the energy and the time interval-- something around | 8 Watts | .
And the Joules of energy delivered by the capacitor.
TK:
Yes on your calculation of -71 watts.
QuoteSo now I am asking, where on the scope traces is this high negative power level to be found? I know that it is a spurious measurement caused by the probe locations and excess wiring; that is not the issue. I want to know where the numbers _come from_ that lead to the claims by the NERDS of the high negative power levels.
Sounds like you would need hands-on with the DSO (or the spreadsheet dumps if they exist). Naturally you are expecting -71 watts measured power during the negative oscillation phase.
The big caveat for me is that I don't know the DSO. What does it do when it's on a very slow timebase and is measuring minutes worth of data. You are likely undersampled during the negative oscillation phase, but do Monte Carlo methods give you good data anyways? When your display window on the actual screen is much smaller than the buffer of recorded data, does the DSO average the entire buffer anyways or does it just average what is in the display window, etc.
I suspect that all of these issues were over the heads of the NERD team.
I agree that the negative averaged power data is suspect when you have long on times for Q1 with no oscillation and heavy positive power dissipation in the load.
The DSO "doesn't lie" or does it?
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 20, 2012, 11:17:56 AM
So.... Do The Math (tm RA). We find that 0.0208 Joules have been dissipated in 0.0025 seconds, for a REAL average power of 0.0208/0.0025 == about 8.3 Watts _positive_, that is "flowing out" of the capacitor. Did I do that right?
Yes, looks right to me, and the TRUE average power trace agrees when you look at t=2.5ms.
MH said,
QuoteThe DSO "doesn't lie" or does it?
The DSO reports what it sees and what it calculates from what it sees. The more better the oscilloscope the more better and different ways it has to look at what it sees.
But if you show it garbage and then tell it to calculate the wrong parameters from the garbage, you will get a very nicely packaged precise report of what the garbage looks like to the scope, and then it allows you to do with that whatever you will.
The DSO is, like any weapon of mass instruction, only as good as the person pulling (or setting) the trigger, and it only can see what it is pointed at and it can only calculate what you ask it to calculate. There is no "idiot user compensation" setting on most oscilloscopes. Perhaps there should be, though. Something like the interlock they put on a DWI driver's car: she can't start it unless she blows a zero first. The scope should require the user to complete a short quiz before it will boot.
QuoteWhat is the difference between Energy and Power?
a. They are the same, the terms are interchangeable
b. One is a measure of Work (a quantity), the other is a measure of How Fast Work Is Done (a rate)
c. Power is in Watts or Joules per Second, W = J/s
d. Energy is in Joules or Watt-seconds, J = W x s
e. All of the above except a.
And if you get more than 0 wrong, you have to start over with a new random question.
This is indeed a strange one. The more I look at this one the weirder it seems. Look at the blue signal, presumably the gate drive signal. Compare to when the oscillations start.
Is this the "bad" function generator doing this? How can it deliver a negative polarity without starting the oscillations, even if it isn't working properly?
Do they perhaps have it set to a ramp instead of a square wave, then offsetting the ramp?
72 volts, a positive gate signal for at least part of the time, and no current during the gate HI... weirdness time? And spindle envelopes instead of nice rectangular ones?
I would really like to know "Just what is happening here but you don't know what it is ....do you... Mr. Jones."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y0mvdkyUPc
TK:
Yeah that one looks very high-strung or something. One could imagine the ground connection for the DSO was disconnected.
Anyway, those capacitor simulations spell.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmZRDUO1wGQ
:( :( :(
Tar Baby Turnips.
Top trace is VBatt @ 50v/div, baseline in the usual place.
Bottom is Gate signal from FG @ 5v/div, ditto.
The FG is set to make a ramp (fast up and slow down) or a sawtooth or tilted triangle wave, however you want to call it, and then this is offset to put most of it below the zero baseline. In the mode shown I don't get much total current on the inline DMM.... but if I offset the ramp only slightly upwards from where it is now, the peaks turn on Q1 and I can get big currents fast: 1.8 amps with seemingly not very much of the ramp peak sticking up past 4 V.
Deck chairs on the Titanic. lol
I've made a video showing the Tar Baby cooking Turnip Stew.
It's uploading now. I think I manage to make a couple of important points, even if it is kind of long.
I'm not saying that the NERDs used this mode purposefully but the SCRN0243 sure looks a lot like the traces I've obtained here. Bear in mind that 0243 was made with a 72 volt battery pack and I am using 48 volts.
Image shows load temperature just after I finished shooting the video. It rose up to 110 plus before I stopped the run to let it cool a bit. Then I turned it back on, what the heck ... just checked, it is at 141.7 degrees C right now. Q1 is too hot to touch for more than a second or two but still seems stable.
TK, is your observatory all set up for this evening's moon-shadow?
So if my resistor stack is hot enough to heat 250 mL of mineral oil to 150 degrees C in just a few minutes.... after "upping the oscillation frequency" or twiddling some other knob ... I wonder how hot it would be if I just attached a thermocouple to it and measured it in air.
And THEN plunged it into some water.
Do you think I would get some tiny bubbles then?
Now Ainslie claims to have "taken water to boil". Note the very careful construction of the phrase. If she boiled water, why didn't she just say so? And of course the description of the event on the day of the event says in her own words that the water wasn't actually boiling.
But I've heated a known quantity of mineral oil to 150 degrees C. Would my resistors have boiled some water in this experiment? The specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 and the density is 0.83 or so. How much water could I have raised to 100 C I wonder?
How about if I heated them in air and then when they couldn't get any hotter, I plunged them into some room-temperature water. Would I see some tiny little bubbles?
Quote from: polln8r on May 20, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
TK, is your observatory all set up for this evening's moon-shadow?
Unfortunately I am too far south for the annular path, and the sky is cloudy anyway. I might be able to detect a bit of dimming from the partial, but I don't think that I can even see the sun when it's that low; I'd have to take the scope and mount somewhere flat and unobstructed.
So.... no, I think I'll just watch it on the internest.
Turnip Stew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o
Quote from: polln8r on May 20, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
TK, is your observatory all set up for this evening's moon-shadow?
Solar Eclipse of 2012 May 21 Sun in Partial Eclipse at this Location Delta T: 66.8s SOMEWHERE IN, TEXAS Location: W xx'00.0", Nxxxx'48.0", 0m (Longitude referred to Greenwich meridian) Sun's Position Vertex UT1 Altitude Azimuth Angle Angle d h m s ° ° ° ° Eclipse Begins 21 00:35:55.7 8.7 288.4 275.5 213.7 Sunset 21 01:23 ---- 293.9 ----- Duration: 0h 46m 49.3s Magnitude: 0.911 Obscuration: 85.2%
This means that it's too low on the horizon for me to see it from where I am, but I should be able to detect the sky darkening.
I don't have a manual mount or I'd grab the M90 and go to the park down the road, it might have a view that low. But.... no manual mount and the CGEM is just too heavy for casual moving about like that.
TK:
I watched the turnip stew clip. The one thing that intrigues me again is seeing that when you make the gate signal go high it gets clipped and when you look at the current waveform when the gate signal is high you can see it undergoes an exponential decay. I am assuming that there is a chance that it is related to the zener in Q2 starting to conduct, as was discussed a few days ago.
It's an interesting puzzle for those that might be curious to explain it. If I had my own setup and a bench full of equipment I would try to figure it out.
It's all moot though because the real issue goes back to the claim. You can see how even for a simple circuit like this that understanding the switching dynamics are not trivial.
So all paths lead back to Rosemary's front door:
Rosemary, when do you plan on doing the dim bulb testing?
Rosemary, will you include the extra measurements like I requested assuming that you do indeed perform the dim bulb testing?
MileHigh
A little interlude for some bemusement....
On another thread Rosemary said this:
QuoteINDEED it's good news. And THANK YOU CHESS. And WOW. I think that elephant in his armchair has lost his trumpet. How good is THAT?
As ever Chessnyt - Your work here is BRILLIANT.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
So, you look at someone like Picowatt. A man who clearly knows his stuff and most likely has been an electronic design engineer for 40+ years. He clearly has great working knowledge and expertise with MOSFETs.
I am sure Rosemary has called him "stupid" many times over the course of the discussion.
Then you look at someone like Chessnyt. For the most part all that Chess is doing is copying and pasting stuff about Rossi that anybody could find in 30 seconds. That demonstrated superb mastery of the right mouse click.
And for this work Rosemary has called him "BRILLIANT."
It's the Bizarro Universe in action!!! lol
MileHigh
TK,
Bummer that you'll be unable to view the transit from the yurt. Here in PDX, the overcast and drizzly skies will likely make for a less than spectacular event also (pissed!). Thanks again, as always, for your educational video... perpetually looking forward to the next.
polln8r.
Man, I wish I had a setup like yours TK... this Android barely let me make any decent shot at all... had help from the clouds, though (they thinned out in time for the show).
@polln8r
That's not bad for the camera you've got... you can definitely tell there's an eclipse going on! It was a non-event here, too close to sundown. A little cropping, some adjusting in Gimp or PixInsightLE.... and you've got a keeper !
I hope it's clear in early June for the transit of Venus. You might be able to catch that yourself if you can make a good pinhole camera.
Meanwhile, back at the DeepBunker....
I've looked at the SCRN0235 shot. This is the one where there is apparently a relatively long duty cycle like 50 percent, 72 volts in the battery stack, and something around 5 amps DC flowing according to the scopeshot during the gate HI portion of the cycle.
I decided to try this and see if the Q1 mosfet could take the strain. Unfortunately my batteries are kind of flat. I can manage 72 volts but with the high current they sag a bit. I was able to get 5 amps at first while I still had the voltage, though, and I've bolted a thermocouple to the mosfet's heatsink. It very quickly gets very hot carrying that much current. I am surprised though... I have actually gotten it to about 170 degrees C for a short time and it is still working. I know the thermocouple is right because the thing burned my fingers when I touched it, and the plastic of the cable connector smoked a little bit.
My waveforms don't look quite exactly like the ones in SCRN0235 though. I wonder if this is because my batteries are weaker, or what.
I set this all up with meters in view, to video a run-until-failure for the hot mosfet, but I want to use more full batteries to do it.
Anyone know where I can get a 666 timer chip? Digi-Key doesn't see to carry it. I'm trying to build the new and improved version of the Ainslie circuit. I have placed a link to the schematic below:
http://xkcd.com/730/
Derrick:
That's actually another reproduction of the first Ainslie circuit that was done by a leading member of the free energy community from a few years back. The clips might still be on YouTube!
MileHigh
Quote from: derricka on May 20, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
Anyone know where I can get a 666 timer chip? Digi-Key doesn't see to carry it. I'm trying to build the new and improved version of the Ainslie circuit. I have placed a link to the schematic below:
http://xkcd.com/730/ (http://xkcd.com/730/)
Golly. There is an error in that schematic. No wonder you can't get it to work, that chip is inverted. It is actually supposed to be a 999.
Quote from: derricka on May 20, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
Anyone know where I can get a 666 timer chip? Digi-Key doesn't see to carry it. I'm trying to build the new and improved version of the Ainslie circuit. I have placed a link to the schematic below:
http://xkcd.com/730/ (http://xkcd.com/730/)
That's a REMARKABLE schematic derrick. Very well done indeed. I think what you've given us is just a further improvement on the tar baby - IF that's possible. The difference being that your schematic is clear. And, of course, INFINITELY more logical.
NICE WORK. Keep it up. In no time at all you'll be replicating the TAR BABY which, we all know, does a FINE job of replicating nothing at all...
Sadly - it bears no relation to our own work - which is probably just as well. Or our little TK will be left with nothing better to do with his time than comment on his his genius or - God forbid - the size and type of his equipment that he uses as a measure of his genius. I believe that he claims a score of 72 inches - in his GRE evaluations. Proof enough of an excess IQ. I understand that GRE stands for Gross & Ridiculous Evaluations related to those Abnormally Taxed in Laughable Intelligence Evaluations. The acronym being the GREAT LIE.
In any event. Well done indeed. It's not often on this thread that one gets such an accurate rendition of one of TK's circuits. God knows. The task is way beyond the competence of anyone with a mere FUNCTIONAL intelligence.
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
So... referring to SCRN0325 again: the battery is only indicating 73 volts. This I think means that they are substantially depleted, certainly not fully charged. They should be closer to 75 volts or more if fully charged.
But there is a strange feature on the battery trace that I don't understand. Here I've indicated it on the blowup analysis graphic. Can anyone interpret this rising voltage feature after the oscillations end and as the DC current is coming on? I would have expected this to be a sag, not a rise.
Hello polinater
Quote from: polln8r on May 20, 2012, 09:47:12 PM
Man, I wish I had a setup like yours TK... this Android barely let me make any decent shot at all... had help from the clouds, though (they thinned out in time for the show).
Not sure that you intended it - but I am sincerely 'blown away' by that photo of yours. It's really very, very good. VERY Well done indeed. Sorry that it's me who speaks up about it. But WOW. That's HIGH standards. A fleeting moment of a 'fleeting event' through those thin black lines. And a minaret pointing 'off center' and modestly and - slightly off target. And the suggestion of a frame outlined by the silhouette of those disconnected leaves. They float with the same sense of weightlessness. A kind of 'gravity free' moment. It's an EXCEPTIONAL composition. Thank you for that. I'm sure there are many here who appreciate such fine artistry.
Yours most sincerely
Rosie
If I can manage it I'll try for another upload.
Added to the database for the benefit of the LAWYERS.
Hi Little TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2012, 02:32:33 AM
Added to the database for the benefit of the LAWYERS.
My lawyers already know about this. They're VASTLY divereted by the satire which is NOT actionable because it does not constitute a criminal offense.
Rosie Pose
:-*
How about lying about your work and scientific misrepresentation?
Never ever used "mean vi" or "mean VI(t)"?
ORLY?
What does the math trace on all your scopeshots represent then, Miss Genius Parrot?
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/
Rosemary:
QuoteSadly - it bears no relation to our own work
That's not satire,
it's a lie. You continue to
demean and degrade yourself with your nonsensical attacks. You are not fooling anybody.
You want to challenge my statement that you are lying? If yes then go ahead and explain to us precisely how and why the Tar Baby bears no relation to your circuit.Any comments on the simulations with the capacitors powering the circuit? When are you planning to do the dim bulb testing? Stefan has asked you to do more tests. What about my request for more complete testing data?
MileHigh
It's a good thing that I don't have any feelings, because THIS might hurt them if I did have.
I'd probably even think it was some kind of slur against my sexuality or gender identity or sexual preference. In other words.... somebody, in some places, could even call it a hate crime.
Satire? Not to me, it's not. What do you think, Mile High? Satire?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2012, 02:52:21 AM
It's a good thing that I don't have any feelings, because THIS might hurt them if I did have.
I'd probably even think it was some kind of slur against my sexuality or gender identity or sexual preference. In other words.... somebody, in some places, could even call it a hate crime.
Satire? Not to me, it's not. What do you think, Mile High? Satire?
LOL. If I've erred with my representation there TK - it's because I'm obliged to do what I can within the constraints of my poor abilities and my equally poor knowledge of your face. I've only 'glimpsed' this in brief moments when your camera - that you hold under your chin with your feet and glued to your moustache - slipped out of focus. A rare event considering the high standards of photography that you manage.
But it's hardly actionable. I rather generously showed you up as a human being which we all know is not actually the 'real truth'.
Rosie Pose
TK:
QuoteBut there is a strange feature on the battery trace that I don't understand. Here I've indicated it on the blowup analysis graphic. Can anyone interpret this rising voltage feature after the oscillations end and as the DC current is coming on? I would have expected this to be a sag, not a rise.
What I believe is that scope capture is showing is a brief strong current pulse or possibly current ringing that's abnormally high at both transitions from the signal generator. That causes a "shock" to the battery because it delivers more current than normal and it takes a short time for the battery to recover.
I can't explain the source of the pulse and or possible ringing in the current waveform at the transitions though. Having spent many years investigating things like this, the only answer is to either replicate exactly what you see or have access to the original setup.
MileHigh
And, by the way, you insane bitch, GRE means "Graduate Record Examination". If you only could read, you could look that up on your computer, if you ever figure out how to use a search engine. You ignorant slut.
Oh... did I mention I was being satirical?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs
TK:
I can give Rosie leeway with drawn caricature but I have no patience for the outright lying in her characterization of your circuit or your qualifications or the qualifications of other people when it is readily apparent that she is lying.
Let's see if she has the character or courage to respond to my questions from my previous posting.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 21, 2012, 03:00:39 AM
LOL. If I've erred with my representation there TK - it's because I'm obliged to do what I can within the constraints of my poor abilities and my equally poor knowledge of your face. I've only 'glimpsed' this in brief moments when your camera - that you hold under your chin with your feet and glued to your moustache - slipped out of focus. A rare event considering the high standards of photography that you manage.
But it's hardly actionable. I rather generously showed you up as a human being which we all know is not actually the 'real truth'.
Rosie Pose
Do you think that protects you? HA. My imaginary lawyers are right now having imaginary martini meetings with your imaginary lawyers trying to arrive at a settlement that won't leave you totally impoverished and back on the street turning tricks. And if you think I'm not human.... just wait until you meet my Chief Counsel. She will chew up your imaginary lawyers and spit them out for sharkbait. She's already rifled your computers and photobuckets for more incriminating evidence like those scopeshots and videos somebody posted in your name,and I know she's bribed your gardener already to sneak in and discharge your batteries while you are sleeping. He's not very stealthy though, so if you hear anything strange tonight....please don't shoot him, he means well and has a family to support.
Hello again, Little TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2012, 03:05:17 AM
And, by the way, you insane bitch, GRE means "Graduate Record Examination". If you only could read, you could look that up on your computer, if you ever figure out how to use a search engine. You ignorant slut.
Oh... did I mention I was being satirical?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs)
Satire is something that you could never manage. It requires a functional intelligence. Yours - as you keep telling us - is somewhat 'weightier' and wildly improbable. I merely paid it due tribute. I've said this before. Anyone who needs to assert their genius - has no proof of their genius. But we HAVE your proof. It's in ALL your posts and in your flair for COMPLETE AND UTTER misdirection. AMPLE evidence. And then, of course... there's your GRE... ... which you also aver is 72 inches. Like Hamburger's.
LOL
Rosie Pose
Quote from: MileHigh on May 21, 2012, 03:09:58 AM
TK:
I can give Rosie leeway with drawn caricature but I have no patience for the outright lying in her characterization of your circuit or your qualifications or the qualifications of other people when it is readily apparent that she is lying.
Let's see if she has the character or courage to respond to my questions from my previous posting.
MileHigh
Oh... she'll respond all right.
But will she answer? I doubt it.
And there are so many documented instances of her outright lying about one thing or another that I have documented with references and screenshots, that my 72 inch hard drive is nearly full up to the Gigglebytes with her lies.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2012, 03:17:44 AM
Oh... she'll respond all right.
But will she answer? I doubt it.
And there are so many documented instances of her outright lying about one thing or another that I have documented with references and screenshots, that my 72 inch hard drive is nearly full up to the Gigglebytes with her lies.
Hi again little TK
That's an awful lot of work. A whole library of misdirection. There's nothing small about your obsession with my work. It must be VERY intriguing to you. I can't help but wonder why? Are you in love with me TK? Is this how trolls enjoy their vicarious relationships? Or are you just in a blind panic and scraping the barrel - so to speak.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rosie Pose
This thread makes guy's very happy again with our mothers-in-law, daily virus dosis to keep ...........
XJ
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 21, 2012, 04:20:44 AM
Hi again little TK
That's an awful lot of work. A whole library of misdirection. There's nothing small about your obsession with my work. It must be VERY intriguing to you. I can't help but wonder why? Are you in love with me TK? Is this how trolls enjoy their vicarious relationships? Or are you just in a blind panic and scraping the barrel - so to speak.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rosie Pose
A library of misdirection indeed: EVERY FILE in that subdirectory is an image of one of your forum or blog posts. ALL OF THAT is in your own words, with no commentary from me. Just uneditable, undeletable IMAGES of the posts YOU MADE, discussing, lying, insulting, contradicting yourself... all of it IN YOUR OWN WORDS, for anyone to display and examine. But that's just the one subdirectory. There are more, which contain your scopeshots, my analyses of them, the posts and analyses from other people explaining your circuit, the pdf files of external information that you have ignored , the pdf files that contain .99's analyses and sim results.... the information from Fuzzy about your collaboration and the results from it... it's all there and the above image is JUST of the part that contains YOUR OWN WORDS in forum and blog posts.
No, Ainslie, I am not in love with you. I think you are a menace. You have done more damage to the various communities of researchers you have polluted than any single person I can think of. Even John Bedini at least has some interesting toys to play with. Yours just sit there and waste time, nothing more.
If I had to compare you to anyone, I'd say you were most like Joe Newman. But at least HE has the courage to go around demonstrating his junk. YOU just have other people do your work for you, until they realise what a manipulative, mendacious idiot you are and you turn against them with your venomous "satire" which is really your inner bitterness and despair striking out.
If I could hound you off the internet I would. But I know that as long as you can type you will continue typing without reading, criticising without understanding, and insulting your betters with disrepect and lies. So I'll just do what I can do: I will continue to allow you to make a monstrous fool of yourself, by pointing out EVERY LIE and EVERY BOGUS CALCULATION that you present, and I will continue to do this wherever you pop up like the useless weed that you are.
You have nothing but your arrogance. Your knowledge is minimal and mostly wrong; your skills at electronics are nonexistent, you lie and misrepresent your data and you have no respect for the education and experience of others. You are a menace, because you seduce naive and innocent hopeful workers with your lies and false claims, and you waste time and resources that could be used to make the world a better place, but instead they are diverted to bolster your miserable ego. And the people who do wind up working "with" you all.... ALL.... eventually see what they've drawn to their breast, and recoil in horror from it. Even your precious "Donny" won't support you any more, because he's smart enough to see that you don't have what you claim and will NEVER do the proper testing.
So please, Ainslie...continue on posting your lies and insults here, because they are all going into my database... which will be a SINGLE BIG FILE that I will send to EVERYONE I EVER FIND that expresses any interest in your claims, so that they can have the entire history before them when they are deciding what to do about you. Your lies and your ignorance and your awful attitude problems and your mental delusions and paranoia.... and your bogus math .... will all be public knowledge and will all be IN ONE PLACE for anyone to examine to learn the truth about you. Scraping the barrel indeed, dredging up all the rotten mendacities, all the statements from your former collaborators about how you act, all the bogus calculations, all the instances of "one joule = one watt" and "taking water to boil"... all of that slime I am scraping off the sides and bottom of your stinking garbage barrel.... yep, and cleaning it up for display to all. YOUR OWN MENDACIOUS WORDS, your own data PROPERLY INTERPRETED, and the good hard work of other people building and testing your circuitry and finding that it does nothing special. ALL IS PRESERVED in one place. And this file will follow you around for the rest of your natural life, and if I can find out where your grave is, I'll even chisel a link to it on your granite headstone.
You blew it with me when you started insulting my education. You can call me whatever you like but I have had the finest education possible, much finer than you can even imagine with your brief sojourn in academia... and I have had some fine teachers, people who wouldn't even allow you to audit much less participate in their classes, and when you insult my education you are insulting my teachers, and up with that I will not put.
Keep it coming Ainslie. I know that the oscilloscope you borrowed from C2C was damaged and you had to buy it and get it repaired. I know that Tektronix RECALLED the scope they loaned to you because of your misrepresentations of their role in your affair. I know a lot of other things that you don't think anyone knows, like your mental health history. All of it, with documentation... REAL DOCUMENTATION, not your ridiculous lying citations of nonexistent alphabet companies who offer "bursary awards" to colleges that are declined......
Did you notice your gardener acting a little strange last evening? Did you notice your computer acting up? Did the dog bark in the night? Can't find those notes that you know you left on the desktop? Well.... don't blame me. You have only yourself to blame for whatever comes after.
This woman has spent a lifetime slandering her own "good name" which is now forever synonymous with the word delusion.
At 63 years of age, this inept, pathetic old woman is nearing the end of her natural lifespan and doesn't paint a pretty picture with her inability to relate to anyone, or anything, in the real world. Her own words, not those of others, will forever remain a legacy and a permanent reminder of a lonely deluded recluse, who lived in a disconnected fantasy world, completely rejected by every person that she ever had contact with, including the whole open source community. A vicious personality, and a dark heart filled with hatred and contempt.
Mother Nature still occasionally spits out anomalies like this.
Aint no lawyer gonna fix that.
Rosemary:
Re: Request for documenting the test runs for the dim bulb testing.
It would not be desirable to see a dozen or more DSO captures in support of the dim bulb testing. I would say that a maximum of four would be fine. It goes without saying that the configuration of the circuit should be exactly the same for each capture.
For each DSO capture in support of the dim bulb testing we would like to know the details about the setup. How many batteries, things like that. We would like to see pictures of the setup. We would like you to list the the DSO negative power measurement for each capture. Therefore if you are going to use a 0.25 ohm current sensing resistor then you have to do the calculations to show us the measured negative wattage. We also want to know what the function generator voltage is without it being connected to the circuit, for each capture. So you measure it on the scope or with a multimeter, your choice, as long as you make the measurement. We also would like to know what the current measurement in the running circuit is when checked with a digital multimeter. If the digital multimeter is going crazy than use an analog multimeter. We expect a few hundred milliamps of current flow so you ideally you would have an analog current meter with a full-scale deflection of zero to 500 milliamps, or a full-scale deflection of zero to one amp.
So you can imagine four captures with a text file that records the configuration and data for each capture. If you want to be really nice you can put the whole thing into a spreadsheet. There should be no resizing of the scope capture images. You could also include the results of the dim bulb testing in the spreadsheet. Then we can simply download the spreadsheet.
We want no ambiguities in the data because that causes doubt. This is what open source is supposed to be all about.
I have just given you a few suggestions about documenting the "COP infinity" power measurements on the setup while the dim bulb test is running. If you can think of any more things to add then please add them. You know that you have been haunted by setup and circuit ambiguities in the past. This is your chance to get it right and document yourself properly.
I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting and sharing your thoughts with us.
When do you expect to start the testing?
MileHigh
@ TK: Yep, you nailed it exactly: Replies without answers...
@ Rosemary: Is a Joule still a watt PER second?? ???
And are you EVER going to do the (Dim Bulb Test)?
Still a daily reader, I like anomalies... ;)
PC
EDIT: That chiseled link cracked me up!!
What I cannot understand is how someone could possibly be so "logic-challenged".
I mean here Tar Baby is:
It uses the same "schedule" of components as that published in the NERD papers, except for the substitution of my ceramic wirewound resistors for the Ainslie RV water heater element.
It makes the same oscillations, now at the same frequency of 1.4-1.5 MHz, under the same conditions as the NERD device.
It makes the same mean negative power product as the NERD device, and in addition shows a much more convincing negatively accumulating-- that is, decreasing --- energy integral, live on screen.
It produces _really_ high heat in the load. I got the mineral oil up to over 150 degrees C, and did it honestly and properly and that is the actual oil temperature, not some guesstimate of "tiny bubbles" or 104 "thereabouts from memory" degrees.
That is, it produces ALL of the actual data that Ainslie has presented in support of her major claim. Yet it does not prevent its own batteries from discharging.
But the main point I want to emphasise now is that Ainslie still says that Tar Baby has nothing to do with her circuit and claims.
We KNOW that she has deliberately withheld information about the circuit--- or at least the story of the Miraculous Mosfet Mistake is inconsistent--- therefore.... since she is SO sure that Tar Baby is different from NERD..... maybe it is.
In other words, to be blunt, perhaps Ainslie has once again been misleading us all about the actual schematic used. Is it in fact the one in the SECOND paper, instead of the first?
Because if the second paper's schematic is used, there will be no problem with mosfet overheating or destruction, because the Q1 ROLE is now played by four mosfets on heavy heatsinks, and the single mosfet is now in the Q2 role which just has to sit there and oscillate occasionally, never carrying more than a few hundred milliamps.
And also... is it possible that she is NOT ALWAYS using the rectangular pulse gate drive signal? Some of her scope data seems to indicate that other waveshapes may have been used and perhaps these might produce high heat in the load. As well as stressing whatever mosfet(s) are in the Q1 _role_.
In short, I can think of a couple likely explanations for why she is so sure that Tar Baby isn't a NERD duplicate. That is, her mendacity and prevarications.
I note that she has known about the strictly negative bias supply making a continuous oscillation mode SINCE LAST JUNE AT LEAST, as shown by her posts and discussions in the old locked threads.
Therefore.... Aliens? No, I don't think so.
ETA: I _know_ that this is not the way the Demo Video circuit was wired. I am satisfied that the Paper 1 diagram was used except for the position of the FG Black lead on one or the other side of the CVR. But recall.... Ainslie has repeatedly said that the Demo only _relates to_ her claims and her circuit. Perhaps she began using the other, actually more correct, circuit after the demo, to stop blowing mosfets.
By the way... it seems that Ainslie thinks her vile hate-crime cartoon of two people she has never seen is somehow "protected speech" because it is "satire".
Well, sure, then it should be clear that when I call Polly Parrot a lying, ignorant, arrogant scrawny wench of a madwoman, or a mendacious overweening hypocrite, or a total drag on the community.... I am expressing my own rather considered opinion in a literary and satirical manner. Ho ho ho.
And when I present evidence that I am correct in all this satirical characterisation.... well, that's just entertainment.
(Some of my best friends like to prance around in their underwear sniffing flowers, and we find Ainslie's "satire" deeply offensive.)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 21, 2012, 02:21:36 AM
Hello polinater
Not sure that you intended it - but I am sincerely 'blown away' by that photo of yours. It's really very, very good. VERY Well done indeed. Sorry that it's me who speaks up about it. But WOW. That's HIGH standards. A fleeting moment of a 'fleeting event' through those thin black lines. And a minaret pointing 'off center' and modestly and - slightly off target. And the suggestion of a frame outlined by the silhouette of those disconnected leaves. They float with the same sense of weightlessness. A kind of 'gravity free' moment. It's an EXCEPTIONAL composition. Thank you for that. I'm sure there are many here who appreciate such fine artistry.
Yours most sincerely
Rosie
If I can manage it I'll try for another upload.
Rosemary,
Thank you for your compliments on the photo, however, as a BFA I would say the 'artistry' of the photo is completely lacking. The only really remarkable part about it was that it could be taken at all, given the device used to take it.
polln8r
There has always been some ambiguity in Ainslie's mind about just what to call the Mixed-up Mosfet Miswiring Misadventure. The Q2s are parallel but the Q1 isn't but the drains all are but the gates aren't. So she's tried to describe this as, for example, "holding hands". How sweet.
But, in light of her characterisation of her critics as a pack of running dogs, along with her continuing sexual innuendoes, I have thought of some better names for the mosfet orientations in the NERD Device.
The Q2 mosfets, the "Gang of Four" are, of course.... mounted Doggie Style.
And the other one, the Q1, is in the strict Missionary Position wrt the others -- face to face, gate to source, source to gate and joined at the drains in the middle.
It's quite the mosfet orgy, altogether. No wonder the load gets hot.
TK:
You know there is that quite nice analogy between electricity and water where the water pressure is akin to the voltage and the water flow is akin to the current. Flowing water is heavy and has momentum so there is quite a bit of inherent "mechanical inductance" in flowing water.
When you look at this business from the water angle, the Q1 MOSFET is like an on-off water valve, and the Q2 array is like a valve that is half-on and half-off and making a loud humming sound. That's something that we can all relate to in real life.
So here is where the common sense comes into play: With 100 PSI in your water pipe imagine you enable either the Q1 or Q2 water valves so they work like the equivalent MOSFETs. Does the water flow? The answer is yes, the water does flow. Just about anybody can imagine this little thought experiment. The same thing is happening with Rosemary's electrical circuit.
I honestly can't recall clean and concise data from you for the dim bulb test that you did a while back. So my suggestion is either to repost that data if you have it, or do a new dim bulb test with nicely presented data. The idea being that you would be setting a standard and it would be up to Rosemary to see if she can meet or better that standard. (And no Rosemary, I don't want to hear you scoff at this suggestion with more lies about TK's setup and his competence. If you do I will respond.)
To summarize, present some dim bulb test data that sets a standard for brevity and clarity. As a suggestion, it could be in the form of a spreadsheet and an associated video clip.
Then... You are done! It will be up to Rosemary to respond in turn. It would be essentially the end of this thread, everybody simply goes into a holding pattern waiting for Rosemary to do a dim bulb test. If Rosemary never does anything, then it's over. If she does a dim bulb test, then we will see how well she documents herself and what the conclusion is.
My feeling is unless Rosemary does a dim bulb test herself, there is no point in carrying on. You have basically covered most of the issues, what more is there really to say?
MileHigh
I'll gladly do a full-on documented DBT.
But first I have to know I'm not wasting my time (sic). I need to know what the correct circuit is ( Paper 1 or as I now suspect Paper 2); I need to know the gate drive parameters (I suspect a triangle or ramp was used in some of the hight heat trials) and I need some confirmation from outside my lab (sic) that the performance of Tar Baby wrt oscillations, load heating and so forth are "approximately exact" enough for the DBT to be fair.
And I need five academics who will go on record risking their careers to swear absolutely that the moon is made of very ripe Gorgonzola cheese, because I've shown them a cheese sandwich (on Pumpernickel, with alfalfa sprouts) and told them it was from the Moon. And I'm prepared to show them the cheese sandwich over and over and over again until they relent and admit that they are just too stupid to realise what standard cheese measurement protocols are telling them: you cannot average cheese, therefore the Moon is cheese, through and through.
When I get confirmation or at least some suggested setting parameters that could be "expected to work if Zipons are true" or however you want to put it... then I'll set up for a formal DBT after running on those parameters strictly alone without variations, monitoring load heat over time (OVER, get it, as if the time were in the denominator of a fraction, ho ho hidey scrawny ho.) And I'll let it run for a set amount of time, whether or not the batteries are discharging. Then I'll do the DBT, on video as before.
And I was just kidding about the five academics and the cheese. Three will be fine, and as long as they bring enough wine, I don't care what kind of cheese it is.
MH said,
QuoteMy feeling is unless Rosemary does a dim bulb test herself, there is no point in carrying on. You have basically covered most of the issues, what more is there really to say?
Of course you are correct in that the main claim must be substantiated with a real test, or the ridicule factor will go wayyy up. Ainslie had better get cracking because she is way behind.
But there is still the load heating calorimetry to be done. I'd actually like to do that before the "real" DBT. But again.. .I need to get "approved" waveform parameters to use. Not necessarily from Herself. I would be happy to try to run with a consensus agreement on gate drive voltages and duty cycles, main battery voltage, envelope frequency, and etc like that there.
Did I mention that I got a _mosfet_ up to 190 C or more for a short time without popping it? At 5 amps they heat up good.
My dear little TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2012, 10:31:14 PM
MH said,
Of course you are correct in that the main claim must be substantiated with a real test, or the ridicule factor will go wayyy up. Ainslie had better get cracking because she is way behind.
But there is still the load heating calorimetry to be done. I'd actually like to do that before the "real" DBT. But again.. .I need to get "approved" waveform parameters to use. Not necessarily from Herself. I would be happy to try to run with a consensus agreement on gate drive voltages and duty cycles, main battery voltage, envelope frequency, and etc like that there.
Did I mention that I got a _mosfet_ up to 190 C or more for a short time without popping it? At 5 amps they heat up good.
If you got the MOSFET Q1 OR the MOSFETs Q2 to heat up to 190 degrees centigrade - then you have FAR exceeded our claims. Our own MOSFETs either Q1 or Q2 do NOT come near your achievements here. VERY WELL DONE INDEED
Rosie Pose
added
Yes.... and I did it without even needing THOSE FOUR HUGE HEATSINKS that you use, too.
Let's see....what's the score now? You've blown at least 4 mosfets, one function generator and an oscilloscope. How many have I blown?
And talk about "well done"...
YOU managed WEL-DED, didn't you.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 22, 2012, 12:17:53 AM
My dear little TK,
If you got the MOSFET Q1 OR the MOSFETs Q2 to heat up to 190 degrees centigrade - then you have FAR exceeded our claims. Our own MOSFETs either Q1 or Q2 do NOT come near your achievements here. VERY WELL DONE INDEED
Rosie Pose
added
I'll take that as a tacit admission that you are in fact using the schematic from the second paper, not the first one nor the one used in the demo.
Somebody wisened you up and told you that this endless blowing of mosfets has got to stop, so you finally did what you intended to do in the first place by parallelling the mosfets: take the "heat" off of the Q1. But you blew it because you assigned the Q1 role to a single mosfet anyway. And after the video, whoever is the brains of your operation straightened you out, wired the circuit like in Paper 2, which is NOT a misprint at all, and you never reported the change.... Or DID you?
???
Quote from: polln8r on May 21, 2012, 03:35:07 PM
Rosemary,
Thank you for your compliments on the photo, however, as a BFA I would say the 'artistry' of the photo is completely lacking. The only really remarkable part about it was that it could be taken at all, given the device used to take it.
polln8r
No pollinater - not actually. That photo is AMAZING. Those lines. They're like someone was underscoring and then just ran out of time and did a scribbled heavy line at the base. The minaret - pointing at the suggestion of the crescent. And all those Asian mystical portents associated with the crescent - in the first instance. Just so UNDERSTATED - and pointing off center - a little off the point. Like it's SO portentous it's best not stare at it. Sort of 'rude'. That dark and darkening sky with everything in chiaroscuro. Like a silk wash. It's very good. It's really very, very good. And I assure you my friends agree with me. I'm no art critic but even I can see that it's excellent. I'm sure that was no accident. And I think you're being unnecessarily modest. You must have positioned that camera in the first instance. And if it WAS an accident - then you clearly make very good ones. I've actually printed out a copy. But it's not the right paper. I need to get it done again. If you want me to send one to you then PM me with your address.
But having said all that - I'm not blowing up your skirts here pollinater. I think your support of TK's work is still inappropriate. And I'm happy to quarrel with you and everyone else regarding this for as long as it takes.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2012, 02:42:56 PM
By the way... it seems that Ainslie thinks her vile hate-crime cartoon of two people she has never seen is somehow "protected speech" because it is "satire".
Well, sure, then it should be clear that when I call Polly Parrot a lying, ignorant, arrogant scrawny wench of a madwoman, or a mendacious overweening hypocrite, or a total drag on the community.... I am expressing my own rather considered opinion in a literary and satirical manner. Ho ho ho.
And when I present evidence that I am correct in all this satirical characterisation.... well, that's just entertainment.
(Some of my best friends like to prance around in their underwear sniffing flowers, and we find Ainslie's "satire" deeply offensive.)
Guys - it seems that our little TK is having some difficulty getting his GRE... ... around the definition of satire. Seemingly it takes more than 72 pickles per square inch to get to grips with this. Can someone explain to him - perhaps, using simple easy words of one or two syllables max - that its essential feature is that of 'wit'. Not 'witlessness'.
Regards as ever,
Rosie
How's this for wit, you witless idiot: Here are some more examples of your laughable "math" and your impaired reasoning and your mendacious reportage. Keep them coming, Ainslie, I've got plenty of room in the AinslieFail data base.
:P
Translation of the posts below: She just waves her hands and makes numbers up to suit her fancy. Leave out the seconds, why not, make even more errors, count the same energy twice, then report the resultant value over and over as if it was the result of some kind of calculation based on measurement, rather than a total lie based on fantasy.
You really should look at these images, Ainslie. You don't know what you are missing.
Rosemary,
I'm glad you enjoy it, I imagine I must have been considering the frame at least sub-consciously, I always do. But, the timing didn't allow for as careful a shot as I would have liked. Plus the damned Android camera doesn't give you squat for control of exposure... or at least, mine doesn't.
As for my support of TinselKoala's work: I have been enjoying the videos he's made since long before I ever heard of the things discussed in this thread. I enjoy them because I learn at least a couple things in each and every one, and the things he does in his laboratory reminds me of the time during my childhood I got to spend with my father in his ham-shack with his oscilloscopes that I do not get to enjoy any more. Frankly, I find his sometimes smug attitude a bit off-putting, but for me, it's worth getting past it because underneath there's a lesson to be learned.
I've been many things, a military linguist, a pizza-maker, a sculptor, a construction-worker, a painter... but, I know little about electronics beyond making crude crystal radios, so the bits and pieces I pick up here and there are helpful to me for what I'm planning to do in future artistic endeavors.
Then, a couple months ago I stumble over to this website to finally see what all the fuss over his latest videos is about and find a raging battle going on. At first, it was entertaining, but then what do I see? Lawyers getting involved? Accusations of slander? Over one person's opinion about another?
Honestly Rosemary, I just think it's ridiculous. It's like schoolyard drama and as one of the 'spectators' in this thread I'm, not to put too fine a point on it, appalled (I actually did participate in a test with results that contradicted TK's just a few pages back).
So, I'm going to continue to be supportive of a person who I like to learn from, and I don't give a five-quarter shyte how inappropriate you think I'm being.
That said, I think your ink drawings are very well done, you have a distinct talent for caricature that I sincerely wish I could master. Perhaps you could do some videos making artwork, I would love to learn from them.
Cheers,
polln8r
Hi again polinater
I KNEW your were an artist. I'm just a dilettante. But I LOVE art. Always out there looking for nascent genius. It's a hobby of mine.
Regarding you being taught by TK. I trust you'll draw the line at his interpretation of instantaneous wattage on a switched circuit - among other GLARING errors. But that's between you and him. What's between me and TK is the gross misrepresentation of our work. That's not acceptable. And he can say WHAT he likes. It's our inalienable right to speak our minds. But NOT so much when you're not prepared to show your name and be accountable. IF Stefan revised rules to ensure this - then I KNOW that there would be some considerable moderation to those statements. And while that may deprive you of entertainment - it would also do MUCH to advance this technology of ours. HIS object is to trivialise this by association to that 'shared' opinion with a NOISY minority. I'll be able to prove this - in the near future. But meanwhile - it does damage.
I also know that TK has invested an awful lot of time on this. He needs to. It's how he earns his living. If you doubt it then check out a thread here on this forum where they explore ways to IDENTIFY the troll. His methods are classic. And there's a whistle blower there who admits to having been 'invited' to 'join the force' so to speak. They're ACTIVE. It's my opinion that our forum owner has this agenda. But that's still to be proved. Hopefully we'll find out later today.
Meanwhile - just for the record - TK's efforts at educating our forum members are somewhat IMPAIRED. Certainly when they're related to those power measurements that he keeps referring to.
Regards,
Rosemary
Wow, I did some research and I'm stunned.
I bet they have secret meetings with secret handshakes. I'd better stop listening to TK anymore, since he's obviously the devil.
I believe you HARD Rosemary Ainslie!
polln8r
Quote from: polln8r on May 22, 2012, 04:40:51 AM
Wow, I did some research and I'm stunned.
I bet they have secret meetings with secret handshakes. I'd better stop listening to TK anymore, since he's obviously the devil.
I believe you HARD Rosemary Ainslie!
polln8r
LOL That's a comfort Polinater. I was hoping I could convince you.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
;D
Rosemary:
I am going to rebut your misleading, lying, and malicious comments:
QuoteHi again polinater
I KNEW your were an artist. I'm just a dilettante. But I LOVE art. Always out there looking for nascent genius. It's a hobby of mine.
Regarding you being taught by TK. I trust you'll draw the line at his interpretation of instantaneous wattage on a switched circuit - among other GLARING errors. But that's between you and him. What's between me and TK is the gross misrepresentation of our work. That's not acceptable. And he can say WHAT he likes. It's our inalienable right to speak our minds. But NOT so much when you're not prepared to show your name and be accountable. IF Stefan revised rules to ensure this - then I KNOW that there would be some considerable moderation to those statements. And while that may deprive you of entertainment - it would also do MUCH to advance this technology of ours. HIS object is to trivialise this by association to that 'shared' opinion with a NOISY minority. I'll be able to prove this - in the near future. But meanwhile - it does damage.
I also know that TK has invested an awful lot of time on this. He needs to. It's how he earns his living. If you doubt it then check out a thread here on this forum where they explore ways to IDENTIFY the troll. His methods are classic. And there's a whistle blower there who admits to having been 'invited' to 'join the force' so to speak. They're ACTIVE. It's my opinion that our forum owner has this agenda. But that's still to be proved. Hopefully we'll find out later today.
Meanwhile - just for the record - TK's efforts at educating our forum members are somewhat IMPAIRED. Certainly when they're related to those power measurements that he keeps referring to.
Regards,
Rosemary
The highlighted items in order:
I keep telling and telling you there is no issue with TK's understanding of instantaneous and average power. You are the one that is having the problem. You have made this ridiculous point about 10 times now. When is it going to stop?
You are lying, there is no "gross misrepresentation."
His object is to reveal the truth about the operation of your circuit, nothing more, nothing less.
Nonsensical paranoia. Either you are lying about this for "show" or you are deluded. In the big scheme of things with the "energy cartels and all" you and your project are an unknown and insignificant amoeba.
Bold-faced lie that everyone knows is not true.
You continue to demean and degrade yourself by uttering this kind of nonsense.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 22, 2012, 04:45:37 AM
LOL That's a comfort Polinater. I was hoping I could convince you.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
;D
There's nothing to convince me of, and no point in trying.
There's an easy way to determine how widespread Rosemarie's view of TK's power analysis actually is:
http://www.overunity.com/12380/paging-rosemarie-ainslies-nerd-team/new/#new (http://www.overunity.com/12380/paging-rosemarie-ainslies-nerd-team/new/#new)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
MilesAsEverOffCentre
Poor Rosie had to point out that the READING that PW was making was based on the DC coupled value. He concluded that the the LeCroy had bombed or the MOSFET had blown. He was wrong on both counts.
I've sent you a PM MileHigh. You need to do some rather elementary corrections to one of your posts. It'll spare you some embarrassment.
Rosie Pose
:-*
So many pages over the past 12 days or so and I see very little has changed.
"Poor Rosie",
I see you continue to misquote and misdirect. I never said the LeCroy "had bombed", whatever you mean by that. I do stand by my contention that Q1 is either defective or disconnected in the FIG 3 capture as no current flow is indicated when there sholud be.
In your FIG 3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the CH 3 trace shows +12 volts or so being applied to the gate of Q1. During that same period of time, the CH 1 trace indicates little or no current flow.
Assuming that the schematic in the first paper is correct, the lack of indicated current flow can only mean that Q1 is defective or has somehow become disconnected from the circuit.
You argued that the 'scope shot was not being read correctly and that the offset numbers or AC/DC coupling was somehow involved and that these needed to be factored in when determining the Q1 gate drive level. I believe you countered with something like 6 volts was only being applied to the Q1 gate. Even that amount of voltage at the Q1 gate should have turned on Q1 while the CSR trace indicates it is not turned on.
During my attempts to teach you how to read your own 'scope captures, I stated that the offest numbers on the LeCroy (the OFS numbers), merely indicate the distance a trace has been positioned from the center of the graticule. The OFS numbers have nothing to do with the +12volts indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. As for the AC/DC coupling issue, the captures use DC coupling precicely as one should for these captures.
You continued to dispute my assertions regarding how to read/use your 'scope (as well as .99's), so I called LeCroy tech support in New York and they too confirmed that the OFS numbers merely indicate the distance the zero ref line of a trace has been positioned from the center of the graticule and have no bearing on measurements read off the screen. A brief discussion describing the 'scope settings and waveforms depicted in the FIG 3 capture confirm that +12 is being applied to the gate of Q1. Feel free to call them and confirm this.
Assuming you will take the word of the people who actually built your 'scope, then indeed there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and yet little or no current flow is indicated.
How else can this be explained other than a defective Q1 or that Q1 has somehow lost a connection during that capture? These are the only two possibilities that I can think of.
Feel free to provide an alternate explanation if you have one, but please do stop putting your words in my mouth.
PW
This I was receiving today:
Good day Mr Hartman.
The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein.
We have been instructed by our client that your forum, www.overunity.com (http://www.overunity.com) continues to denigrate our client’s good name and impugn the work of her associates on the ‘TK’s Tar Baby’ Thread.
Furthermore, we have been instructed that members of the forum, including Phichaser, TinselKoala, FuzzyTomCat, Mrsean, picowatt, and MileHigh and evolvingape are in breach of forum guidelines through insults and allegations made to our client.
As a result, we have been instructed by our client that you provide us with the email and IP addresses, of the above members, in order for us to take the necessary steps.
Furthermore, we have therefore been instructed, as we hereby do, to request that you immediately lock the thread to prevent any future abuse.
We trust your actions will be guided accordingly.
Kind Regards
N. H.
M. T. Attorneys
======================
P.S. I deleted the Attorney name and her adress
TK,
I see over the past 50 pages or so that there are a few additional 'scope captures to look at. I also particularly like the melted battery clip!
You have questioned some of the relatively slow ramp shaped waveforms when the FG is switching in some of the 'scope captures. These ramp like waveforms may be explained by a faulty Rgen=50R in the FG. If experiments got out of control sufficiently to melt the clip in the photo, than it is not unrealistic to suspect that as much as 72 volts may have been applied to the FG terminals during a MOSFET failure. Applying 60-72 volts to the FG terminal from a Q2 DS short or a Q1 DG short for only a short period of time will likely stress the Rgen=50R resistor. If Ren were a wirewound it would likely fuse open, but, as a non-inductive resistor would be preferred in this usage, likely a carbon or MOX resistor was used. These types tend to go high in resistance when stressed. So, if Rgen were much increased from 50R, it could explain the increased transition times.
In other words, maybe some of the smoke escaped from Rgen.
PW
@hartiberlin
I've already provided Ainslie with two email addresses that she acknowledges in her previous posts are legitimate: idiots(at)seani(dot)justemail(dot)net and legalaction(at)seani(dot)justemail(dot)net
I'm perfectly content for you to send either of those addresses on, in addition to the address I used to signup to Overunity. Similarly, I have no problem whatsoever in you passing on my IP address if you feel compelled to.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 22, 2012, 01:55:42 PM
This I was receiving today:
Good day Mr Hartman.
The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein.
We have been instructed by our client that your forum, www.overunity.com (http://www.overunity.com) continues to denigrate our client’s good name and impugn the work of her associates on the ‘TK’s Tar Baby’ Thread.
Furthermore, we have been instructed that members of the forum, including Phichaser, TinselKoala, FuzzyTomCat, Mrsean, picowatt, and MileHigh and evolvingape are in breach of forum guidelines through insults and allegations made to our client.
As a result, we have been instructed by our client that you provide us with the email and IP addresses, of the above members, in order for us to take the necessary steps.
Furthermore, we have therefore been instructed, as we hereby do, to request that you immediately lock the thread to prevent any future abuse.
We trust your actions will be guided accordingly.
Kind Regards
N. H.
M. T. Attorneys
======================
P.S. I deleted the Attorney name and her adress
Harti,
I do not believe I have violated forum guidelines or made false allegations or insults towards Rosemary. I would greatly appreciate your guidance (or anyone else's) indicating where I have done so.
As for the release of IP and any other user info, what are this forum's privacy guidelines? Should not a court order be required for such info to be released? I do not believe I have violated any guidelines or criminal/civil laws and I for one would not want to be personally harrassed by someone for merely posting and commenting on what I thought was a technical discussion. I also believe releasing any private info would be a death blow to all forums such as these.
In any event, if her lawyer feels I have in some way done something actionable, I would appreciate the opportunity to see what is claimed and respond to it prior to any private info release, as I cannot believe any lawyer would claim I have done anything actionable.
I have just begun catching up on 12 days or so of reading of this thread and see no point in Rosemary participating in this forum. She offers no technical info regarding her circuit nor has she performed any further tests as you requested. It seems she only wishes to impune the integrity or skill set of those that comment. I see very little if any discussion from her regarding her technology or discussion of TK's circuit. It seems her only goal is to make this thread go away, which if you succumb, she will have succeded in doing.
So, how do you plan to respond?
PW
Stefan
You are under no obligation to respond to that letter in any way.
There is nothing in it, neither expressed nor implied, of any legal action.
Even though you banned me for a year from your forum at Ainslie's behest,
let me be the first to hereby pledge $1000 towards any legal expenses
you may incur in regard to this matter.
The Boss
@PW:
Welcome back, I hope you had a good weekend.....
One thing that has changed is that it is a lot easier now to look at and compare the NERD scope shots. I've taken all the SCRN shots I could find and zipped them up into a file called SCRN2.zip, linked a few pages back, and mrsean2k has placed this file on a web page where they display thumbnails very nicely. Here's the link, in case you missed it.
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/
There are a couple of my decodings in there too I think. All these have been secretly rifled from Ainslie's computer and thumb drive.... BY AINSLIE HERSELF, who posted them all at one time or another in her blog or on this forum. But she's going to sue us all anyway.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 02:53:16 PM
@PW:
Welcome back, I hope you had a good weekend.....
One thing that has changed is that it is a lot easier now to look at and compare the NERD scope shots. I've taken all the SCRN shots I could find and zipped them up into a file called SCRN2.zip, linked a few pages back, and mrsean2k has placed this file on a web page where they display thumbnails very nicely. Here's the link, in case you missed it.
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/
There are a couple of my decodings in there too I think. All these have been secretly rifled from Ainslie's computer and thumb drive.... BY AINSLIE HERSELF, who posted them all at one time or another in her blog or on this forum. But she's going to sue us all anyway.
TK,
Try not reading this thread for 12 days and then catching up. It seems very little changes indeed.
From my read, I believe your thread has been hijacked!
I really like the melted battery clip photo. Maybe everyone should consider an inline fuse!!
PW
Here, Stefan, just send these back to the lawyer.
(I have many more cases, mostly in her own words, in my database proving that Ainslie is insulting, libellous, and a liar, and I'll make the full database available to anyone that wants it.)
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 22, 2012, 01:55:42 PM
This I was receiving today:
Good day Mr Hartman.
The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein.
We have been instructed by our client that your forum, www.overunity.com (http://www.overunity.com) continues to denigrate our client’s good name and impugn the work of her associates on the ‘TK’s Tar Baby’ Thread.
Furthermore, we have been instructed that members of the forum, including Phichaser, TinselKoala, FuzzyTomCat, Mrsean, picowatt, and MileHigh and evolvingape are in breach of forum guidelines through insults and allegations made to our client.
As a result, we have been instructed by our client that you provide us with the email and IP addresses, of the above members, in order for us to take the necessary steps.
Furthermore, we have therefore been instructed, as we hereby do, to request that you immediately lock the thread to prevent any future abuse.
We trust your actions will be guided accordingly.
Kind Regards
N. H.
M. T. Attorneys
======================
P.S. I deleted the Attorney name and her adress
Stefan,
I have already PM'd you some time ago with my concerns with the forum policies when they were change shortly after my membership.
Please find attached copy of the prior to September 14, 2008, 06:41:13 PM edit .....
Quote
6. Specific Use
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
This is a copy of the present forum policy after September 14, 2008, 06:41:13 PM .....
Quote
6. Specific Use
You further agree not to use the website to send or post any message or material that is unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, indecent, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, sexually orientated, racially offensive, profane, pornographic or violates any applicable law and you hereby indemnify the Website Owner against any loss, liability, damage or expense of whatever nature which the Website Owner or any third party may suffer which is caused by or attributable to, whether directly or indirectly, your use of the website to send or post any such message or material.
Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 06:41:13 PM by hartiberlin
I would strongly suggest for the items that were removed shown in "magenta" be re-instated as soon as possible.
that you will not post any material which is false inaccurate The omission of these two items have caused enough problems in this forum and without them gives a error of security to post any garbage someone wants with no recourse of action.
Let the Ainslie's lawyers go to court to start the discovery process to get the IP addresses, obviously the attorneys haven't went through all the thousands of her postings ....
"REMEMBER" I have been libeled repetitively, called by Rosemary a thief and she has accused of stealing her technology and also claims that I call her technology my own work. This as you know these claims of hers has no merit what so ever, and Rosemary has never produced any evidence to support these claims of theft but it appears numerous times here at Over Unity and other forums she has been banned from.
Fuzzy
???
And of course there is the small matter that she has applied for and actively sought no less than THREE monetary awards for certain advances in energy technologies.
These applications are based on claims that have no support even from her own data, which we are examining here.
Some of the claims have been shown to be patently false, the result of errors due to Ainslie's mathematical ignorance, and yet the claims have not been withdrawn.
I'm sure any lawyer can connect those dots.
And furthermore, Ainslie has made statements here and on her blog that I interpret as physical threats, and I am very aware that she has contacted and harassed individuals with whom she does not agree. She even hounded and pestered the IEEE editors who rejected her manuscripts !!
I refuse to allow my clients, employers, and my family and those close to me to be threatened and harassed by this person.
The builders unite:
If Aaron & Stephan unite: We make voting poll and later a nice collective invoice, claiming compensation!
Based on the so called patented, "thrust-full" information over the wonder-full technics from RA and her RA-circuit, present as working, supported, given out of compassion to the hole world as here present against the energy crisis, for to be proven not working, not supported product-information.
12 years further, no public results, from RA no open results and not willing to demonstrate results.
Just send her a invoice, could be nice amount, Aaron / Stephan?
Regards, Johan
LMFAO!!!
pico... you signed up here but didn't read the user agreement nor the privacy policy?
tk... your 'interpretation' of statements is not legally binding. if you're so bothered, sue her... maybe i should give her your street address to accelerate this whole process? maybe i should stop over and bring you a pint to cheer you up... ;)
the boss... grumpy is that you? how many usernames do you have now? and how many times have you been banned?
johan... an invoice? LMFAO some more. where pray tell, is the contract?
Wow, this is getting .... heated. (rimshot)
@hartiberlin,
There is no need to take any action based on the letter sent by Rosemary's attorney. Every line begins with, "we have been instructed". In other words the attorney is writing on behalf of their client and assigning all testimony and request for action as a correspondent for that client. If and when the attorney writes that "I" or "We" find or believe that something actionable is or has been taking place, then I would take notice. First I would look into whether or not this alleged attorney is actually in good standing and currently a member of the "bar" or what ever body governs attorneys in South Africa (I assume this is the jurisdiction). This letter is a toothless threat bought and paid for by RA.
Regards,
ReFried
Harti,
If her lawyer really wanted to contact members here, what is stopping them from creating an account and PM'ing thru the forum? Heck, start a thread where we can then openly post all the PM's for discussion! Let her lawyers post! One big happy discussion.
This appears to be just a fishing trip looking for private info for her to do with as "she" pleases.
Again, I would like to hear what "she" or her lawyer thinks I have said that is in any way a violation of forum guidelines, false or actionable.
It seems "she" wishes not to discuss the technical aspects of her data but would rather goad people into losing their cool so "she" can then whine about that.
Whatever credibility this woman or her circuit may have had just went down the toilet as far as I am concerned. It is but a crowning act on top of all the arguing, technical gibberish, and denigration on her part. And to think that I have actually defended her in the past, that will happen no more. I am indeed disgusted for ever doing so.
I certainly hope her lawyer hires an expert EE to review her technology and all her posts. Maybe then we will find out why Q1 is not functioning in FIG 3. It seems "she" has no intention of discussing it or even admitting there is a problem.
PW
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 22, 2012, 01:55:42 PM
This I was receiving today:
Good day Mr Hartman.
The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein.
We have been instructed by our client that your forum, www.overunity.com (http://www.overunity.com) continues to denigrate our client’s good name and impugn the work of her associates on the ‘TK’s Tar Baby’ Thread.
Furthermore, we have been instructed that members of the forum, including Phichaser, TinselKoala, FuzzyTomCat, Mrsean, picowatt, and MileHigh and evolvingape are in breach of forum guidelines through insults and allegations made to our client.
As a result, we have been instructed by our client that you provide us with the email and IP addresses, of the above members, in order for us to take the necessary steps.
Furthermore, we have therefore been instructed, as we hereby do, to request that you immediately lock the thread to prevent any future abuse.
We trust your actions will be guided accordingly.
Kind Regards
N. H.
M. T. Attorneys
======================
P.S. I deleted the Attorney name and her adress
Rosemary you are unbelievable and you are a liar and a fraud your technology does not work as you claim.
So if you want to take legal action against anyone you will have to show that your Technology Works,
which as we all know it does not so you will lose any action you take, as you will be the one committing an offence.
You really should seek medical attention you are clearly not of sound mind.
Bingo.
Ainslie wrote that letter herself.
NOBODY that I have ever seen except for Ainslie uses the following construction:
"The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein. "
She's used this "refers" construction a lot.
Of course what a real lawyer would say is
"In re the above matter" or "Referring to the above matter".
What she has is backwards. The "matter" doesn't "refer".... it is REFERRED TO.
She wrote that letter herself.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 05:39:26 PM
Bingo.
Ainslie wrote that letter herself.
NOBODY that I have ever seen except for Ainslie uses the following construction:
"The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein. "
She's used this "refers" construction a lot.
Of course what a real lawyer would say is
"In re the above matter" or "Referring to the above matter".
What she has is backwards. The "matter" doesn't "refer".... it is REFERRED TO.
She wrote that letter herself.
::) assumption, speculation and conjecture... your hallmarks.
Have you ever heard it said that way before, Wilby? How about if I produce several examples from Ms. Ainslie's writings?
Have you told her that mailing address I gave you years ago when you promised to send me a mosfet, and then welshed?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 06:19:50 PM
Have you ever heard it said that way before, Wilby? How about if I produce several examples from Ms. Ainslie's writings?
Have you told her that mailing address I gave you years ago when you promised to send me a mosfet, and then welshed?
whether i have or haven't, is irrelevant. and your previous post remains assumption, speculation and conjecture. or do you have some proof (again, your opinion doesn't constitute proof...) of your specious claim? i'll wait... ::)
that P.O. box i staked out to find you? no, but thanks for your permission, i'll send it to her straightaway.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 22, 2012, 06:24:49 PM
whether i have or haven't, is irrelevant. and your previous post remains assumption, speculation and conjecture. or do you have some proof (again, your opinion doesn't constitute proof...) of your specious claim? i'll wait... ::)
that P.O. box i staked out to find you? no, but thanks for your permission, i'll send it to her straightaway.
If you think that was permission you are mistaken. But I clearly cannot control your threats, your lies and broken promises, or other actions. But... we'll just have to see if there are any consequences of your actions.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 06:28:40 PM
If you think that was permission you are mistaken. But I clearly cannot control your threats, your lies and broken promises, or other actions. But... we'll just have to see if there are any consequences of your actions.
so that's a no then on the proof... imagine that!
it was, and no i wasn't. clearly you cannot control any of my actions, just as i cannot control a single one of your assumptions, speculations and asinine conjectures. ::) or... we'll just have to see if there are any consequences of your actions... ;)
So, I note that YOUR image and search supports MY POINT exactly. Her use of the term is idiosyncratic and I nor YOU have ever seen it used that way before, have you, WILBY.
But MY images show her using it that way at least 4 times, and I have other examples too.
I also "assume" that, you, master logician, have no objections to the way Ainslie calculates or the way she cricitises MY power calculations. Therefore.... well.... DO THE MATH, troll.
And if you think I have given you permission to disclose anything you think you might know about me, you are wrong. I have not given you that permission. However if you choose to act otherwise, I will feel correspondingly unrestrained.
Harti,
It might be wise to place a call or contact the lawyer by an advertised email (one different from whence received) to verify the letter actually originated from them.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 06:41:53 PM
So, I note that YOUR image and search supports MY POINT exactly. Her use of the term is idiosyncratic and I nor YOU have ever seen it used that way before, have you, WILBY.
no, it doesn't. it was posted to demonstrate that you are engaging in the logical fallacy known as 'biased sample'. you are misusing the type of reasoning known variously as inductive generalization, generalization, and statistical generalization, troll. but... it went right over your head. imagine that!
so to recap... since tinselkoala/alsetalokin doesn't think the email was written in form that
texas lawyers write legalese, rosemary is the culprit... because heaven forbid that anyone else who is from south africa (like the lawyer hired to send the email...) would use the same 'language' as rose (who is from south africa)... such brilliant assumptions, speculation and conjecture... you have my infinite admiration. ::) as an aside, have you seen
every instantiation of the word 'refers'? have you TROLL? no? i thought so. again, tu stultus es!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 06:41:53 PM
But MY images show her using it that way at least 4 times, and I have other examples too.
oh my! your cherry picked images to support your assumptions, speculations and conjectures show nothing but your assumptions, speculations and conjectures. once again... do you have any
proof? you do know what 'proof' means right?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 06:41:53 PM
I also "assume" that, you, master logician, have no objections to the way Ainslie calculates or the way she cricitises MY power calculations. Therefore.... well.... DO THE MATH, troll.
irrelevant to what we are discussing... another of your red herrings, troll.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 06:41:53 PM
And if you think I have given you permission to disclose anything you think you might know about me, you are wrong. I have not given you that permission. However if you choose to act otherwise, I will feel correspondingly unrestrained.
oh my! threats of a good time... i'm so effing scared. ::)
A kangaroo court in a culvert. lol It's going to be held in Latin.
Inherit the Zipons - The Scopes Electro-Monkey trial. 8) 8) 8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 14, 2012, 02:29:07 PM
I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt (maybe I read it in WIKI, even) that if it is raining and I look outside, the sidewalk in front of my house will be wet and there will be droplets of water falling from the sky.
Right? I mean, this is the very definition of rainfall and its result on the environment. Isn't it?
So... I'm getting to go walk the wild beasts and I take a glance out my soiled, dirty tiny window, and I see that the tiny corner of my sidewalk is indeed wet, and there sure are droplets of water falling from the sky.
Therefore, I can reliably conclude that it is raining........... RIGHT?
So I proclaim to all the world on my blog that I have discovered that it is RAINING in South Texas for the first time in DAYS... and I run and get my umbrella and galoshes and put the canidae in a big plastic sack and go outside..... where I notice that the sun is shining brilliantly from a cloudless sky and the next door neighbor's kid is watering their lawn. And my sidewalk. And she is squirting water up to see how high she can get it.
Post hoc, non propter hoc. And the distinction between Modus ponens and Modus tollens.
If A, then B. Observe A.... then conclude B. Duh. If the premise is true the conclusion is true because this is a tautology.
Observe NOT A... maybe B, maybe not. Something else besides A might be able to do B. To conclude NOT B from NOT A is a fallacy.
If A, then B. Observe B.... maybe A, maybe not. Something else might be doing the B that you observe. To conclude A from observing B is a fallacy.
Observe NOT B..... then you can be CERTAIN... NOT A. Of course your observations have to be not only Precise... but also ACCURATE.
Note carefully: the only thing you can be sure of is either a NEGATIVE or a TAUTOLOGY.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 05:39:26 PM
Bingo.
Ainslie wrote that letter herself.
NOBODY that I have ever seen except for Ainslie uses the following construction:
"The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein. "
She's used this "refers" construction a lot.
Of course what a real lawyer would say is
"In re the above matter" or "Referring to the above matter".
What she has is backwards. The "matter" doesn't "refer".... it is REFERRED TO.
She wrote that letter herself.
compare, contrast... conclusion: tinselkoala/alsetalokin is a pretentious fool without integrity who uses logic when it suits his purpose and throws logic out when it suits his purpose. ::)
Well yes, quite the development. Let's not get our knickers in a twist I say. Wouldn't be cricket. Remember our colours lads. In any case, (I refer.) is not quite unknown. It is an old and deprecated expression of British English. It was most commonly used as an affectation deployed by now dead British professors. (May they rest in peace) With a brief explanation the right hand with index finger extended bends back towards the board with a casual yet imperious air. Usually pointing to an equation or example and less often a quote. I refer. More modern yet still arcane is the English expression "to wit" more often used in writing ... Yes I've been around and yes I'm actually old enough to have heard this shit.
Clawing back to our current situation ... Stefan must do what Stefan feels is best for the security of his forum. Having said that I do hope that his testicular fortitude goes into OverUnity mode. I had not considered as PicoWatt's mentioned, that the message Stefan received might have been an email. Emails are spoofed and sometimes friends borrow a paper with letterhead and envelope from an attorney and get up to mischief. I don't believe its unreasonable to request the attorney to send a registered letter with a notarized signature. Also, requesting identification of their registered number if they are a barrister or the jurisdiction they are registered in as an attorney. Stefan need not agree with their client. She has, after all, been a very naughty girl. Perhaps the attorney could explain more, in her own words, why the complaint of her client is credible or even important before considering giving up privileged information. There is also the burden of RA's numerous libelous statements towards credible correspondents here. Libelous statements without a hint of credible basis.
Cheers,
ReFried
Quote from: ReFried on May 22, 2012, 09:27:18 PM
Well yes, quite the development. Let's not get our knickers in a twist I say. Wouldn't be cricket. Remember our colours lads. In any case, (I refer.) is not quite unknown. It is an old and deprecated expression of British English. It was most commonly used as an affectation deployed by now dead British professors. (May they rest in peace) With a brief explanation the right hand with index finger extended bends back towards the board with a casual yet imperious air. Usually pointing to an equation or example and less often a quote. I refer. More modern yet still arcane is the English expression "to wit" more often used in writing ... Yes I've been around and yes I'm actually old enough to have heard this shit.
Clawing back to our current situation ... Stefan must do what Stefan feels is best for the security of his forum. Having said that I do hope that his testicular fortitude goes into OverUnity mode. I had not considered as PicoWatt's mentioned, that the message Stefan received might have been an email. Emails are spoofed and sometimes friends borrow a paper with letterhead and envelope from an attorney and get up to mischief. I don't believe its unreasonable to request the attorney to send a registered letter with a notarized signature. Also, requesting identification of their registered number if they are a barrister or the jurisdiction they are registered in as an attorney. Stefan need not agree with their client. She has, after all, been a very naughty girl. Perhaps the attorney could explain more, in her own words, why the complaint of her client is credible or even important before considering giving up privileged information. There is also the burden of RA's numerous libelous statements towards credible correspondents here. Libelous statements without a hint of credible basis.
Cheers,
ReFried
ReFried,
That's funny, I hadn't considered that Harti might have received notice by post! I guess I sometimes forget that snail mail still exists. Either way, it would be wise to verify the source.
As to the rest, well said,
PW
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 22, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
compare, contrast... conclusion: tinselkoala/alsetalokin is a pretentious fool without integrity who uses logic when it suits his purpose and throws logic out when it suits his purpose. ::)
Actually, no.
You may seek to belittle me but I know you are just passing wind.
I've looked at your history of posting, Wontbesober. I don't think you've made a helpful or creative comment, at all, ever, in any thread you've ever posted in. Your posts, in fact, just like these recent ones, are textbook examples of trolling: they are off topic, picky snide little remarks designed to do nothing but distract from the main issues and cause a reaction. You are the resident troll of OU dot com and everybody knows it.
I am perfectly well aware, as you seem not to be, that my statement about the letter is conjecture. I support my conjecture with other instances taken from her writings where she uses the same construction, which is different from the examples you gave and indeed is even different from the examples of the Old Professors given above. Ainslie's "matters" REFER, they are not referred to.
And your poke at my logic is a very typical argumentum ad hominem , abusive (and stupid). What I do or say has no bearing on what Ainslie has done or said, or the nature of the evidence that Ainslie herself has provided. I could be as logic-impaired as you or she, and the evidence would still support the presumption that she wrote that letter herself.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 10:00:20 PM
Actually, no.
actually, yes. supported by your own words. you ignorant slut...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 10:00:20 PM
You may seek to belittle me but I know you are just passing wind.
as you sow, so shall you reap.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 10:00:20 PM
I've looked at your history of posting, Wontbesober. I don't think you've made a helpful or creative comment, at all, ever, in any thread you've ever posted in. Your posts, in fact, just like these recent ones, are textbook examples of trolling: they are off topic, picky snide little remarks designed to do nothing but distract from the main issues and cause a reaction. You are the resident troll of OU dot com and everybody knows it.
i don't care what you think... mint? why are you engaging in more logical fallacy? oh yeah... your hallmarks. my comments to you are always on topic... at least in the sense that they are refuting your various off-topic fallacies. ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 10:00:20 PM
I am perfectly well aware, as you seem not to be, that my statement about the letter is conjecture. I support my conjecture with other instances taken from her writings where she uses the same construction, which is different from the examples you gave and indeed is even different from the examples of the Old Professors given above. Ainslie's "matters" REFER, they are not referred to.
idiot. i called it conjecture immediately after you posted that tripe. so , i am obviously well aware... ::) again, tu stultus es!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 10:00:20 PM
And your poke at my logic is a very typical argumentum ad hominem , abusive (and stupid). What I do or say has no bearing on what Ainslie has done or said, or the nature of the evidence that Ainslie herself has provided. I could be as logic-impaired as you or she, and the evidence would still support the presumption that she wrote that letter herself.
no it is not. you don't seem to understand what ad hominem is. not surprising really, you have a nasty habit of changing definitions to suit you. ::)
# person a makes claim x.
# person b makes an attack on person a.
# therefore a's claim is false.
fill in the blanks and please demonstrate how my refutation of your (sarcasm)'logic'(/sarcasm) was ad hominem. let me start you out since you are so obviously confused... you are person a, your conjecture that rose sent the letter is claim x. i'll wait... ::)
furthermore, i have never claimed what you do or say has any bearing on what ainslie does or says. ::) that's just another one of your pretentious red herrings... i have only ever used your own words against you, troll.
so you don't have any proof... and yet you argue on... idiot troll. how about you go amend your accusation to 'i think she wrote that letter herself.' instead of "She wrote that letter herself."
again, tu stultus es!
'Nuff said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfggccwQrcY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfggccwQrcY)
Wil-"Bad vibes all the time"-beast. Making you unhappy makes him happy.
Let the Chet-monster and belching oozing Wil-beast forever be associated with each other.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 22, 2012, 10:42:35 PM
'Nuff said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfggccwQrcY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfggccwQrcY)
Wil-"Bad vibes all the time"-beast. Making you unhappy makes him happy.
Let the Chet-monster and belching oozing Wil-beast forever be associated with each other.
note the stunning (not) cogent argument from milelow...
he's still stroking...
he's breathing heavy now...
do you feel sticky milelow?
as an aside for tinselkoala/alsetalokin/kateallison, that ignorant slut... the above post by milelow is another logical fallacy, imagine that! not ad hominem... but, it is a red herring. there, now you are a little smarter... ::)
Maybe Wontbesober the master logician can tell us what kind of fallacy this is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 11:07:26 PM
Maybe Wontbesober the master logician can tell us what kind of fallacy this is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs)
it is no kind of logical fallacy you ignorant slut. it is a satirical caricature (parody). again, tu stultus es!
so that's a no then... you cannot fill in the blanks and demonstrate ad hominem, idiot troll.
Wil-beast,
You are just a creepy little schmuck, a guttersnipe. And you deserve getting your ass kicked for the joy you take in causing people misery and making them feel genuine fear. Why don't you just STFU unless you have something positive to contribute to a thread? Oh yeah, I forgot that you get off on this, it's all pulsations for you.
I guess when you are scurrying around looking for new disguise for your next visit to the US Post Office you don't have time for any pleasant thoughts.
Shove your logic and your Latin up your sorry skanky miserable ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTV2FVL8jw
You have years and years of trolling the forums causing misery for others under your belt for your own strange gratification, not to mention that little twitch you feel down there also.
You are universally despised, and we all associate you with the Chet-monster now!
MileHigh
another stunningly (not)cogent argument from milelow... imagine that!
Quote from: MileHigh on May 22, 2012, 11:16:07 PM
Wil-beast,
You are just a creepy little schmuck, a guttersnipe. And you deserve getting your ass kicked for the joy you take in causing people misery and making them feel genuine fear. Why don't you just STFU unless you have something positive to contribute to a thread? Oh yeah, I forgot that you get off on this, it's all pulsations for you.
I guess when you are scurrying around looking for new disguise for your next visit to the US Post Office you don't have time for any pleasant thoughts.
Shove your logic and your Latin up your sorry skanky miserable ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTV2FVL8jw
You have years and years of trolling the forums causing misery for others under your belt for your own strange gratification, not to mention that little twitch you feel down there also.
You are universally despised, and we all associate you with the Chet-monster now!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 22, 2012, 01:13:46 AM
Magluvin:
Ever since I told you that your one-magnet no-bearing spinner was never going to work and your friend's clip was a fake you have gone ape-shit on me. You have looked for opportunities to give me a hard time and you get argumentative to the point where most of what you say makes no sense and it's intentionally said just to add fuel to the fire.
The question that you posed to me that Poynt answered was a rigged question you intentionally made up to be as difficult as possible to start the same ridiculousness all over again. You had no interest in getting the answer to that question, it was just an attempt to engage me in a fight.
So before I even discuss this, the question for you is this:
Is this over and are you going to stop this behaviour from now on or are you going to continue looking for opportunities to have "big fights" and throw insults at me and wig out?
So what's it going to be from this point onwards?
MileHigh
compare, contrast... conclude.
regarding my ass getting kicked... come on down you old has been, and i'll knock your dick in the dirt. :)
and who is "we all"? do you have a turd in your pocket? ::) mags certainly associates you with the chet monster... as evidenced by the record, idiot troll.
why don't you and your turd (tinselkoala) go play in the road with your logical fallacies... here's a game for you: make a sentence from the following words... face, sodding. your, shut.
Everything I said about you is true and that's all that counts.
I conclude that Wilby is a worthless, talentless, thumbless fool who can't DO anything so he has to poke his little pokes at those who CAN and who DO. Did I say talentless? Sorry.... he does show one great talent. He seems to be able to type very rapidly.
And I base this on all the evidence that the Master Troll itself has left in its wake, strewn all over this forum like discarded candy wrappers and soggy cigarette butts.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 11:27:46 PM
I conclude that Wilby is a worthless, talentless, thumbless fool who can't DO anything so he has to poke his little pokes at those who CAN and who DO. Did I say talentless? Sorry.... he does show one great talent. He seems to be able to type very rapidly.
And I base this on all the evidence that the Master Troll itself has left in its wake, strewn all over this forum like discarded candy wrappers and soggy cigarette butts.
and yet you can provide no evidence to counter my refutations of your logical fallacies... imagine that! nor can you demonstrate logical fallacy where you have accused me of it... even when given the 'formula'... thus, i conclude that alsetalokin/tinselkoala/ignorantslut is a pretentious idiot troll.
yeah... you're slow. we already know that. that's why you failed diffy equations...
Quote from: MileHigh on May 22, 2012, 11:26:30 PM
Everything I said about you is true and that's all that counts.
good, good... keep demonstrating your megalomania by claiming to know my motivations and what gives me joy, troll.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 22, 2012, 11:32:11 PM
and yet you can provide no evidence to counter my refutations of your logical fallacies... imagine that! nor can you demonstrate logical fallacy where you have accused me of it... even when given the 'formula'... thus, i conclude that alsetalokin/tinselkoala/ignorantslut is a pretentious idiot troll.
yeah... you're slow. we already know that. that's why you failed diffy equations...
Actually, Troll.... the first time I "failed" it was because I had something more important to do on the day of the final.... I flew a 1-26C sailplane over 500 kilometers to earn my FAI Diamond Distance award. And yes, that was pretty slow, it took me nearly eight hours. In a sailplane. With no engine.
And, Troll, my logical fallacies have nothing at all to do with the claims Ainslie has made, her letter from her imaginary lawyers, or the threats she has made against me. And they most certainly do not have anything to do with the topic of this thread. But that's par for your course, since you cannot discuss technical issues at all without falling back into your inimitable personal obnoxious blowhard style. You lied to me and tricked me a long time ago, out of pure malice, and ever since then you have been nattering at me like a gnat in my ear, and with as much consequence. You can troll all you like but the truth remains:
Tar Baby performs just like NERD, Tar Baby is available NOW to prove it in side by side tests against NERD.
How about this, WILBY TROLL. I will send you Tar Baby, just as soon as you can prove to me that Ainslie has sent you NERD, and YOU YOURSELF can test and compare them and decide whether either or both or none are overunity and by how much.
And THAT is what this whole thread is about: Calling the bluff of the claimants and their pet trolls. PUT UP and prove your claims, including YOU, WilbyTroll, or go away and bother somebody else.
But you cannot. You've hugged a Tar Baby to your breast and you cannot come unstuck.
and why did you fail the second time? or third? because you are slow...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 01:12:36 AM
my logical fallacies have nothing at all to do with the claims Ainslie has made, her letter from her imaginary lawyers, or the threats she has made against me. And they most certainly do not have anything to do with the topic of this thread.
so you finally admit to your logical fallacies... finally we are getting somewhere. ::) so, to recap. tinselboy can make off topic, logically fallacious comments and that's ok, but if i dare to call him out, then i'm off topic... ::) what an idiot. isn't it about time for you to go postal and tell me to fuck off and die and run home to mommy? like the last time we played this game...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 01:12:36 AM
You lied to me and tricked me a long time ago, out of pure malice, and ever since then you have been nattering at me like a gnat in my ear, and with as much consequence.
you're an idiot for taking a total stranger seriously... and a troll.
still waiting for your retraction of your asinine conjecture that you stated as factual... and still waiting for you to fill in the blanks on that ad hominem formula, troll...
and still waiting for that mea culpa you owe me you insane bitch. ;)
I owe you nothing except the disrespect you continually earn and so richly deserve. In fact, YOU promised to send me something and you never did. That makes YOU owe ME, in Texas, you ignorant thumbless virgin dingo.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 01:29:01 AM
I owe you nothing except the disrespect you continually earn and so richly deserve. In fact, YOU promised to send me something and you never did. That makes YOU owe ME, in Texas, you ignorant thumbless virgin dingo.
and i owe you nothing... did you have a point troll? in point of fact you promised me an apology... so, tit for tat.
if you think i owe you something... well, come and collect it you ignorant slut. or keep pushing me and maybe i'll deliver to you. ;)
"you're an idiot for taking a total stranger seriously..."
So then you admit to deliberately defrauding me by promising me something that you NEVER intended to deliver.
Yes, I was naive in those days. Should I thank you, Troll, for the lesson?
"or keep pushing me and maybe i'll deliver to you. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fwink.gif&hash=0d9aacf9391b7fda4adbf7cd091f687bfd283341)"
That sure sounds like a threat to me. You have an address too. I'll be watching for you, Wilby, troll.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 01:34:19 AM
"you're an idiot for taking a total stranger seriously..."
So then you admit to deliberately defrauding me by promising me something that you NEVER intended to deliver.
Yes, I was naive in those days. Should I thank you, Troll, for the lesson?
indeed
no, i concede you are an idiot for thinking it was a genuine offer within the context of that discussion. furthermore, i have "defrauded" you of nothing... idiot, troll.
de·fraud/diˈfrôd/
Verb:
Illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.
there you go with that nasty habit of making up your own definitions... keep digging troll.
and you're still naive... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 01:36:24 AM
"or keep pushing me and maybe i'll deliver to you. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fwink.gif&hash=0d9aacf9391b7fda4adbf7cd091f687bfd283341)"
That sure sounds like a threat to me. You have an address too. I'll be watching for you, Wilby, troll.
gawd you're a paranoid insane bitch aren't you... so delivering you a mosfet is a threat now? idiot, troll.
of course it does. because... you're a delusional, paranoid, insane bitch aren't you jane? yeah you watch for me, being you have no idea what i look like, that should be interesting. i however, do know what you look like, i know your P.O. box and i know your address... so you won't be too hard to find again. maybe i'll bring you a pint, (oh gosh, i've done it now! he'll think that's a threat to firebomb his house...) or maybe a hatchet... to bury of course. ;)
Here's a definition from a LEGAL dictionary, describing what you did to me to a T:
Quote
To make a Misrepresentation (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Misrepresentation) of an existing material fact, knowing it to be false or making it recklessly without regard to whether it is true or false, intending for someone to rely on the misrepresentation and under circumstances in which such person does rely on it to his or her damage. To practice Fraud (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud); to cheat or trick. To deprive a person of property or any interest, estate, or right by fraud, deceit, or artifice.
You tell me you are going to send me something in order to trick me into giving you a mailing address, with no intention of ever sending anything.... that's in there, Wilby, you defrauded me.
Twist and squirm all you like, I am not the villain here.
This thread (circuit) is so aptly named...
It is STILL funny after sooo many pages...
I have a few questions TK: Is the optocoupler thing is a light triggered switch?
Are you after higher frequencies by using triggered leds and optocouplers instead of the FG (read AC voltage) signal?
Do you want to have the oscillations light the leds (to trigger the optocouplers?) I guess is what I'm asking?
I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to design, I just don't have the background so please put some more dots in there so I can connect them?
Lots of fun stuff in this thread lately BTW! ;)
Oy,
PC
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 01:43:35 AM
Here's a definition from a LEGAL dictionary, describing what you did to me to a T:
You tell me you are going to send me something in order to trick me into giving you a mailing address, with no intention of ever sending anything.... that's in there, Wilby, you defrauded me.
Twist and squirm all you like, I am not the villain here.
idiot... i never misrepresented a material fact. demonstrate where i did this you liar. nor have i damaged you. nor have i deprived you of property or any interest, estate, or right... idiot, troll.
"i however, do know what you look like, i know your P.O. box and i know your address..."
Do you now? Well.... you know, the only reason you know who your daddy is, is because your momma told you so. Isn't that right?
Maybe you think you know things that you don't really know.
And you don't really know what I know, or don't know, do you.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 01:48:20 AM
"i however, do know what you look like, i know your P.O. box and i know your address..."
Do you now? Well.... you know, the only reason you know who your daddy is, is because your momma told you so. Isn't that right?
Maybe you think you know things that you don't really know.
And you don't really know what I know, or don't know, do you.
actually you weren't that hard to find. you disseminated plenty of information publicly, visual and otherwise, that made it as easy as eating pancakes.
still waiting on your retraction of your asinine conjecture...
still waiting on you to fill in the blanks of the ad hominem formula...
still waiting on that mea culpa about the mosfet performance...
Sure, I've even shown my back yard, and you know I live in San Antonio, so you have been prowling over Google Earth until you find a match for my roofline. And you've carefully watched all 235 of my videos to piece together a composite image from reflections in my glasses and in windowpanes and dirty dishes. And you've run down my DNS server address and reverse-pinged and deconvoluted my IP address. Why, that's probably you wasting your gas idling outside right now, waiting to catch a glimpse of me through your telephoto lens.
You are one sick puppy, WilbyInebriated. But let me ask you.... will you ever be sober?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 02:02:29 AM
Sure, I've even shown my back yard, and you know I live in San Antonio, so you have been prowling over Google Earth until you find a match for my roofline. And you've carefully watched all 235 of my videos to piece together a composite image from reflections in my glasses and in windowpanes and dirty dishes. And you've run down my DNS server address and reverse-pinged and deconvoluted my IP address. Why, that's probably you wasting your gas idling outside right now, waiting to catch a glimpse of me through your telephoto lens.
You are one sick puppy, WilbyInebriated. But let me ask you.... will you ever be sober?
assumption, conjecture, speculation...
and you're an asinine pretentious troll... i'm sober right now idiot. it's wilby as in 'will be'... as in asinine pretentious trolls like you 'will be' driving me to drinking... ::) perhaps i should ask you the same question? is that why you say umm or uhh or ahh about every ten seconds in your videos?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2012, 01:46:58 AM
idiot... i never misrepresented a material fact. demonstrate where i did this you liar. nor have i damaged you. nor have i deprived you of property or any interest, estate, or right... idiot, troll.
1. You said you would send me a mosfet, and now you have admitted that you never intended to do so. That is a misrepresentation of a material fact.
2. You caused me intense pain and emotional suffering. I still can't sit down comfortably from the royal PAIN IN THE ASS that you are.
3. My privacy is a very valuable interest and you evidently have deprived me of it, or intend to.
4. And right now... you are attempting to damage me and my reputation, aren't you.
So in fact YOU are the liar, you liar you. Go back under your bridge, because you are falling on your face out here in the light, ignorant troll.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 02:09:51 AM
1. You said you would send me a mosfet, and now you have admitted that you never intended to do so. That is a misrepresentation of a material fact.
2. You caused me intense pain and emotional suffering. I still can't sit down comfortably from the royal PAIN IN THE ASS that you are.
3. My privacy is a very valuable interest and you evidently have deprived me of it, or intend to.
4. And right now... you are attempting to damage me and my reputation, aren't you.
So in fact YOU are the liar, you liar you. Go back under your bridge, because you are falling on your face out here in the light, ignorant troll.
1 no, it is not. check with your counsel. you are purposefully omitting the qualification stated in your 'legal' quote. "intending for someone to rely on the misrepresentation and under circumstances in which such person does rely on it to his or her damage" you were not damaged, troll.
2 whaa effing whaa. you caused yourself intense pain and emotional suffering. had you chosen your words with a little more care and had you not been such an anti-social insane bitch jane, you wouldn't have ever heard from me.
3 you deprived yourself of privacy... idiot.
4 no, i am calling out your logical fallacies... like i always do. and like i always will.
so sue me for 'defrauding' you... you insane bitch. see how that works out for you... ::) please record your conversation with counsel and post so all can have a good laugh at your counsel laughing at you. ;)
still waiting on your retraction of your asinine conjecture...
still waiting on you to fill in the blanks of the ad hominem formula...
still waiting on that mea culpa about the mosfet performance...
WilbyInebriated is Steve Windisch .... :o I wonder .... ???
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 23, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
This thread (circuit) is so aptly named...
It is STILL funny after sooo many pages...
I have a few questions TK: Is the optocoupler thing is a light triggered switch?
Yes, it is a chip that contains an LED on one side and a phototransistor on the other, all sealed up, so from the outside it's just a relay, but the fact that it uses light means there is no electrical connection at all between the input and output side, just the light.
Quote
Are you after higher frequencies by using triggered leds and optocouplers instead of the FG (read AC voltage) signal?
No, the idea behind the optocouplers was to isolate the electrical circuits of the FG from the main circuit under test. It works fine for that, but because the oscillations require that negative current source, the optocouplers kill the oscillations.
Quote
Do you want to have the oscillations light the leds (to trigger the optocouplers?) I guess is what I'm asking?
I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to design, I just don't have the background so please put some more dots in there so I can connect them?
Lots of fun stuff in this thread lately BTW! ;)
Oy,
PC
No, the optocouplers were never intended to be "lit up" by the oscillations. The ones I tried, H11 D1, I think, probably don't have the bandwidth response to go to 1.5 - 2 MHz anyway.
I'm not really trying to design anything more than what I've already done. The whole issue involving the FG was about determining if it passes significant current to the circuit and the load. The difficulty lies in the two modes of operation of the circuit. When a positive pulse is provided, the FG functions "normally" and isn't providing any power or current path, just a voltage to the gate of Q1. But when the pulse goes "negative" then the FG must provide a current path and a boosted voltage (negative) for the oscillations to happen. So the mode of operation of the circuit becomes important to deciding the FG's role.
I believe that the oscillations themselves contribute very little to load heating and battery depletion. All of the "high heat" trials that come with plausible descriptions and interpretable scope shots show substantial current flow during the "ON" or gate HI portions of the period, and there are no oscillations at these times. So, I believe that in order to make the "preferred" mode, that is high heat AND oscillations during some of the signal, a bipolar gate drive pulse must be used. This means that a simple 555 circuit can't do it, because it can't provide the "more negative than negative" bias current that is needed for oscs.
So I "designed" an inverter-timer circuit that would allow operation from the main battery and still make a more negative pole so that the oscillations could occur nevertheless. But now we are told that the positive gate pulse isn't needed. I doubt this, I think it is more misdirection from Ainslie to try to prevent Tar Baby from getting substantial heat in the load, while they refuse actually to test the proposition that THEY can get heat in the load without a positive gate pulse. A major RED HERRING in other words, one of many.
And I still think she wrote that lawyer letter herself. Perhaps she submitted text for lawyers to send along.... perhaps she actually sent it herself. I have never seen another instance of that usage of "refer" outside of Ainslie's own writings, though, and I have found at least 5 such examples within her writings. My conclusion that she wrote the letter is an example of inductive reasoning, something that I deduce is foreign to certain drunken trolls. Nobody maintains that inductive reasoning is infallible, but the troll in his shallow superficial knowledge of the words and usages of formal logic, pretends and acts as if I think it is and persists in nattering on about his own interpretation of what he would like me to say and mean.
I am perfectly happy at any time to be PROVEN WRONG about any of my contentions and the conclusions I might hold based on inductive reasoning. Show me some examples of that usage of "refer"... without the "to" and with the object-subject relationship inverted.... from other writings than Ainslie's and I'll believe less strongly... maybe... that she wrote it. Show me the letterhead of the legal firm over the text.... and maybe I'll call them up and ask them if they wrote it. But you show me an email claiming to be from a law firm but with a typical idiosyncratic Ainslie phrase in it..... well..... It must be strange to be Wilby, wondering if the sun will actually come up tomorrow or not, since the fact that it always has before isn't evidence that it will in the future.
The fact that the Q1 mosfet is not functioning properly in some of those scopeshots is a deduction and is not fallible, though. IF a positive gate pulse is delivered to a functioning mosfet in circuit, that mosfet will turn on and pass current. The mosfet was sent a positive gate signal. The mosfet did not turn on and pass current. Therefore the mosfet is either NOT getting the gate drive signal that is being delivered, OR it is not functioning or properly in circuit, or both. A failed mosfet, a miswired mosfet, a voltage regulator installed instead of a mosfet.... there are many explanations that may be INDUCED from the data, but what can certainly and positively be DEDUCED is that the mosfet isn't functioning properly. And that is a lot more germane to the present discussion than the exact meaning of "exact" when used to describe my temporary substitution of equivalent parts in a different circuit more than three years ago. In other words, a troll is a troll is a troll, QED.
The troll in his superficiality would like to use my illustration of the post hoc non propter hoc fallacious reasoning to call into question my own reasoning in the case of Ainslie's Lawyer Letter.
The letter refers.
(Did that make sense? Where have you seen that phraseology before, when it is the letter being referred TO, not doing the referring?)
If it is raining, the streets will be wet.
I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is a logical fallacy.
If it is raining, the streets will be wet. Nobody in these parts has ever seen a wet street except when it is raining. There is no garden hose, no little kid, no fire hydrant, no other source of water around. Every time it has rained in the past, the streets got wet, and every time in the past when the streets have been observed to be wet, it has been or is raining. And, further, it rains every day and the streets are observed to be wet from that rain every day.
Now... I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is an invalid DEDUCTION because of the logical fallacy. This does not mean that it is necessarily wrong, though.
Would I be very surprised to learn that, this time, the streets were wet from some other unknown and extremely rare cause? Of course, because considering the entire set of circumstances and history, it is overwhelmingly probable that these particular wet streets are made wet by ordinary rain. It is a valid induction to presume, until it is PROVEN OTHERWISE, that the streets are wet because of the rain.
This is the correct mapping of my Lawyer Letter conclusion to my earlier illustration of logical fallacy, not as superficially and falsely as the troll would have it.
And the reason I brought the discussion up in the first place has nothing to do with Ainslie's letter or who wrote it, but has everything to do with the thread topic of testing the Tar Baby and evaluating the data therefrom.
Ainslie sees a negative mean power product and concludes from it that her circuit is overunity, COP > INFINITY. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that the negative mean power product can be obtained easily in circuit configurations and circumstances that are nowhere near COP>INFINITY, and that a circuit with COP>Infinity would behave differently than hers does. And the cause of the effect of negative mean power has been explained theoretically and demonstrated experimentally in simulation and hardware. It is not logical for her to conclude from her data that her circuit is unusual at all, much less OU by the claimed amount, and this is shown by the very form of the argument; the particulars are irrelevant. She may provisionally choose to interpret her data as supporting her claim, but when they are shown not to do so by further experimentation, the claims must be dropped since there is no logical foundation that requires them to be true, and in fact they are contradictory.
I am free to believe that it is raining when I observe wet streets as long as I realise that this is not the only possible explanation .... but if somebody shows me the fire crew outside spraying their hoses in the bright sunshine, perhaps I should revise my belief based on the new facts I now have.
I am free to believe, based on what I know at this point, that Ainslie wrote the letter herself, because there is no logical contradiction involved in that belief and because there is suggestive evidence that supports the belief. I will also abandon that belief when... or rather IF.... I am presented with evidence that shows that my induction is impossible, not compatible with the facts.
Ainslie WAS perhaps at one time able logically to believe that her circuit may be doing something unusual, based on the information she had then and legitimate inductive reasoning therefrom. However, further experimentation could always reveal new information that makes that original conclusion, arrived at inductively, contradictory. And that is precisely what has happened. All of this should illustrate why it is important to try to _rule out_ alternative explanations for unusual or unexpected results, so that we don't succumb to the temptation of holding to a false conclusion in the face of contradictory data.
Therefore, Wilby is a professional troll and contributes nothing useful, only distraction and shallow, meaningless criticisms.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 07:54:01 AM
Yes, it is a chip that contains an LED on one side and a phototransistor on the other, all sealed up, so from the outside it's just a relay, but the fact that it uses light means there is no electrical connection at all between the input and output side, just the light. No, the idea behind the optocouplers was to isolate the electrical circuits of the FG from the main circuit under test.
Okay, I got that, makes sense.
Quote
It works fine for that, but because the oscillations require that negative current source, the optocouplers kill the oscillations.No, the optocouplers were never intended to be "lit up" by the oscillations. The ones I tried, H11 D1, I think, probably don't have the bandwidth response to go to 1.5 - 2 MHz anyway.
Is BEMF a negative current source? Off topic?
I was going to ask about using lower bandwidths but it seems like the oscillations won't allow it? That is to say they don't start until they get up in the MHz range?
Quote
I'm not really trying to design anything more than what I've already done. The whole issue involving the FG was about determining if it passes significant current to the circuit and the load. The difficulty lies in the two modes of operation of the circuit. When a positive pulse is provided, the FG functions "normally" and isn't providing any power or current path, just a voltage to the gate of Q1. But when the pulse goes "negative" then the FG must provide a current path and a boosted voltage (negative) for the oscillations to happen. So the mode of operation of the circuit becomes important to deciding the FG's role.
That is the part that I have a tough time with;the circuit affecting the FG. You just want to get those oscillations without the current coming from the FG. Would that be (closer to) OU then?
Quote
I believe that the oscillations themselves contribute very little to load heating and battery depletion. All of the "high heat" trials that come with plausible descriptions and interpretable scope shots show substantial current flow during the "ON" or gate HI portions of the period, and there are no oscillations at these times. So, I believe that in order to make the "preferred" mode, that is high heat AND oscillations during some of the signal, a bipolar gate drive pulse must be used. This means that a simple 555 circuit can't do it, because it can't provide the "more negative than negative" bias current that is needed for oscs.
So I "designed" an inverter-timer circuit that would allow operation from the main battery and still make a more negative pole so that the oscillations could occur nevertheless. But now we are told that the positive gate pulse isn't needed. I doubt this, I think it is more misdirection from Ainslie to try to prevent Tar Baby from getting substantial heat in the load, while they refuse actually to test the proposition that THEY can get heat in the load without a positive gate pulse. A major RED HERRING in other words, one of many.
The fact that the Q1 mosfet is not functioning properly in some of those scopeshots is a deduction and is not fallible, though. IF a positive gate pulse is delivered to a functioning mosfet in circuit, that mosfet will turn on and pass current. The mosfet was sent a positive gate signal. The mosfet did not turn on and pass current. Therefore the mosfet is either NOT getting the gate drive signal that is being delivered, OR it is not functioning or properly in circuit, or both. A failed mosfet, a miswired mosfet, a voltage regulator installed instead of a mosfet.... there are many explanations that may be INDUCED from the data, but what can certainly and positively be DEDUCED is that the mosfet isn't functioning properly. And that is a lot more germane to the present discussion than the exact meaning of "exact" when used to describe my temporary substitution of equivalent parts in a different circuit more than three years ago. In other words, a troll is a troll is a troll, QED.
I can see the logical deduction behind looking at the screenshots and the mosfet not passing anything because it was blown. It makes sense. Since those shots are using different settings at different times (connected how using which diagram?) there is only so much you can deduce from them, but it seems like Occam's razor is right again.
So you built a circuit based on available data to try to recreate those scope shots (or at least those robust parasitic oscillations). Not the same, but it does the same thing (only better) right?
Great research! The 'hot oil' calorie testing is really going that 'extra mile' to get reliable numbers, the sort of thing that allows accurate measurements, etc. Certainly better than the testing and measurements done on that 'other' circuit...
I can see that you understand more than RA does about it, anyone can after reading the technical posts and watching your vids. Honestly I would be amazed if RA understood some of those conversations with PW and .99!! (You will notice she stayed out of some of those entirely...)
Whenever a woman starts to call a man 'little' with the intention of insulting his 'stature' (intellect, whatever...), she is 'scraping the barrel'. She can't even argue her circuit anymore, you've already analyzed it three ways from Sunday compared to what she did with it... Sticky sticky...
And now for the poke of the day...
@ Rosemary: Is a Joule still a Watt PER Second and are you EVER going to do the DBT?
@ Wilby: Why don't you start your own research thread? Build your own circuit since you are such an intelligent individual. A troll doesn't start a thread, build things, make videos, etc., a troll spams threads and does NOTHING to advance anything. IF you tricked TK into giving you his address for ulterior purposes, you are a jackass. Shame on you TROLL! Post something relevant to the topic or go post somewhere else...
@ TK: Don't waste your time on that guy, you have better things to do!
Just getting my daily dose,
PC
P.S. For my two cents, that letter is NOT from an attorney, it is a fabrication from RA herself. Her style of 'prose' is pretty distinct (after you read a hundred of her posts anyways...). It also doesn't really SAY anything, which is also her style... ;)
@All,
I certainly hope Stefan makes an effort to verify the origin of the "lawyer lettter". Consider PM'ing him to request that he does so. A simple phone call may suffice.
In the US, I would guess that posing as an attorney is criminal (not civil) fraud.
It would say a lot to know just what lengths some might go to rather than discuss (not argue) things intelligently.
PW
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 23, 2012, 11:50:16 AM
@ Wilby: Why don't you start your own research thread? Build your own circuit since you are such an intelligent individual. A troll doesn't start a thread, build things, make videos, etc., a troll spams threads and does NOTHING to advance anything. IF you tricked TK into giving you his address for ulterior purposes, you are a jackass. Shame on you TROLL! Post something relevant to the topic or go post somewhere else...
why don't you? why don't you build your own circuit? if you want to see what a troll does look at tk and milehigh. what i am doing is holding up a mirror to them... furthermore, trolls don't spam... ::) spammers spam, trolls troll. since you have no idea what occurred between tk and i why don't you shut your sodding face, troll. all my posts in this topic DIRECTLY REFUTE POINT BY POINT fallacies by tk or milehigh. if you can find otherwise please present it. tu stultus es!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 07:54:01 AM
And I still think she wrote that lawyer letter herself. Perhaps she submitted text for lawyers to send along.... perhaps she actually sent it herself. I have never seen another instance of that usage of "refer" outside of Ainslie's own writings, though, and I have found at least 5 such examples within her writings. My conclusion that she wrote the letter is an example of inductive reasoning, something that I deduce is foreign to certain drunken trolls. Nobody maintains that inductive reasoning is infallible, but the troll in his shallow superficial knowledge of the words and usages of formal logic, pretends and acts as if I think it is and persists in nattering on about his own interpretation of what he would like me to say and mean.
I am perfectly happy at any time to be PROVEN WRONG about any of my contentions and the conclusions I might hold based on inductive reasoning. Show me some examples of that usage of "refer"... without the "to" and with the object-subject relationship inverted.... from other writings than Ainslie's and I'll believe less strongly... maybe... that she wrote it. Show me the letterhead of the legal firm over the text.... and maybe I'll call them up and ask them if they wrote it. But you show me an email claiming to be from a law firm but with a typical idiosyncratic Ainslie phrase in it..... well..... It must be strange to be Wilby, wondering if the sun will actually come up tomorrow or not, since the fact that it always has before isn't evidence that it will in the future.
nice red herring... ::) so that's a no then... you cannot prove rose sent the 'lawyer letter'. thanks for admitting your conjecture is nothing more than conjecture. gawds, it only took you 3 pages (of logically fallacious replies) ::)
how about you prove yourself right? and you're going to talk to me about logic when you've demonstrated that you don't even know what constitutes ad hominem? LMFAO you're such a little insane bitch troll. where is your demonstration of me committing ad hominem against you? oh yeah, you are still avoiding the demonstration because you know you were wrong (as usual). i even filled in 3/4ths of the formula for you. ::) DO THE MATH. ;) don't be such a fag troll... oh did i mention that was satirical?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyKBFCd_u4
and let me remind you, the art of kanly is still alive and well troll...
Wilby, you are saying that my arguments are invalid because you think I am a "fag troll" or whatever your latest bogus satirical slander is. Everybody who slept through the same logic classes you did understands that that is an argument against the PERSON, and it is abusive.
Thus it is demonstrated.
What is a troll? Somebody who posts offtopic irrelevant and insulting garbage to provoke a reaction. Most people say don't feed them. I toss them crumbs because it amuses me to see trolls walking on their tongues.
Now, let's see you analyse your mistress's posts for logical errors and false, unsupported claims. Will you? No, you will not. You will just continue to break wind .... and sniff.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 02:50:02 PM
Wilby, you are saying that my arguments are invalid because you think I am a "fag troll" or whatever your latest bogus satirical slander is. Everybody who slept through the same logic classes you did understands that that is an argument against the PERSON, and it is abusive.
Thus it is demonstrated.
wrong again... (as usual) nowhere did i claim you arguments are invalid because you are a 'fag troll'... idiot, your arguments are invalid because they are not logically sound. nice red herring though. still waiting for you to demonstrate EXACTLY how i committed ad hominem against you. i gave you the formula, 'do the math'. ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 02:50:02 PM
What is a troll? Somebody who posts offtopic irrelevant and insulting garbage to provoke a reaction. Most people say don't feed them. I toss them crumbs because it amuses me to see trolls walking on their tongues.
like you did when you started calling rose "an ignorant slut" or an "insane bitch"? like that troll? see, idiot... YOU set the precedent (as usual) and i hold up a mirror to you and you cry foul... whaaa efffing whaaa, troll
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 02:50:02 PM
Now, let's see you analyse your mistress's posts for logical errors and false, unsupported claims. Will you? No, you will not. You will just continue to break wind .... and sniff.
let's see you address the ad hominem accusation before we get into any of your other red herrings... troll. and you'll be needing to provide that public mea culpa you owe me.
Quote from: picowatt on May 23, 2012, 01:46:03 PM
@All,
I certainly hope Stefan makes an effort to verify the origin of the "lawyer lettter". Consider PM'ing him to request that he does so. A simple phone call may suffice.
In the US, I would guess that posing as an attorney is criminal (not civil) fraud.
It would say a lot to know just what lengths some might go to rather than discuss (not argue) things intelligently.
PW
It is entirely possible and perhaps even legitimate for Ainslie to have written a draft text for submission to the attorneys for their signatures.
I have also found (with help from _friends_ not trolls) several other examples (from Malaysian business English and Nigerian 419 scammer emails and old court documents) of this weird use of "refer" or "refers", without the "to" and with the subject-object relationship inverted.
Still, I doubt that Ainslie, with all her complaints about how much real testing would cost, would spend the money to get some lawyers to write such a silly toothless letter. That's probably five hundred dollars worth of legalese there !
(Hey.... Wilby...... are you brilliant enough to recognise a CONJECTURE when you see one? Evidently you need to have them pointed out to you... so look here, NOTE BENE as the pseudointellectuals say: it is a CONJECTURE that Ainslie paid 500 dollars to have some junior law clerk write that letter.)
I owe you nothing but the disrespect you have so competently earned, you effete pseudointellectual slob, Wilby. And if you check very carefully, you will note that the name calling was indeed initiated by your idol, long ago. I always reserve the right to respond in kind, troll idiot thumbless Wilby.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 08:31:57 AM
The troll in his superficiality would like to use my illustration of the post hoc non propter hoc fallacious reasoning to call into question my own reasoning in the case of Ainslie's Lawyer Letter.
The letter refers.
(Did that make sense? Where have you seen that phraseology before, when it is the letter being referred TO, not doing the referring?)
If it is raining, the streets will be wet.
I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is a logical fallacy.
If it is raining, the streets will be wet. Nobody in these parts has ever seen a wet street except when it is raining. There is no garden hose, no little kid, no fire hydrant, no other source of water around. Every time it has rained in the past, the streets got wet, and every time in the past when the streets have been observed to be wet, it has been or is raining. And, further, it rains every day and the streets are observed to be wet from that rain every day.
Now... I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is an invalid DEDUCTION because of the logical fallacy. This does not mean that it is necessarily wrong, though.
Would I be very surprised to learn that, this time, the streets were wet from some other unknown and extremely rare cause? Of course, because considering the entire set of circumstances and history, it is overwhelmingly probable that these particular wet streets are made wet by ordinary rain. It is a valid induction to presume, until it is PROVEN OTHERWISE, that the streets are wet because of the rain.
This is the correct mapping of my Lawyer Letter conclusion to my earlier illustration of logical fallacy, not as superficially and falsely as the troll would have it.
And the reason I brought the discussion up in the first place has nothing to do with Ainslie's letter or who wrote it, but has everything to do with the thread topic of testing the Tar Baby and evaluating the data therefrom.
Ainslie sees a negative mean power product and concludes from it that her circuit is overunity, COP > INFINITY. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that the negative mean power product can be obtained easily in circuit configurations and circumstances that are nowhere near COP>INFINITY, and that a circuit with COP>Infinity would behave differently than hers does. And the cause of the effect of negative mean power has been explained theoretically and demonstrated experimentally in simulation and hardware. It is not logical for her to conclude from her data that her circuit is unusual at all, much less OU by the claimed amount, and this is shown by the very form of the argument; the particulars are irrelevant. She may provisionally choose to interpret her data as supporting her claim, but when they are shown not to do so by further experimentation, the claims must be dropped since there is no logical foundation that requires them to be true, and in fact they are contradictory.
I am free to believe that it is raining when I observe wet streets as long as I realise that this is not the only possible explanation .... but if somebody shows me the fire crew outside spraying their hoses in the bright sunshine, perhaps I should revise my belief based on the new facts I now have.
I am free to believe, based on what I know at this point, that Ainslie wrote the letter herself, because there is no logical contradiction involved in that belief and because there is suggestive evidence that supports the belief. I will also abandon that belief when... or rather IF.... I am presented with evidence that shows that my induction is impossible, not compatible with the facts.
Ainslie WAS perhaps at one time able logically to believe that her circuit may be doing something unusual, based on the information she had then and legitimate inductive reasoning therefrom. However, further experimentation could always reveal new information that makes that original conclusion, arrived at inductively, contradictory. And that is precisely what has happened. All of this should illustrate why it is important to try to _rule out_ alternative explanations for unusual or unexpected results, so that we don't succumb to the temptation of holding to a false conclusion in the face of contradictory data.
which is exactly why i told you you should have said "i THINK rose wrote the letter" and not "rose wrote the letter"... tu stultus es! troll... please demonstrate where it was that you "tried to _rule out_ alternative explanations" to your conjecture that rose herself wrote the letter? i'll wait... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 08:31:57 AM
Therefore, Wilby is a professional troll and contributes nothing useful, only distraction and shallow, meaningless criticisms.
another logical fallacy ::) imagine that. google non sequitur troll...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 03:01:26 PM
It is entirely possible and perhaps even legitimate for Ainslie to have written a draft text for submission to the attorneys for their signatures.
I have also found (with help from _friends_ not trolls) several other examples (from Malaysian business English and Nigerian 419 scammer emails and old court documents) of this weird use of "refer" or "refers", without the "to" and with the subject-object relationship inverted.
Still, I doubt that Ainslie, with all her complaints about how much real testing would cost, would spend the money to get some lawyers to write such a silly toothless letter. That's probably five hundred dollars worth of legalese there !
LMFAO so now after 3 pages of logical fallacy from you, you FINALLY get around to actually looking for an alternative explanation... tu stultus es! Q.E.D.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 03:04:35 PM
I owe you nothing but the disrespect you have so competently earned, you effete pseudointellectual slob, Wilby. And if you check very carefully, you will note that the name calling was indeed initiated by your idol, long ago. I always reserve the right to respond in kind, troll idiot thumbless Wilby.
LMFAO only effete people use the word effete... ::)
and i'll take your tacit refusal to demonstrate your accusation of ad hominem as your admission that you cannot and that you were once again wrong... ::)
this serving you logic lessons is getting boring...
let's settle this the old way. a duel.
what shall it be? guns? swords? hatchets? fists?
unless you're too effete...
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 23, 2012, 11:50:16 AM
Okay, I got that, makes sense.Is BEMF a negative current source? Off topic?
That is a tar baby all its own. BEMF is an EMF, that is, a voltage. For a current to exist there must be a circuit. BEMF is a consequence of changing magnetic fields, conductor geometry, and the relationships ensconced in Maxwell's equations. It exists, it can be helpful or harmful to one's efforts depending on what they are. It can produce real currents if it can be channelled into a complete circuit. It is a voltage that acts to oppose the applied voltage, and as such you could describe any currents it makes as "negative", I suppose. The energy in "BEMF" comes from whatever is providing the forward EMF in the first place, ultimately, so if you drain it off with a diode and use it to charge a capacitor, that energy in the capacitor came from the original battery or other primary energy source.
Quote
I was going to ask about using lower bandwidths but it seems like the oscillations won't allow it? That is to say they don't start until they get up in the MHz range?That is the part that I have a tough time with;the circuit affecting the FG. You just want to get those oscillations without the current coming from the FG. Would that be (closer to) OU then?
The FG isn't necessary. Do you remember the feedback squeal that happens when the microphone is too close to the speakers of a PA system? It's pretty much the same pitch tone, for a given system. That is what is happening in the circuit. The frequency of the oscillations is fixed, controlled by the inductances primarily and the total battery voltage secondarily. (This latter may also just be because of the inductance.) The only requirement for the circuit to oscillate is the application of a negative DC voltage of 4 or 5 volts or more to the "RED" point on the schematic (the gate of Q1 and sources of Q2). Closer to OU? I'm not sure what that means. The oscillations are "enabled" by the FG, they are powered by the FG and the main battery acting in series, and as far as I can tell they are actually very wasteful, in that they prevent power from actually reaching the load effectively. I can't identify any cases of high load heat in the Ainslie data that relied on the oscillations alone for load heating.
Quote
I can see the logical deduction behind looking at the screenshots and the mosfet not passing anything because it was blown. It makes sense. Since those shots are using different settings at different times (connected how using which diagram?) there is only so much you can deduce from them, but it seems like Occam's razor is right again.
So you built a circuit based on available data to try to recreate those scope shots (or at least those robust parasitic oscillations). Not the same, but it does the same thing (only better) right?
No. I built the circuit given in the Ainslie schematics to examine its behaviour. The only guide I have is the published schematic(s) and the scopeshots and the _realtime_ accounts of the trials themselves. I do not trust any other "data" or "report" from Ainslie and the NERDs because they are so riddled with clear errors that it is impossible to trust anything but the raw data.
Not surprisingly, I have found that the same circuit, built with the same components and stimulated in the same way, does produce scopeshots that look like Ainslie's, including the calculation of a negative mean power product, as WELL AS a decreasing total energy integral during the run.... a level of "proof" of the negative power that exceeds the NERD team's mere mean product.
And as far as I can tell without having the cooperation of the original claimant, the Tar Baby performs JUST LIKE the NERD device in all significant respects, and is ready to prove it in side-by-side comparisons done by that impartial observer WilbyInebriated, just as soon as he can arrange it. Or anyone else who Stefan might think is qualified and who will test NERD at the same time, side by side.
However.... I now suspect that the original claimant might still be misleading us about the exact schematic used and about the exact parameters of the gate signal used. And this might be why she is so insistent in her denials that Tar Baby is relevant to her claims. If this turns out to be the case...... well, I'm sure you can Do The Math on that one.
Quote
Great research! The 'hot oil' calorie testing is really going that 'extra mile' to get reliable numbers, the sort of thing that allows accurate measurements, etc. Certainly better than the testing and measurements done on that 'other' circuit...
I can see that you understand more than RA does about it, anyone can after reading the technical posts and watching your vids. Honestly I would be amazed if RA understood some of those conversations with PW and .99!! (You will notice she stayed out of some of those entirely...)
Whenever a woman starts to call a man 'little' with the intention of insulting his 'stature' (intellect, whatever...), she is 'scraping the barrel'. She can't even argue her circuit anymore, you've already analyzed it three ways from Sunday compared to what she did with it... Sticky sticky...
The reason she chose that particular adjective was a fishing expedition initiated by one of her pet trolls. She believed -- likely due to his prompting -- that she had me identified as another Texan, living not too far away from me, to whom the word "little" might have a special meaning. (don't tell that windbreaking wilby, but this is another
conjecture of mine).
Quote
And now for the poke of the day...
@ Rosemary: Is a Joule still a Watt PER Second and are you EVER going to do the DBT?
@ Wilby: Why don't you start your own research thread? Build your own circuit since you are such an intelligent individual. A troll doesn't start a thread, build things, make videos, etc., a troll spams threads and does NOTHING to advance anything. IF you tricked TK into giving you his address for ulterior purposes, you are a jackass. Shame on you TROLL! Post something relevant to the topic or go post somewhere else...
@ TK: Don't waste your time on that guy, you have better things to do!
Just getting my daily dose,
PC
P.S. For my two cents, that letter is NOT from an attorney, it is a fabrication from RA herself. Her style of 'prose' is pretty distinct (after you read a hundred of her posts anyways...). It also doesn't really SAY anything, which is also her style... ;)
Yup.
;)
Googling "non sequitur troll" I get about 900 thousand hits with "WilbyInebriated" in them. There is even a WikiPedia page (see below).
(The 900 thousand hits part is sarcasm, not a claim of fact, wilby you overly literate tweed-wearing scofflaw's dirty sock you. That the Wiki page and the Answers page demonstrate Ainslie's fallacious reasoning and bogus claims is fact, not a claim or sarcasm.)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2012, 03:15:05 PM
this serving you logic lessons is getting boring...
let's settle this the old way. a duel.
what shall it be? guns? swords? hatchets? fists?
unless you're too effete...
Another physical threat, Wilby? Or more sarcasm from the addled brain of someone who doesn't know when to quit digging his own latrine?
Any time, any where, loser pays for the hospital expenses and the bail bond.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 03:50:35 PM
Another physical threat, Wilby? Or more sarcasm from the addled brain of someone who doesn't know when to quit digging his own latrine?
no you insane paranoid bitch... it was a challenge. you have insulted my honor and i am tired of your trollmongering.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 03:50:35 PM
Any time, any where, loser pays for the hospital expenses and the bail bond.
then name the time, place and your choice of weapon, you sack-less sissy. ::) it's to the death idiot...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
Googling "non sequitur troll" I get about 900 thousand hits with "WilbyInebriated" in them. There is even a WikiPedia page (see below).
(The 900 thousand hits part is sarcasm, not a claim of fact, wilby you overly literate tweed-wearing scofflaw's dirty sock you. That the Wiki page and the Answers page demonstrate Ainslie's fallacious reasoning and bogus claims is fact, not a claim or sarcasm.)
idiot... the non sequitur you committed was you saying "Therefore, Wilby is a professional troll and contributes nothing useful, only distraction and shallow, meaningless criticisms." you and i are not conversing about power or energy, troll... LOL, you totally pulled a 'palin' there. that was hilarious. thanks for the laugh! :D
an example of the use of tinselkoala/alsetalokin's insane troll logic.
Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
TinselKoala and sycophants: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
TinselKoala, MileLow: More witches! Wood!
Bedevere:So, why do witches burn?
TinselKoala: because they're made of wood?
Bedevere:So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood? Does wood sink in water?
TinselKoala: No. No. No, it floats! It floats!
Bedevere: What also floats in water?
Arthur: A duck!
Bedevere: Exactly. So, logically...
TinselKoala: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
Bedevere: And therefore?
TinselKoala: Wilby is a troll!
Quite the intelligent post up there Wilby... Troller spamming or spammer trolling?
Zzzzz...
PC
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2012, 04:02:10 PM
no you insane paranoid bitch... it was a challenge. you have insulted my honor and i am tired of your trollmongering.
then name the time, place and your choice of weapon, you sack-less sissy. ::) it's to the death idiot...
Why don't you stay true to your yellow cowardly chickenshit troll form and lie in wait to ambush me unexpectedly, mustering all the wet noodle weaponry you can haul around in your thumbless graspers. Maybe if you catch me unawares you can get in the first whack, you unregenerate Republican running dog of a palsied flatulent troll. Better make it a good one though, just in case I can remember some of the 20 years of martial arts training I've suffered through.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2012, 04:12:28 PM
idiot... the non sequitur you committed was you saying "Therefore, Wilby is a professional troll and contributes nothing useful, only distraction and shallow, meaningless criticisms." you and i are not conversing about power or energy, troll... LOL, you totally pulled a 'palin' there. that was hilarious. thanks for the laugh! :D
an example of the use of Ainslie's style of paraphrasing and misrepresenting of tinselkoala/stella_nokia's limpid logic:
Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
TinselKoala and sycophants: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
TinselKoala, MileLow: More witches! Wood!
Bedevere:So, why do witches burn?
TinselKoala: because they're made of wood?
Bedevere:So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood? Does wood sink in water?
TinselKoala: No. No. No, it floats! It floats!
Bedevere: What also floats in water?
Arthur: A duck!
Bedevere: Exactly. So, logically...
TinselKoala: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
Bedevere: And therefore?
TinselKoala: Wilby is a troll! QED.
No, actually. The non sequitur is the fact that you are trying to post here at all, since you have nothing to say. And I've corrected your post for you, you brainless husk of a decayed cephalopod carcass.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 06:44:41 PM
No, actually. The non sequitur is the fact that you are trying to post here at all, since you have nothing to say. And I've corrected your post for you, you brainless husk of a decayed cephalopod carcass.
actually, yes. you wouldn't know a non sequitur if it jumped up and bit you. as evidenced by the record. typical mendacious troll... changing someones quote... ::) you really are the most unprofessional, uncivil little sack-less sissy i have ever had the misfortune of meeting.
so you are a sack-less sissy... i thought as much. ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 06:39:44 PM
Why don't you stay true to your yellow cowardly chickenshit troll form and lie in wait to ambush me unexpectedly, mustering all the wet noodle weaponry you can haul around in your thumbless graspers. Maybe if you catch me unawares you can get in the first whack, you unregenerate Republican running dog of a palsied flatulent troll. Better make it a good one though, just in case I can remember some of the 20 years of martial arts training I've suffered through.
you don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: if i ever duel you (which i highly doubt, as you are a chicken shit sack-less sissy coward), you'll be awake. you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2012, 06:50:25 PM
so you are a sack-less sissy... i thought as much. ::)you don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: if i ever duel you (which i highly doubt, as you are a chicken shit sack-less sissy coward), you'll be awake. you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed.
Heh... Pops, you really make me laugh.
You might be right about one thing, though.This is Texas, and I do live on the East Side of San Antonio.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 06:55:54 PM
Heh... Pops, you really make me laugh.
You might be right about one thing, though.This is Texas, and I do live on the East Side of San Antonio.
name the time, place and choice of weapon, or stfu you gutless bully.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2012, 06:58:01 PM
name the time, place and choice of weapon, or stfu you gutless bully.
Right here, right now, you espresso frother. SuperSoakers filled with india ink, at twenty paces. I'll be waiting for you on the front porch, with my second. If you don't show up by sundown.... I win by default.
so you are gutless... i thought as much
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 07:00:40 PM
Right here, right now, you espresso frother. SuperSoakers filled with india ink, at twenty paces. I'll be waiting for you on the front porch, with my second. If you don't show up by sundown.... I win by default.
you're such a cowardly bully... you know there is no way i can make it there by sundown. you are such a cowardly, honor-less, gutless, sack-less sissy of a bully... attempting to rig the duel so you 'win' but risk nothing... ::) so no, you don't win by default. you've already lost, you honor-less idiot. Q.E.D.
++
This exchange is very promising, but IMHO you should include your families and references to bestiality while you're at it.
Be more creative. ;)
I figured you'd weasel out with some lame excuse. "It's too far, it's too late, my Super Soaker has a leak, the Indian grocery is all out of ink."
Why don't you just go soak your own truck, you cork-sniffing half-alien sock cooker. Or tell ME where YOU live, and I'll hire some teenagers to toilet-paper your miserable sheetmetal and cardboard hovel. You know, cheer up the old dump. It might improve your vile, hairball-hacking outlook on life, such as it is, under your decaying bridge infrastructure over there.
TK:
Wil-beast has accumulated two full year's worth of jerk-off material recently, so my advice to you is that it's time to ignore him. Plus it's time to take the threats of physical violence from him seriously. He is a borderline-nutcase and is basically "underground" and I have seen him instill fear and intimidation in people many times. He is the evil Chet-monster incarnate and he takes pleasure in making other people unhappy and distressed and fearful. He is easily the most disgusting individual on all of the forums. He is a pariah and he enjoys the negativity and the intimidation and the conflict.
Perhaps you might remember one of the final scenes in the movie Slaughterhouse Five? Time to shut him down.
If he utters one more threat then you should contact Stefan and the FBI. Stefan will log all of his wireless hotspot IP activity and the FBI can use it to profile his movement patterns. There is a very good chance that some or all of his income is underground and they will be interested in him.
Poor Rosemary must be mortified upon realizing that she has been aligned with him all this time. Talk about strange bedfellows.
Time to turn the page.
Rosemary:
When are you going to do your dim bulb testing? Will you include the extra measurements that I requested?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 23, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
Wil-beast has accumulated two full year's worth of jerk-off material recently, so my advice to you is that it's time to ignore him. Plus it's time to take the threats of physical violence from him seriously. He is a borderline-nutcase and is basically "underground" and I have seen him instill fear and intimidation in people many times. He is the evil Chet-monster incarnate and he takes pleasure in making other people unhappy and distressed and fearful. He is easily the most disgusting individual on all of the forums. He is a pariah and he enjoys the negativity and the intimidation and the conflict.
i haven't threatened anyone with anything... other than bringing him a pint and maybe a hatchet to bury... you're just engaging in your usual ridiculous hyperbole. ::) you idiots instill fear in yourselves... you act like you're all that and a bag of chips because you think you are anonymous when you are not. and then... realizing that you have been offensive and uncivil, you suddenly start to worry about consequence.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 23, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
If he utters one more threat then you should contact Stefan and the FBI. Stefan will log all of his wireless hotspot IP activity and the FBI can use it to profile his movement patterns. There is a very good chance that some or all of his income is underground and they will be interested in him.
one more? you idiot... there was never a first one, except in your paranoid little minds where everything is a threat. ::) yeah log the proxy i am using, see if i give a rip. ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 08:49:46 PM
I figured you'd weasel out with some lame excuse. "It's too far, it's too late, my Super Soaker has a leak, the Indian grocery is all out of ink."
Why don't you just go soak your own truck, you cork-sniffing half-alien sock cooker. Or tell ME where YOU live, and I'll hire some teenagers to toilet-paper your miserable sheetmetal and cardboard hovel. You know, cheer up the old dump. It might improve your vile, hairball-hacking outlook on life, such as it is, under your decaying bridge infrastructure over there.
you chicken shit idiot sissy. like i could really be there "right now"... ::) similar to your gutless little default condition... like i could actually travel from near the canadian border to san antonio in less than 3 hours. ::)
Yeah, it's just like you, to make offers you can't fulfil. Very pneumatic, very two under par.
Your boots are full of mud and your braincase is full of tiny little brown weevils, and they've eaten multiple pathways from your one earhole to the other. You are so footstomping calhouned that the wind blows the smoke from your ears and your hair stands up in thunderstorms. What's left of it, that is. Go find yourself a baseball and chew on it, you scattershot blunderpuss troll you.
Put on the Golden Earring's "radar love", get a thermos of Tim Horton's erzats coffee-substitute and put the pedal to the metal. You can be here in 36 hours, and I'll be waiting with my SuperSoaker primed and ready, you sniveling bungee-jumping spider eater you.
ETA: And you had better bring that god-forsaken mosfet you owe me, too, or I'll tattoo the part number on your forehead with a tack hammer and some upholstery brads.
Oh.... and I almost forgot. Here's that confession you've been asking me for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cDZlI0mFSE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cDZlI0mFSE)
Quote from: MileHigh on May 23, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
TK:
Poor Rosemary must be mortified upon realizing that she has been aligned with him all this time. Talk about strange bedfellows.
Not actually. I've known Wilby for many years. He has NEVER spoken up in defense of our work. Only in defense of our 'RIGHT' to promote that work. He has more of that testicular fortitude that was mentioned earlier than any person on this forum and more than anyone that I personally know with the possible exception of my son. He is a BRILLIANT logician and is showing you all the full scope of his genius by NEVER DEVIATING from the tactics applied by all of you to me, my name and our work including the expressed requirement for my demise. His particular brand of artistry is to distill this to its quintessential ingredients - thereby eloquently exposing PRECISELY the bully tactics that you all employ against me. That TK is a thug and a troll gangster has NEVER been the question. Nor is there any doubt about the intention of you and those other troll gangsters who use these tactics to discredit any PROOF of energy efficiencies that exceed standard prediction. I am indeed PROUD to see Wilby in action. I am only sorry that I do NOT know Wilby in person. He is our TROLL SLAYER. Par excellence. And WILBY - there is NOTHING that I have ever seen - can EQUAL your GENIUS DEFENSE at gross internet abuse of identity against those that are known by those that are too cowardly to be known and thereby held accountable. You are - without question - a CHAMPION of this forum and of this thread.
Here's the joke MileHigh. TK's your friend. I would be PROUD to consider Wilby mine.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary:
Wilby is a creepy low-life underground guttersnipe. To him you represent such low-hanging fruit that he could have sliced you to pieces anytime he wanted to. However, instead of making mincemeat of you he finds value in defending you so that he can use it as a vehicle to fight with other people. So the "sport" of slicing you to pieces is overshadowed by the bigger "sport" involved in "defending" you and finding "better fights."
Between you and Wilby, it's a "use-use" situation and you are just being played by Wilby for his gratificaion.
You should be feeling absolute dread inside knowing that creep is in an unholy alliance with you for his own selfish reasons.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on May 24, 2012, 01:32:29 AM
Wilby is a creepy low-life underground guttersnipe. To him you represent such low-hanging fruit that he could have sliced you to pieces anytime he wanted to. However, instead of making mincemeat of you he finds value in defending you so that he can use it as a vehicle to fight with other people. So the "sport" of slicing you to pieces is overshadowed by the bigger "sport" involved in "defending" you and finding "better fights."
Between you and Wilby, it's a "use-use" situation and you are just being played by Wilby for his gratificaion.
You should be feeling absolute dread inside knowing that creep is in an unholy alliance with you for his own selfish reasons.
Which just goes to show your own rather exotic interpretation of the word 'creep'. When I think of the work 'creep' I think of low life white crawly things like 'maggots' feeding off dead carcasses for their food. Which puts me in mind of TK AND those many of you who bully old ladies when you find them alone. Insecticide is to those maggots what Wilby is to TROLLS. I DREAD nothing. I only have CAUSE to dread effective internet identity abuse. And thankfully the INTERNET is that VAST - I have NOTHING to dread at all. And while Wilby is around - then I feel WELL protected.
What you guys should really dread is the accountability that you will ALL of you have to pay. And roll on ACCOUNTABILITY. It is my opinion that Wilby's efforts here are in the nature of an hors d'oeuvre. We've still got the feast to follow. And well may you 'DREAD' this MileHigh. Because I suspect that the main course is likely to be your own good names that you'll ALL lose in your efforts to lose me mine.
Rosie Pose
and by the way - for TROLL - think DR VEST. They're synonymous. picowatt is to me what DR VEST was to F & P. The REAL TRUTH MileHigh is about to EMERGE. And that's really truly a good thing.
ADDED
It says WilbyInebriated is Steve Windisch .... ??? Very possibly Steve is ........... ::) ???
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 03:01:26 PM
It is entirely possible and perhaps even legitimate for Ainslie to have written a draft text for submission to the attorneys for their signatures.
I have also found (with help from _friends_ not trolls) several other examples (from Malaysian business English and Nigerian 419 scammer emails and old court documents) of this weird use of "refer" or "refers", without the "to" and with the subject-object relationship inverted.
Still, I doubt that Ainslie, with all her complaints about how much real testing would cost, would spend the money to get some lawyers to write such a silly toothless letter. That's probably five hundred dollars worth of legalese there !
(Hey.... Wilby...... are you brilliant enough to recognise a CONJECTURE when you see one? Evidently you need to have them pointed out to you... so look here, NOTE BENE as the pseudointellectuals say: it is a CONJECTURE that Ainslie paid 500 dollars to have some junior law clerk write that letter.)
Those friends of yours omitted the fact that it is COMMON PARLANCE in ENGLAND to use 'refers' in the context in which it was applied. It is only in America that this reference is not known. And that's because America has long been abusing standard English. I've said it before. Your atrocities against good English and good spelling - are rampant. Your only defense is that your accents are DELECTABLE. Which makes your previous conjectures as absurd as your conjecture about the value of the dollar. It's been erroded somewhat little TK. Like your credibility.
Rosie Pose
I guess we'll see .....
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 24, 2012, 02:51:41 AM
Those friends of yours omitted the fact that it is COMMON PARLANCE in ENGLAND to use 'refers' in the context in which it was applied. It is only in America that this reference is not known. And that's because America has long been abusing standard English. I've said it before. Your atrocities against good English and good spelling - are rampant. Your only defense is that your accents are DELECTABLE. Which makes your previous conjectures as absurd as your conjecture about the value of the dollar. It's been erroded somewhat little TK. Like your credibility.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 22, 2012, 01:55:42 PM
This I was receiving today:
Good day Mr Hartman.
The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein.
We have been instructed by our client that your forum, www.overunity.com continues to denigrate our client’s good name and impugn the work of her associates on the ‘TK’s
Tar Baby’ Thread.
Furthermore, we have been instructed that members of the forum, including Phichaser, TinselKoala, FuzzyTomCat, Mrsean, picowatt, and MileHigh and evolvingape are in
breach of forum guidelines through insults and allegations made to our client.
As a result, we have been instructed by our client that you provide us with the email and IP addresses, of the above members, in order for us to take the necessary steps.
Furthermore, we have therefore been instructed, as we hereby do, to request that you immediately lock the thread to prevent any future abuse.
We trust your actions will be guided accordingly.
Kind Regards
N. H.
M. T. Attorneys
======================
P.S. I deleted the Attorney name and her adress
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 21, 2012, 08:41:01 AM
The following is my pro temp service address
Manson Tobin attorneys
Physical Address
Suite 2, Frazzitta Business Park
Cnr Lubbe & Langeberg Roads
Durbanville 7550
Postal Address
P.O.Box 3584
Durbanville 7551
The Manson Tobin attorneys web site ..... ???
http://www.mansontobin.co.za/
http://www.mansontobin.co.za/staff.htm (company staff)
alex(at)mansontobin.co.za
lee(at)mansontobin.co.za
melandi(at)mansontobin.co.za
Odd .... I don't see a
N. H.. as a staff member ..... http://www.mansontobin.co.za/staff.htm ..... :o
I guess we'll see .... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2012, 03:35:37 PM
The reason she chose that particular adjective was a fishing expedition initiated by one of her pet trolls. She believed -- likely due to his prompting -- that she had me identified as another Texan, living not too far away from me, to whom the word "little" might have a special meaning. (don't tell that windbreaking wilby, but this is another conjecture of mine).
Not actually. I KNOW you're little because I've seen your torso height relative to a 'table' - your finger length relative to a MOSFET - your hand size relative to your apparatus - and your foot size relative to your mouth. I'm something of an artist and a dilettante. Such relationships intrigue me. I KNOW you live very near to Pickle - because you share the same equipment. And you're both the same size. 72 pickles per swagger - and that's TINY. ::) At a fair guess I'd say you're at least 2 square feet short of 60 pickles. Conservatively speaking. And that little sketch I did of you in that victory jig - was only flawed by it's gross understatement.
Rosie Pose
And guys - I've been advised to stop all further posts here. I need to make a concluding post. We've got a new forum and another one that's well subscribed. We'll be posting links everywhere I hope.
We've also got a marathon ahead of us. We have to show our battery draw down tests. In multiple contexts. And that's likely to take some time for each test to run. It's unlikely to be 'gripping' stuff except that it'll show 'out performance' of our batteries against their watt hour ratings by a HUGE and incontestable factor. Then too we have a slew of smaller tests needed to disabuse you of the 'conjectures' that our little TK has applied in this rather disgusting thread of his. However long it takes - however boring will be those tests - they'll point to the dramatic PROOF that our unity barriers are NOT APPLICABLE to electric energy. And with a small detour in those tests we'll explain our 'thinking' related to this.
Then. We'll most CERTAINLY be applying for those prizes from Poynty, Prof Jones and Stefan Hartman. They ask for PROOF of over unity. We're going to give that in SPADES. That it's NOT strictly over unity - but simply a potential that's been overlooked in the energy of mass - then that's tough. Their own definitions PRECLUDE results that exceed Kirchhoff's unity requirements. And having obtained those prizes we'll then donate it to those experimentalists on this forum that YOU nominate as requiring this money for measuring instruments. And I'm reasonably certain that LeCroy agents will consider HEAVILY DISCOUNTED prices should their own BRILLIANT equipment be required.
Give me another week and I'll point you to the forum. Give me another 3 weeks - and we'll be officially launched. And hold onto your seats. The ride may be smoother than thus far - but its results will still BLOW YOU AWAY.
Kindest and best regards to all of you who still work for energy efficiencies in defiance of our TROLLS
Rosie
ADDED
And lest picowatt continue to try and diminish our claim - we'll prove an out performance against the battery watt hour ratings that CANNOT be argued as low current nor any other excuse that they'll use to trivialise this.
"out performance" of our batteries against their watt hour ratings...
A somewhat more conservative claim than COP=Infinity
ADDED: And a much more difficult to prove claim at best...
So I assume that will be with respect to a battery's watt hour rating with the same load profile applied (i.e., same current, pulse rate, etc).
A battery's amp hour rating is quite variable, and varies dependent upon the applied load profile.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 24, 2012, 03:15:35 AM
Not actually. I KNOW you're little because I've seen your torso height relative to a 'table' - your finger length relative to a MOSFET - your hand size relative to your apparatus - and your foot size relative to your mouth. I'm something of an artist and a dilettante. Such relationships intrigue me. I KNOW you live very near to Pickle - because you share the same equipment. And you're both the same size. 72 pickles per swagger - and that's TINY. ::) At a fair guess I'd say you're at least 2 square feet short of 60 pickles. Conservatively speaking. And that little sketch I did of you in that victory jig - was only flawed by it's gross understatement.
Rosie Pose
You are an idiot and a liar. All of that would still be kind of OK, but the most damning thing is this: you are totally and utterly and laughably wrong. Your obsession with my pickle is particularly laughable, but understandable, considering that you HAVE NO OTHER ARGUMENT at all. But you should know this, Ainslie: you are far off the mark with your attempts at satire. All you are doing is illustrating what a silly old fool you are by your comments about "pickles" and all the rest. And you are even wrong about all of that !! You KNOW things that nobody else knows.... like that I live near "pickle" and use the same equipment? What is that supposed to mean? I'll tell you: you KNOW only what your delusions and fantasies tell you, and you care nothing for facts.
And in the English most of us speak, you idiot blowhard, "IT'S" is the contraction of IT IS, and "ITS" is the possessive meaning "belonging to it". This is another mistake in your grammar that you are continually making and it's particularly funny to see you making it when criticising other people for their English usage. Your post refers. And my post laughs at your bogus lawyer letter.
Not only that, your entire history of posts in this thread and the others that I have archived in my database show that you are a mean-sprited, spiteful and nasty person, uncooperative , arrogant and ignorant of your topic. It doesn't matter in the least how short of how ugly I might be, because your ideas are polluted by your ignorance and you refuse to understand how or why....therefore you will ALWAYS be wrong.
You cannot engage on a factual and reasonable level because your position is unsupportable and THAT is why there is NOBODY supporting you. The closest you have to a supporter here is Wilby your pet troll, a wind-breaking blowhard who can only pick at nits, when there is a huge parasite sucking everybody's blood: you, Ainslie, are that bloodsucking parasite. And even he knows that your own data show that you are wrong.
And you will not be doing any real tests and everyone reading here knows it.
Bye bye Ainslie, you have no credibilty left. I have it all documented in a few big files that contain YOUR OWN WORDS and data, together in one place where it can be examined critically by anyone who cares to, without your blowhard obfuscation and insulting nonsense "explanations". And wherever and whenever I encounter any mention of you on the internet, I will inform the discussants of the existence of this database and where to find it.... and they can do with it what they will and make their own conclusions about just who and what you are, Rosemary Ainslie.
And I will welcome additions to this database that I might not have in there yet. So if anyone reading here knows of any Ainslie data that should be included, like accounts from her former collaborators, or additional hard data in the form of scopeshots or spreadsheets from the NERDs, or other instances where she plainly lies or misrepresents facts, please send the data to me and I will zip it up with the rest of the packages.... so that anyone who needs the FACTS of the Ainslie matter.... like all those imaginary lawyers.... or even some real ones with an interest in finding out the TRUTH about Ainslie.... can find it easily. It is all there for them, in black and white, in Ainslie's own words and conversations and pretty pastel colored scopeshots.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 24, 2012, 03:46:13 AM
And guys - I've been advised to stop all further posts here. I need to make a concluding post. We've got a new forum and another one that's well subscribed. We'll be posting links everywhere I hope.
We've also got a marathon ahead of us. We have to show our battery draw down tests. In multiple contexts. And that's likely to take some time for each test to run. It's unlikely to be 'gripping' stuff except that it'll show 'out performance' of our batteries against their watt hour ratings by a HUGE and incontestable factor. Then too we have a slew of smaller tests needed to disabuse you of the 'conjectures' that our little TK has applied in this rather disgusting thread of his. However long it takes - however boring will be those tests - they'll point to the dramatic PROOF that our unity barriers are NOT APPLICABLE to electric energy. And with a small detour in those tests we'll explain our 'thinking' related to this.
Then. We'll most CERTAINLY be applying for those prizes from Poynty, Prof Jones and Stefan Hartman. They ask for PROOF of over unity. We're going to give that in SPADES. That it's NOT strictly over unity - but simply a potential that's been overlooked in the energy of mass - then that's tough. Their own definitions PRECLUDE results that exceed Kirchhoff's unity requirements. And having obtained those prizes we'll then donate it to those experimentalists on this forum that YOU nominate as requiring this money for measuring instruments. And I'm reasonably certain that LeCroy agents will consider HEAVILY DISCOUNTED prices should their own BRILLIANT equipment be required.
Give me another week and I'll point you to the forum. Give me another 3 weeks - and we'll be officially launched. And hold onto your seats. The ride may be smoother than thus far - but its results will still BLOW YOU AWAY.
Kindest and best regards to all of you who still work for energy efficiencies in defiance of our TROLLS
Rosie
ADDED
And lest picowatt continue to try and diminish our claim - we'll prove an out performance against the battery watt hour ratings that CANNOT be argued as low current nor any other excuse that they'll use to trivialise this.
Preserved in all its glorious ridiculousness for posterity. And of course it is added to the database: another claim, another promise, another set of lies from Ainslie, and the continuing announcement of the pursuit of monetary prizes based on false claims and bad data.
At the very least, this new claim appears to be an admission that the batteries do indeed discharge.
QuoteYour atrocities against good English and good spelling - are rampant. Your only defense is that your accents are DELECTABLE. Which makes your previous conjectures as absurd as your conjecture about the value of the dollar. It's been erroded somewhat little TK. Like your credibility.
You are a parody of yourself, Ainslie. I laugh and laugh at you. I don't find "erroded" in my dictionary. Perhaps you meant "eroded", like your team has done. All eroded away, sanded down by the truth and blasted out by facts.
And >It's all been erroded somewhat little TK< is not an English sentence.
Quote from: picowatt on May 24, 2012, 08:13:00 AM
At the very least, this new claim appears to be an admission that the batteries do indeed discharge.
Maybe somebody explained to her just what her scopeshots actually DO show, now that they can all be seen in one place.
It's pretty hard to deny a current of 5 amps or more during a phase where there are NO oscillations, or to claim that a strong current is being supplied from some place other than THE BATTERIES when the measurements are right there in front of your nose. Like this shot where there is clearly substantial current flowing during the non-oscillating phase, but she denies it in the text.
"Those are the facts." It's statements like this ... her "Do The Math" and so on... when the "facts" and the "Math" actually don't support her contentions.... that really get me going.
TK,
Just imagine how much more difficult it would be to prove that a circuit exceeds a battery's amp hour rating. Proving/disproving a COP=Infinity is a piece of cake compared to proving exceeding a battey's amp hour rating.
Can a 60 amp hour rated lead acid battery be discharged at a rate that exceeds 60 amp hours? I should think quite readily. With the appropriate load profile, 300-600 amp hours would not seem at all unreasonable.
Without calorimetry and equivalent heat rate and loading, it would seem very difficult to prove.
As well, I don't believe the rules for the overunity prizes mention exceeding a battey's amp hour rating.
PW
Here's a particularly nice selection from my database of Ainslie conversations.
Quote from: picowatt on May 24, 2012, 08:32:54 AM
TK,
Just imagine how much more difficult it would be to prove that a circuit exceeds a battery's amp hour rating. Proving/disproving a COP=Infinity is a piece of cake compared to proving exceeding a battey's amp hour rating.
Can a 60 amp hour rated lead acid battery be discharged at a rate that exceeds 60 amp hours? I should think quite readily. With the appropriate load profile, 300-600 amp hours would not seem at all unreasonable.
Without calorimetry and equivalent heat rate and loading, it would seem very difficult to prove.
As well, I don't believe the rules for the overunity prizes mention exceeding a battey's amp hour rating.
PW
The rules for the prize offered on this forum technically exclude the NERD device from the start. I think Stefan made an especial dispensation to allow Ainslie to be considered at all, at the beginning of all this nonsense.
As far as testing whether or not the circuit exceeds battery capacity, it is hard to find a flaw in the Dim Bulb Test, isn't it?
Take six batteries and discharge them fully (to some voltage/current end point or however) using a resistive load. Then charge up all these batteries using a standard automotive automatic charger that senses (by monitoring internal resistance or whatever magic they use) when the battery is charged and shuts off. Select two of these charged batteries randomly and set them aside. Take the other four batteries and use them to run the Ainslie circuit, heating a load to substantial temperature (let the load boil some water; I'll show you how to keep the water topped off if the NERDs can't come up with a way to do that) for a reasonable time, like 48 hours. A HIGH HEAT trial, in other words, actually boiling water in a liter container, with scope traces like we have seen which indicate several amperes flowing during part of the duty cycle. That is doable by the NERD circuit, isn't it? Well, at least I know that TAR BABY can do it and is ready to do it at any time. Then, after the 48 hours of boiling water, the Dim Bulb test is performed, using standard off the shelf automotive brake light bulbs, or car headlight bulbs for a heavier draw. No instrumental monitoring is really needed but to clinch the case, current and voltage of the Dim Bulb test batteries could be monitored as well as the light output.
The bulbs that go dim first lose. Repeat the test several times (this is FREE ENERGY so it's worth the work, isn't it?) randomizing the batteries each time, three wins out of five should settle the matter. If the NERD device wins the dim bulb test, or even ties, then there might be justification to take the time and trouble to put the entire device in the calorimeter that I know about for comprehensive real-time tests of total power dissipation as compared to power supplied by the batteries.
(But I know that zipons are allergic to calorimeters, they get claustrophobic in there or something and probably won't perform their tricks, therefore using a calorimeter on NERD is invalid, therefore aliens.)
What is objectionable about this test? Arguments as to time and expense are irrelevant. How long, how much cost, would a person be willing to put in, if they were assured to win a Nobel Prize at the end of the process?
I'd do it in a heartbeat. Take time off work, use a float valve to keep water in there, a webcam with timelapse software, some fuses to protect stuff against the "brittle" "runaway" events that Ainslie has several times noted (but not explained), some popcorn and some DVD movies.... and in a week we have good repeatable data that will win us all kinds of awards and really attract attention.
Or not.
COP=17, COP=Infinity, and now, ... COP<1.
Possibly the new forum will be UnderUnity.com
(DBT continued)
So.. .does the DBT really test this apparently new, modified and much weaker claim that the batteries simply "exceed their amp-hour capacity"? It was designed to test the original claim that the batteries DO NOT DISCHARGE, which has been made strongly many times.. Has that claim been withdrawn?
What if the NERD batteries do dim out first, before the unused ones do. Could it still be true that the NERD circuit is causing the batteries to "outperform"? Sure.
What is the measure of performance, though? Is it heat produced in a load? Total power dissipated in the entire circuit, including the RF radiation? How can this be tested?
Have the NERDs actually ever tested this? I don't think so. Certainly ALL of the calculations that Ainslie presents in support of this particular claim have been shown to be completely wrong.
Do we even know what the actual manufacturer's amp-hour rating IS, for these batteries?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 24, 2012, 09:01:35 AM
The rules for the prize offered on this forum technically exclude the NERD device from the start. I think Stefan made an especial dispensation to allow Ainslie to be considered at all, at the beginning of all this nonsense.
As far as testing whether or not the circuit exceeds battery capacity, it is hard to find a flaw in the Dim Bulb Test, isn't it?
Take six batteries and discharge them fully (to some voltage/current end point or however) using a resistive load. Then charge up all these batteries using a standard automotive automatic charger that senses (by monitoring internal resistance or whatever magic they use) when the battery is charged and shuts off. Select two of these charged batteries randomly and set them aside. Take the other four batteries and use them to run the Ainslie circuit, heating a load to substantial temperature (let the load boil some water; I'll show you how to keep the water topped off if the NERDs can't come up with a way to do that) for a reasonable time, like 48 hours. A HIGH HEAT trial, in other words, actually boiling water in a liter container, with scope traces like we have seen which indicate several amperes flowing during part of the duty cycle. That is doable by the NERD circuit, isn't it? Well, at least I know that TAR BABY can do it and is ready to do it at any time. Then, after the 48 hours of boiling water, the Dim Bulb test is performed, using standard off the shelf automotive brake light bulbs, or car headlight bulbs for a heavier draw. No instrumental monitoring is really needed but to clinch the case, current and voltage of the Dim Bulb test batteries could be monitored as well as the light output.
The bulbs that go dim first lose. Repeat the test several times (this is FREE ENERGY so it's worth the work, isn't it?) randomizing the batteries each time, three wins out of five should settle the matter. If the NERD device wins the dim bulb test, or even ties, then there might be justification to take the time and trouble to put the entire device in the calorimeter that I know about for comprehensive real-time tests of total power dissipation as compared to power supplied by the batteries.
(But I know that zipons are allergic to calorimeters, they get claustrophobic in there or something and probably won't perform their tricks, therefore using a calorimeter on NERD is invalid, therefore aliens.)
What is objectionable about this test? Arguments as to time and expense are irrelevant. How long, how much cost, would a person be willing to put in, if they were assured to win a Nobel Prize at the end of the process?
I'd do it in a heartbeat. Take time off work, use a float valve to keep water in there, a webcam with timelapse software, some fuses to protect stuff against the "brittle" "runaway" events that Ainslie has several times noted (but not explained), some popcorn and some DVD movies.... and in a week we have good repeatable data that will win us all kinds of awards and really attract attention.
Or not.
TK,
That test would be quite reasonable if the claim is COP=Infinity (or any claim that the batteries don't discharge).
If the claim has now changed to "exceeding amp hour capacity", this test is no longer applicable. What would one use for an equivalent load profile on the batteries during the now admitted discharge phase?
Possibly using calorimetry and placing the whole device in a calorimeter to determine total heat output and then applying a load to generate a similar heat profile and then doing the dim bulb might be acceptable.
In any case, I see proving this new claim fraught with issues.
PW
Or, to use the word as Ainslie so often uses it.... simply "fraught". She seldom if ever specifies with what.
Nevertheless, you and I and Stefan and some others can figure out how to do it, by comparison against the same average DC power being drawn from a similar battery.
For example: Charge and select 8 batteries as before (two more). Determine the average power drawn for the NERD circuit using a simple filtered inline voltmeter and ammeter at the battery. Use a set of load resistors to create the same average DC power draw from the batteries that did not run the Ainslie circuit. Start both circuits at the same time and monitor the battery voltage and current. Use an inline Zener diode to shut off each circuit when the batt voltage falls below the Zener voltage. (A simple transistor "switch" or even a relay can be controlled by the Zener detecting when the voltage falls below the chosen point...say 11.5 Volts for a 12 volt battery, or 46.0 volts for a stack of 4 in series.)
The DC battery pack will last as long as its amp-hour capacity allows. The NERD circuit will either last longer... or it won't.
.
An even more sophisticated yet still easy to do routine would involve realtime monitoring of the possibly fluctuating power drawn by the Ainslie circuit, and adjusting the DC circuit's draw to match. This could be easily done with a microcontroller and some peripheral components. I believe I could set up a system to do this realtime monitoring and adjustment using an Arduino, in an afternoon's mild labor.
Last night's moon.
This was taken looking through the Megrez 90, taken off the mount and handheld, to see the crescent low on the horizon peering through the trees.
It's taken with the Canon Xti at 1/30 second at ISO1600 and processed in PixInsightLE from the Canon's .cr2 raw format image.
(Used in this way, with the TeleVue flattener/reducer, the M90 is roughly equivalent to a 600mm telephoto at f/4.8 or so.)
Two nights ago it remained clear enough late for me to get this shot of the Ring Nebula in Lyra, Messier # 57, still low on the eastern horizon.
This is a beautiful planetary nebula, the remnants of a star blowing off its outer layers in the process of becoming a white dwarf, which can barely be seen dimly at the center of the nebula. The red parts are emissions from ionized hydrogen, shocked by the rapidly expanding cloud of gas. The green is emission from doubly-ionized oxygen (O III). The nebula is about magnitude 9.0, and so can be seen in small telescopes from dark sites fairly easily. It's about 1 arc-minute in apparent diameter, and it's about 2300 light years away.
This was taken with the EdgeHD 9.25 on the CGEM mount, unguided, using the Canon Xti with the Orion Skyglow Imaging filter. This is a single frame, not stacked, an exposure of 50 seconds at ISO1600, processed in PixInsightLE and gimp.
TK, PW,
How about a Dim Bulb Test with an integrated Batt Meter ?
http://www.gorum.ca/batt-cap.html
Okay, Wilby, please stop harrassing the other guys over here and
to All:
can we please come back to a technical discussion of the TinselKoala heater device please ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 24, 2012, 02:13:50 PM
Okay, Wilby, please stop harrassing the other guys over here and
to All:
can we please come back to a technical discussion of the TinselKoala heater device please ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
hey harti... you stop them from harassing people and being uncivil and you won't hear a peep from me. it's because
you don't moderate this site that i have to demonstrate their (tk, mile, etc.) idiocy by mimicking it 'till they cry to you.
had tinsel koala not started calling people "ignorant sluts", "insane bitches", etc
OR had YOU ACTUALLY MODERATED HIM AT THE TIME i wouldn't have said a thing. how would you feel if someone spoke to your grandmother (not that rose is my grandmother) the way milehigh and tk speak to rose?
THERE IS NO CAUSE OR EXCUSE FOR THEIR UNCIVIL BEHAVIOR!and furthermore, IF YOU NOTICED, the only time i ride tk like a rented mule is when HE DEVIATES FROM TOPIC WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES.
so, in closing... if you did your fucking job around here, you would rarely hear from me. but, since you don't do your job... i do.
tu stultus es!
edited to add: harti, if you find any errors in what i have previously posted to tinselkoala or milehigh... please present them. ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2012, 02:52:48 PM
hey harti... you stop them from harassing people and being uncivil and you won't hear a peep from me. it's because you don't moderate this site that i have to demonstrate their (tk, mile, etc.) idiocy by mimicking it 'till they cry to you.
had tinsel koala not started calling people "ignorant sluts", "insane bitches", etc OR had YOU ACTUALLY MODERATED HIM AT THE TIME i wouldn't have said a thing. how would you feel if someone spoke to your grandmother (not that rose is my grandmother) the way milehigh and tk speak to rose? THERE IS NO CAUSE OR EXCUSE FOR THEIR UNCIVIL BEHAVIOR!
and furthermore, IF YOU NOTICED, the only time i ride tk like a rented mule is when HE DEVIATES FROM TOPIC WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES.
so, in closing... if you did your fucking job around here, you would rarely hear from me. but, since you don't do your job... i do.
tu stultus es!
edited to add: harti, if you find any errors in what i have previously posted to tinselkoala or milehigh... please present them. ::)
QUOTE BY - WilbyInebriatedhad tinsel koala not started calling people "ignorant sluts", "insane bitches",
I can see some one can't use the "SEARCH" function very well ...... http://www.overunity.com/search/ ???
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 22, 2012, 11:32:11 PM
and yet you can provide no evidence to counter my refutations of your logical fallacies... imagine that! nor can you demonstrate logical fallacy where you have accused me of it... even when given the 'formula'... thus, i conclude that alsetalokin/tinselkoala/ignorantslut is a pretentious idiot troll.
yeah... you're slow. we already know that. that's why you failed diffy equations...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2012, 04:02:10 PM
no you insane paranoid bitch... it was a challenge. you have insulted my honor and i am tired of your trollmongering.
then name the time, place and your choice of weapon, you sack-less sissy. it's to the death idiot...
I see some one accusing something that was only done by the accuser ..... WilbyInebriated ::)
Not once by TK ..... ::)
:P
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 24, 2012, 03:56:12 PM
QUOTE BY - WilbyInebriated
had tinsel koala not started calling people "ignorant sluts", "insane bitches",
I can see some one can't use the "SEARCH" function very well ...... http://www.overunity.com/search/ (http://www.overunity.com/search/) ???
I see some one accusing something that was only done by the accuser ..... WilbyInebriated ::)
Not once by TK ..... ::)
:P
yeah... and i can see you're a gutless mendacious troll... ::)
@all: take note of fuzzytomcat's AMAZING demonstration of due diligence above and then contrast and compare to below:
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2012, 03:05:17 AM
And, by the way, you insane bitch, GRE means "Graduate Record Examination". If you only could read, you could look that up on your computer, if you ever figure out how to use a search engine. You ignorant slut.
Oh... did I mention I was being satirical?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs)
TU STULTUS ES!
you can offer up your PUBLIC mea culpa to me now... you lying troll. :P
@harti: would you please instruct fuzzy to stop harassing me with false accusations and to stay on topic. thanks.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2012, 04:22:19 PM
yeah... and i can see you're a gutless mendacious troll... ::)
@all: take note of fuzzytomcat's AMAZING demonstration of due diligence above and then contrast and compare to below:
TU STULTUS ES!
you can offer up your PUBLIC mea culpa to me now... you lying troll. :P
@harti: would you please instruct fuzzy to stop harassing me with false accusations and to stay on topic. thanks.
Ita sum stultus .... ius. Forte ego desiderari unum sed missae quote "ergo nominare tempore, loco et electionem telum, te sacco-minus parum pudicum. Suus ad mortem excors ..." ad mortem est super verticem.
Vexationes ..... Ego tantum annotavit semel in dispositis vestra in hoc filum ....
Doc Nunc tu non .... sed Steve Windish forte sunt, puteus expectant iusti et videre
:P
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 24, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Ita sum stultus .... ius. Forte ego desiderari unum sed missae quote "ergo nominare tempore, loco et electionem telum, te sacco-minus parum pudicum. Suus ad mortem excors ..." ad mortem est super verticem.
Vexationes ..... Ego tantum annotavit semel in dispositis vestra in hoc filum ....
Doc Nunc tu non .... sed Steve Windish forte sunt, puteus expectant iusti et videre
:P
so you don't even have the guts to apologize and are simply engaging in a red herring fallacy about my challenge to the other troll... what a pathetic child you are. ::)
and you still think i'm steve... LMFAO you're pathetically delusional.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2012, 04:54:10 PM
so you don't even have the guts to apologize and are simply engaging in a red herring fallacy about my challenge to the other troll... what a pathetic child you are. ::)
and you still think i'm steve... LMFAO you're pathetically delusional.
Ita Nunc PATHETICE delusional ....
Let the members and guests decide who you are WilbyInebriated ..... what I personally think is only important to me, or do you also speak for the thought police.
Steve Windisch ( aka Jibbguy ) .... LMFAO .... down under in "Key West - South Florida" watch out for them pirates, they be nastier than some Latin gunfighter ..... they bring cannons.
:P
Quote from: evolvingape on May 24, 2012, 12:12:35 PM
TK, PW,
How about a Dim Bulb Test with an integrated Batt Meter ?
http://www.gorum.ca/batt-cap.html (http://www.gorum.ca/batt-cap.html)
Beautiful! Somebody took my idea, travelled back into the past several years with it, and fully fleshed it out, all the way through to a silkscreen for a PC board!
Folks, there is no longer any excuse for snivelling about not being able to determine accurately the battery's capacity. The circuits and techniques described in evolvingape's link above are just exactly what the doctor ordered for the Ainslie test-shyness syndrome. A system is detailed to monitor battery voltage and shut off the circuit when the battery voltage reaches the setpoint, and a timer/load system is described using the battery voltage cutoff that will automatically drain the battery with a known load and record the time it took. Knowing the average power and the duration of the test we can determine the capacity in Joules (Wattseconds), easily converted to Amp-hours.
So.... stating that a post is strictly satire doesn't make the insult go away, does it. Thank you for proving my point so effectively. When Ainslie claims that her lies and insults are "just satire"..... and I illustrate the point by reflecting it back at her..... doesn't that make the insult not an insult... but SATIRE? No?
Ainslie has been insulting me, my work, my equipment, my education, and even my dog, since 2009. Yet she never once has deigned to provide an actual analysis of why she believes I am wrong... only insults, misrepresentations and lies about my work.
So I feel no particular restraint in giving as good as I got.
This time I agree with Wilby, as should have been clear from my quotation from SNL.... which I even referenced. Calling something satire does not change its impact or its nature.... does it. Ainslie's baldfaced insults and lies about me are not changed by her calling them satire, and THAT was what my "ignorant slut" post.... referencing the popular television show .... was all about: reflecting back to her what she herself first brought to the table. After seeing that "cartoon" on YouTube.... which I do in fact no kidding find extremely offensive in addition to being in poor taste ..... I feel completely free to call Ainslie whatever strikes my fancy.... in caricature, of course. If the glass slipper just happens to fit the foot.... well, you know that the prize is a big pumpkin and not much else.
since you're digging this hole... let's see how far it goes.
please explain EXACTLY what characteristic of rose's you were exaggerating or oversimplifying when you called rose a slut. i'll wait... ::)
and while you're at it, why don't you explain SPECIFICALLY what is "EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE" about the caricature rose drew of you and milelow. simply saying it offends you really doesn't suffice.
Still waiting, along with your pitiful straw men for company, pretending not to understand?
Still blatantly ignoring the wishes of our host, just like Ainslie does?
Of course you are. How can you do otherwise? You've hugged a Tar Baby to your breast.
And I'm SPECIFICALLY extremely offended by the way she portrayed my moustaches. I am very sensitive about my moustaches and she has them utterly and completely WRONG.... as usual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc1Qx8dOlYY
Preparing to construct the Altoids Negative Mean Power Product COP>INFINITY demonstrator.
This was tossed out by me as a thought experiment, and .99 took up the "challenge" and designed the circuit in his sim, where the negative mean power product shows up nicely. I've got all the parts now, including some little 2.2 uH inductors, and I'll be working on this today, off and on.
This should result in a pocketsized, 9v-battery powered mosfet oscillator that can be seen to power a load (LEDs or a resistor that can be felt to heat up, perhaps with a LC thermometer strip or other small cheap thermometer) and that can be easily hooked up to an oscilloscope to demonstrate the mean negative power product and the decreasing energy integral.
So... if it works.... the only mystery remaining will be to explain..... why the battery DOES discharge, if zipons == true.
ETA:
@.99-- could you please try the sim with 2.2 and also 4.4 uH inductors in place of the 3.3s you have shown? It will be easier for me to reach these values with the components I've got.
TK,
Yeah, I'll try the 2u2 and 4u4 values later tonight and let you know.
.99
Thanks, .99. Also could you try 1n914 or 1n4001 in place of the 1n4007s? I have about a thousand 914s and only a few of the 4007s.
Here's another circuit of interest. This one is for SOC under load testing of NiCd batteries for RC airplanes, with an "expanded scale" indication using LEDs. The component values shown put a load of about 200 mA on the battery under test, and test either 4.8 or 9.6 nominal voltage NiCd packs (the 8 cell indicated at half voltage by use of the divider selected by the switch.)
The principle of operation is evident, and I think that the resistor values and Zener voltage could be changed, along with the addition perhaps of another 2 ea. LM339 comparator chips to double the indication range.... to apply a load (some power resistors, to give say 2 amps draw for a brief time) to a battery or a stack, and then sensitively display a precise and accurate SOC indication by lighting the corresponding LEDs.
For a 48 volt battery pack, the voltages of interest could be read off the manufacturer's published discharge V-SOC curve. Say 16 voltages between 53.0 and 45.0, spaced to correspond to 7 percent SOC intervals on the curve.
This looks to me to be under 10 dollars in parts, even for the expanded 16-level version.
@.99
OK, I found my diode stash, I have plenty of 1n4007s. Still, it would be nice if I could use some of these silly 914s.
Here is another more sophisticated expanded range voltage monitor that could be modified for the voltage span and increments we are interested in.
http://www.solorb.com/elect/solarcirc/vom/index.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 25, 2012, 10:55:35 AM
Still waiting, along with your pitiful straw men for company, pretending not to understand?
strawmen? LMFAO you wouldn't know a strawman if it took you by the hand and walked you all the way down the yellow brick road to oz, dorothy. ::) i didn't misrepresent or distort your position, idiot. in point of fact, i asked you to clarify it... and, you avoided answering with another red herring. ::) so, once again.
please explain EXACTLY what characteristic of rose's you were exaggerating or oversimplifying when you called rose a slut. i'll wait... you see people, a literary caricature REQUIRES the exaggeration or oversimplification of a characteristic of the subject. the troll's continued refusal to clarify EXACTLY what characteristic of rose's he was attempting to exaggerate or oversimplify by calling her a slut, is a tacit admission that he knows he has NOT met the qualifications of literary caricature. if you compare and contrast that (the troll's alleged 'literary caricature') to the actual caricature rose drew of the two trolls, the characteristic she exaggerated is obvious... she took their big heads and made them bigger. ;) let's see if the troll can qualify his 'literary caricature'... or is he making up definitions to suit himself again? ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 25, 2012, 10:55:35 AM
Still blatantly ignoring the wishes of our host, just like Ainslie does?
no more than you or fuzzy... little bryan. ::) i am refuting fuzzy's blatant lies and your asinine comments about me... ::) stay on topic with logically sound arguments and you wont hear from me troll. ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 25, 2012, 04:11:16 PM
strawmen? LMFAO you wouldn't know a strawman if it took you by the hand and walked you all the way down the yellow brick road to oz, dorothy. ::) i didn't misrepresent or distort your position, idiot. in point of fact, i asked you to clarify it... and, you avoided answering with another red herring. ::) so, once again. please explain EXACTLY what characteristic of rose's you were exaggerating or oversimplifying when you called rose a slut. i'll wait...
you see people, a literary caricature REQUIRES the exaggeration or oversimplification of a characteristic of the subject. the troll's continued refusal to clarify EXACTLY what characteristic of rose's he was attempting to exaggerate or oversimplify by calling her a slut, is a tacit admission that he knows he has NOT met the qualifications of literary caricature. if you compare and contrast that (the troll's alleged 'literary caricature') to the actual caricature rose drew of the two trolls, the characteristic she exaggerated is obvious... she took their big heads and made them bigger. ;) let's see if the troll can qualify his 'literary caricature'... or is he making up definitions to suit himself again? ::)
no more than you or fuzzy... little bryan. ::) i am refuting fuzzy's blatant lies and your asinine comments about me... ::) stay on topic with logically sound arguments and you wont hear from me troll. ::)
My blatant lies ... ;)
This is nothing but cheap trailer trash talk from a "shill" that's a lap puppy of Rosemary's. Your just a "shill" Rosemary's decoy who acts as an enthusiastic OU member in order to stimulate the participation of others, with your trailer trash comments aimed at the viewing guests to diminish OU members as idiots and yourself as some kind of huckleberry hero. ::)
You can reply, post, write or report all you want, your nothing but a exposed "shill". ;)
For your information my name isn't little Bryan, I don't live in a cave or in the mountains, I'm not a dwarf or a giant ( 6'2" 195 lbs ) and I don't eat fish or go fishing ..... but I may have supernatural abilities because I can see through your crap ::)
What's the matter Wilby.... did the bad mens use a pinking shear for your bris? Awww.....there there, it will stop hurting eventually. And just think... how amused the girls will be when they see...! Or the guys, of course .....
It's nice to see (Note: irony alert) that you can continue blatantly to ignore the wishes of our host and post anyway. I figured you'd be in Des Moines Iowa or Benton Harbor by now at least. I've been using the time to practice my SuperSoaker chops.... I can completely blacken a squirrel at 10 yards before that sucker even knows what hit him.
But of course it's well understood by me and by some others reading here that the SuperTroll WilbyInebriated is trying to get this thread shut down. Why? Because he is a disinformation agent and is actively working with Ainslie to keep certain elements occupied uselessly, and the Truth is inimical to his tacit goal.
This entire thread is filled with nothing but grown men and women acting like children.
If all of you spent as much time working on discovering alternate sources of energy as you do trolling each other we'd probably have a working, replicable device by now.
Quote from: Tenbatsu on May 25, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
This entire thread is filled with nothing but grown men and women acting like children.
If all of you spent as much time working on discovering alternate sources of energy as you do trolling each other we'd probably have a working, replicable device by now.
With all due respect, you do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
TK,
Tested the low-power, low-voltage oscillator, and it works perfectly fine using anything from 2.2uH to 10uH. The "VBAT" voltage goes up as the inductance value goes up, so that may be desirable to a point. Also, of course Fo goes down as the inductance increases:
2.2uH yields Fo~3.5MHz
3.3uH yields Fo~2.5MHz (not sure how I got 4.5MHz last time)
10uH yields Fo~1MHz (I didn't test anything higher than 10uH)
You should stay with the 1N4007 diode, as there is about 160V reverse voltage across that D2 when using 10uH inductors. With the 3.3uH inductors, there is just under 100V reverse across it. I'm pretty sure Vbr of the 1N914 is about 100V.
The CSR resistor is creating an issue; in order to retain that negative mean power computation, the positive probe will have to be placed on GND, which is not what we want. If we move the circuit common to the other side of the CSR (as shown below), then you can easily probe both VBAT and VCSR without any grounding problems, and retain the negative mean power computation. This does cause a slight difference in the computed negative mean power; -4.8W (right side), and -4.6W (left side).
Hi Wilby and all,
well let´s just calm all down here and don´t use any name calling anymore and smut words anymore please.
Let us just stay ontopic and concentrate on the replication and analysis of the
NERD team device here.
I hope Rosemary will still do her new tests soon and so we see her side of the data
and she will not only post her outdated old data again and again.
I hope that she is not in here just for getting her thesis passed but will try to
find for herself the truth about her circuit....
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2012, 02:52:48 PM
hey harti... you stop them from harassing people and being uncivil and you won't hear a peep from me. it's because you don't moderate this site that i have to demonstrate their (tk, mile, etc.) idiocy by mimicking it 'till they cry to you.
had tinsel koala not started calling people "ignorant sluts", "insane bitches", etc OR had YOU ACTUALLY MODERATED HIM AT THE TIME i wouldn't have said a thing. how would you feel if someone spoke to your grandmother (not that rose is my grandmother) the way milehigh and tk speak to rose? THERE IS NO CAUSE OR EXCUSE FOR THEIR UNCIVIL BEHAVIOR!
Thanks, .99. I had already picked up on the reference point issue, but I'm glad to hear your confirmation of it. I'll be working on the circuit tonight if all goes as planned.
@Stefan:
Obviously to some, the quotes Wilby attributes to me were contained in a remark that I specifically labelled as satire, even including a link to a popular American television program, Saturdy Night Live, where the line "Jane you ignorant slut" became virtually iconic as a sarcastic satirical jibe. And just as clearly, my post was in direct response to Ainslie's obvious sexual slur contained in her "caricature" of two people she has never even seen-- and which she explained as "satire" rather than a deadly insult to a macho Texan bareback cowboy. (But not to me, of course.) My point of course is that calling something satire does not really soften the blow. And I see that that point has been well taken.
Thank you for your continued patience and tolerance. The testing will continue -- at least, mine will continue -- and I'm sure the occasional content-less interruptions will also continue. As the post from new_user Tenbatsu demonstrates.
--TK
Quote from: Tenbatsu on May 25, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
This entire thread is filled with nothing but grown men and women acting like children.
If all of you spent as much time working on discovering alternate sources of energy as you do trolling each other we'd probably have a working, replicable device by now.
I'm sure you have read and understood the entire thread, and of course you've watched all my video demonstrations of men and women acting like children.
Where is your documented work, Tenbatsu? And just how do you know how I spend most of my time? You do realise that by making your contentless and off topic post.... you are trolling, right?
2509 kHz from the Philips counter, and an apparent negative mean power product from eyeballing the traces. It will be some days before I can get use of the Tek DSO to compute the negatively accumulating energy integral, but it looks to me like Altoids is working quite well, perhaps even better than Tar Baby in relative terms. It works with LEDs as shown and makes an even better looking waveform with a 100R for a load instead of the LEDs. It heats the resistor !!
8)
For the newcomers like Tenbatsu, this Altoids box is a pocket COP>INFINITY demonstrator. It appears to produce the negative mean power product that is the main (and so far only) evidence that the NERD team has offered in support of their claims of overunity and their prize claim. As soon as I am able to I will use a digital oscilloscope to confirm that it is indeed making the definite negative power product that it appears to be doing.
Hence.... here is a completely stand-alone device that will fit in a shirt pocket and can be hooked up to anybody's test equipment anywhere for independent confirmation that it makes a negative mean power product and a decreasing energy integral, while lighting LEDs or warming a resistive load.
Altoids is an oscillating mosfet with a resistive-inductive load, based on the Ainslie COP>INFINITY design modified for continuous oscillation. There are no fundamental differences between Altoids and the NERD device except that the Q1 mosfet has been functionally replaced by a Zener diode, and it is a continuous oscillator in the "negative bias" mode of the NERD device.
Bravo .99, and thanks again!!
;)
This is something that would bear sticking on http://www.instructables.com/ (http://www.instructables.com/) - they're crazy for Altoid tins on there.
Admittedly a limited subset would understand the purpose, or be interested, but it's a fairly large audience.
Nice job TK. The wave forms look similar to the sim results.
Strange that you didn't find the results better with a LED.
I also noticed that it appears you added some resistance to the inductors. Those are unnecessary, and were only shown on my schematic to account for lead resistance, in case they make some difference in the real circuit with the real inductors. That's why I showed the resistance and inductance together in a dotted outline.
The other MOSFET (Q1 as you mention) was replaced by the 1N4007, whereas the zener in the circuit replaces the FG, or bias supply.
Anyway, I'm glad it worked. :)
What is the scaling on the "VBAT" trace? What's the RJ11 jack for?
.99
.99,
Is this the minimum component requirement for the oscillator?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 26, 2012, 08:56:56 AM
.99,
Is this the minimum component requirement for the oscillator?
GL.
For best results, you should have some inductance in all the places shown on the schematic.
As a minimum, you need some inductance off the Gate as shown, and some inductance in the battery lead. With enough inductance in the battery lead, you don't need any inductance in the load position in order to make it oscillate.
You only need
one LED, as stated on the schematic. The two diodes were used and shown on the schematic only to represent an equivalent voltage drop of a
single LED.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 26, 2012, 07:29:51 AM
Nice job TK. The wave forms look similar to the sim results.
Strange that you didn't find the results better with a LED.
I also noticed that it appears you added some resistance to the inductors. Those are unnecessary, and were only shown on my schematic to account for lead resistance, in case they make some difference in the real circuit with the real inductors. That's why I showed the resistance and inductance together in a dotted outline.
No, the supplier had two different types of 2.2uH inductors so I used one of each in series to give a nominal 4.4 uH. I understood that the resistances you put in the sim were the pure resistances of the inductors used. The two types measured a little different on my unreliable meter so I decided to use one of each type at each inductor position. Didn't the color code tip you off? Silver-red-gold-red-bigsilver? Alien resistors speaking Hungarian -- or inductors !!
Quote
The other MOSFET (Q1 as you mention) was replaced by the 1N4007, whereas the zener in the circuit replaces the FG, or bias supply.
Duh... yes I see that now. Thanks...
Quote
Anyway, I'm glad it worked. :)
What is the scaling on the "VBAT" trace? What's the RJ11 jack for?
.99
RJ11 jack? Huh? Oh, do you mean the yellow thing? That's a slug-tuned inductor in the place of the 200nH part of the CVR, turned on its side. It's probably less than 200nH but I didn't feel like winding a little coil, so I just grabbed something with a few turns and a slug in it out of the junkbox.
I thought about putting BNC jacks in but decided it was too expensive and complicated. The probe points are just simple loops of copper wire.
Vbatt is shown at 10 V/div and CVR is at 0.05 V/div, and the CVR is 1.1 Ohm metal film + the slug-tuned inductor. Tuning the inductor makes a tiny difference in some details of the waveform... I probably could use more inductance here. I'll have to check the vertical amp at that setting, it's the most sensitive range (0.005V/div and using the 10x atten probe) and I'm not absolutely sure about the voltage values indicated. But that probe (a new one for me, a Velleman 100MHz probe), I just realized, can be switched to 1x. Trying now...
OK, with the CVR probe at 1x and the scope atten at 0.05 V/div (three knob clicks up) , I see the same numbers for the peak voltages, and I trust the scope at that atten setting.
The circuit did a really strange thing though. When I got it together it didn't oscillate. I checked the build carefully, I tried different 2n7000s, different supply voltages, nothing. By putting a pot across the resistor in the gate circuit to give the mosfet gate some positive drive directly, I was able to get the LEDs to light up but still no oscillations. I probed around in the circuit with some jumpers, shorting individual components with a 100R or a bit of wire, and I discovered that by "tickling" the junction of the zener and the rectifier with a single wire end, I could get a brief dim flash of the LEDs. I messed around and messed around, and one time the LEDs came on for a half second. Then I kept messing and they stayed on for a full second. Then for two seconds, then four, then they remained on whenever power is applied, whether with varying voltages from PS (7 to 11 V as you said) or with the 9V battery. It was as if something in the circuit had to be "conditioned" somehow. I thought maybe the cap needed some charge buildup before the circuit would oscillate, but that doesn't seem to be the cause. I can't get it to "stop" oscillating now whenever the switch is on and the battery is in place. I've shorted the cap to get rid of residual charge and it still oscillates immediately on applying power, and it worked first thing this morning too. It's working now, radiating zipons into the thermosphere as we converse.
The difference in the LED and the resistor load traces is mainly in the size of the peak on the Vbatt and the depth of the trough on CVR. It looks to me like the resistor will give the greater negative mean product, but I'm too lazy to want to do two mean power calcs by hand from photographs (although if it starts raining this afternoon I might do it anyway.)
Grounding the circuit to the box makes a big difference too. For now I'm leaving the box disconnected from the circuit ground.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 26, 2012, 09:31:33 AM
(replying to Groundloop)
For best results, you should have some inductance in all the places shown on the schematic.
As a minimum, you need some inductance off the Gate as shown, and some inductance in the battery lead. With enough inductance in the battery lead, you don't need any inductance in the load position in order to make it oscillate.
You only need one LED, as stated on the schematic. The two diodes were used and shown on the schematic only to represent an equivalent voltage drop of a single LED.
I put in a little socket for the "load". So I can put 2 LEDs in there, or one, or a 100R resistor, or whatever. The single LED makes the largest magnitude spikes by a large margin, and will likely make the largest negative mean power product, but the waveform is messier than that with two LEDs or the load resistor. So I've been running with the two tiny LEDs in series, but yes, it definitely makes bigger "noise" when just a single one is used.
TK,
Ah, the two series LED's (3V to 4V drop) explains it then I think. It looks like you are getting about a 25V swing on "VBAT". With the two series diodes (1.4V drop), I am seeing about a 60V swing.
I'm a little surprised that the polarity of the LEDs can't be reversed and have them still light up. Since the circuit works and oscillates with just a 100R in there, the diode action isn't required, I think...
Here's a funny: If I put the LED in backwards it doesn't light and of course there are no oscs. But if I then "short" across the reversed LED with another 2.2uH inductor, the LED lights up! And the oscs return but with an extra, large, positive going peak in the CVR trace.
If I have the LED in the "right way around" as shown in the diagram and glowing well,, shorting across it with the inductor kills the light and the oscs.
And just to clarify one thing:
You don't need any inductance added to the CSR.
@all: Keep in mind that my schematics (when simulating) include parasitic components, and these components are not meant to be added to your actual build on purpose.
parasitic components that I may use include:
- the series resistance and parallel capacitance of inductors
- the series resistance of CSR's
- the series resistance and inductance of long wires
- the series resistance (ESR) of capacitors
- the internal resistance and inductance of batteries
I try to make it obvious which components are "parasitic", but most of you will (or should) know this already. ;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2012, 09:51:11 AM
I'm a little surprised that the polarity of the LEDs can't be reversed and have them still light up. Since the circuit works and oscillates with just a 100R in there, the diode action isn't required, I think...
The diode action isn't required, but it does enhance the effect and provide for higher "VBAT" spikes. It also gives a nice visual indication and confirmation of the direction of current flow in the circuit.
The fact that the polarity of the LED can't be reversed shouldn't be surprising, since this simply indicates that the average current through the circuit is
from the battery, and not the reverse.
Here's what the traces look like with a single red LED as the load. A lot more amplitude but not as clean waveforms. The Vbatt trace goes negative, which is something I've not seen in Tar Baby yet, that I can recall. This still looks to me like it will give a negative mean power product, but I don't know what that negative batt excursion will do to the final result.
Oh, yes.. the use of the single LED raises the osc frequency to around 3.6 MHz, and it is easily picked up as a strong carrier on my little SW radio at that frequency, and it's pretty narrow band too. There is no modulation of course.... I wonder how hard it would be to modulate at say 440 Hz, by putting a simple interrupting transistor in series with the main loop, like another 2n7000 run off a 555 or even a simpler RC osc config.
Argh. I got confused with probe attens now that I have this new one with the switch. The Vcvr trace in the last scopeshot is at 0.1 V/div, not 1 V/div as I had it at first, since I am using the 1x setting on the probe.
I've corrected the scopeshot. A peak current of 180 mA negative.... that looked bad, and it is bad, due to the atten error. The true peak is about -18 mA, I think.
Sorry....
:-\
OK, I went through the manual calculation using one cycle from the above scopeshot. I got a mean power of negative half a Watt.
If we can get this up to negative One Watt.... then I'll send it off for the "One Watt Challenge" prize offered by somebody or other.
;)
This is of course uncorrected for the inductive reactance of the CVR at 3.6MHz. The correction will lower the power figure but it won't change the sign.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2012, 09:51:11 AM
I'm a little surprised that the polarity of the LEDs can't be reversed and have them still light up. Since the circuit works and oscillates with just a 100R in there, the diode action isn't required, I think...
Here's a funny: If I put the LED in backwards it doesn't light and of course there are no oscs. But if I then "short" across the reversed LED with another 2.2uH inductor, the LED lights up! And the oscs return but with an extra, large, positive going peak in the CVR trace.
If I have the LED in the "right way around" as shown in the diagram and glowing well,, shorting across it with the inductor kills the light and the oscs.
Well, it turns out I was wrong about that very last part. The LED dies... but the oscillations don't. They smooth a bit and look even more strongly negative. Removing the LED load entirely and just dropping in one of those 2.2 uH inductors makes the best result of all, I think: nice smooth waveform with lots of negative math.
I made a video and it's uploading now. I'll post the link when it's ready. Meanwhile here's this, showing the waveform with the load LED reversed and paralleled with the 2.2uH inductor.
Curiously strong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--JF12FH2Zc
@ .99:
Altoid seems to run as well or perhaps a bit better.... with the Zener completely removed ??!?
Hi TK,
With the simulation, removing the LED and adding 2.2uH more inductance does increase the VBAT amplitude slightly, but other than that, there is little difference.
However, removing the zener makes quite a difference; the VBAT went from ~60V to ~200V swing! This ought to make an even better negative mean power (NMP) computation. The Fo decreases quite a bit too.
Obviously there is more going on in terms of resonances in the real build compared to the simulation, as my traces are relatively "clean", and my "VBAT" amplitude is much higher.
Nonetheless, it's nice to see it running, and you making "improvements" on the NMP computation.
TK,
Fresh minty breath and a NMP, wintergreen cool!
Any idea how much Ibias (current draw) changes with the zener removed?
You might consider a trimpot for R3, element between batt+ and gnd and wiper to the gate. That will let you set the gate voltage at will. Also, I would again suggest a small source degeneration resistor from source to gnd just to improve Ibias stability as temp changes (2R-6R).
Caveat: Without the zener, Ibias will change as Vbatt drops. You could try increasing the zener voltage a bit, two 3.3V in series for example. It may not be all that bad though to have Ibias decrease as Vbatt drops and the batt ESR increases.
Way to go TK and .99!
PW
Yes,
The bias current increases to about 30mA (from about 20mA) without the zener installed, and as PW mentioned, it will most likely be more stable as the battery voltage changes with the zener in.
What makes you think Vbatt is going to drop? It is still sitting there oscillating away and I see "no detectable change" in the battery voltage.
Why don't we have a tongue in cheek smiley? -)
The thing is a nice little RF oscillator with enough radiated power to show up fine on the shortwave as a carrier, here on the bench. I'd still like to put some modulation on there for demonstration purposes. This would involve simply chopping the signal at an audio frequency; the osc duty cycle could still be 80 percent or more and the modulation would be hearable on the shortwave at around 3.6 MHz.
I do like the idea of having the Zener in there. But now... for some reason, now it _won't_ oscillate at all with the Zener in! I think maybe that earlier initial problem I had getting it started might have been a cold solder joint even, that actually got worse instead of better and by failing to keep connected it allowed the circuit to work! I've checked the Zener, replaced with another, still the same behavior. I think I will try a higher voltage and see what happens.
Hmm... a 5.1 Zener causes some interesting stuff.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2012, 09:15:29 PM
What makes you think Vbatt is going to drop? It is still sitting there oscillating away and I see "no detectable change" in the battery voltage.
Why don't we have a tongue in cheek smiley? -)
The thing is a nice little RF oscillator with enough radiated power to show up fine on the shortwave as a carrier, here on the bench. I'd still like to put some modulation on there for demonstration purposes. This would involve simply chopping the signal at an audio frequency; the osc duty cycle could still be 80 percent or more and the modulation would be hearable on the shortwave at around 3.6 MHz.
I do like the idea of having the Zener in there. But now... for some reason, now it _won't_ oscillate at all with the Zener in! I think maybe that earlier initial problem I had getting it started might have been a cold solder joint even, that actually got worse instead of better and by failing to keep connected it allowed the circuit to work! I've checked the Zener, replaced with another, still the same behavior. I think I will try a higher voltage and see what happens.
Hmm... a 5.1 Zener causes some interesting stuff.
TK,
Most circuits operate on the smoke intrinsically contained within the components. It may be that your new circuit operates on external volatiles contained in the mint container and they have all evaporated. Possibly crumble a mint and sprinkle within. Be careful not to mix flavors, results can be unpredictable.
You mentioned grounding/not grounding the can. Are you still "ungrounded"? What changes when you do gnd the can?
PW
All these zeners test good, the magic smoke still inside, and in the mosfets too. I got 4 of the 3.3 volt Zeners, cut out the first one just on spec and replaced it with another new one. No change... it still just doesn't want to oscillate with the 3.3 Zener in there. I suppose it's possible that all 4 of these are bad... but they test the same on my diode checker. The circuit definitely oscillates with the 5.1 V Zener in there... quite a bit lower f0, big spikes, definite ringing but the waveform looks less like it will make the Negative mean power product. The only lowvoltage Zeners I have in stock are the 3.3 and the 5.1, but I found some different 3.3's in the box that I can try from another manufacturer.
The box... Right now I've soldered a 3" cliplead on the circuit's common ground terminal and can use that to clip to the box or not. I've also soldered a 0.01 uF cap to the box itself, so I can clip to nothing, to the cap, or to the side of the box directly. There seems to be an issue with the metal case of the battery. When I have the battery sitting in the box and I clip the circuit common to either the box or the little cap, the waveform gets really complicated and my scope can't trigger cleanly on it. But if I remove the battery from the box and just set it alongside, then clipping the circuit common to the box slightly smooths the ripples and I think gives the nicest looking and most stable waveforms. So there is some issue with coupling to the metal case of the battery. When I built the thing I put a sheet of thin plastic underneath the circuit board itself but didn't think that the battery area would need insulation... so it is too tight in there now to add any easily. But I'll tear it apart and get something lining the battery compartment to insulate the battery case, and maybe that will allow "grounded" operation with stability.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2012, 11:55:15 PM
All these zeners test good, the magic smoke still inside, and in the mosfets too. I got 4 of the 3.3 volt Zeners, cut out the first one just on spec and replaced it with another new one. No change... it still just doesn't want to oscillate with the 3.3 Zener in there. I suppose it's possible that all 4 of these are bad... but they test the same on my diode checker. The circuit definitely oscillates with the 5.1 V Zener in there... quite a bit lower f0, big spikes, definite ringing but the waveform looks less like it will make the Negative mean power product. The only lowvoltage Zeners I have in stock are the 3.3 and the 5.1, but I found some different 3.3's in the box that I can try from another manufacturer.
The box... Right now I've soldered a 3" cliplead on the circuit's common ground terminal and can use that to clip to the box or not. I've also soldered a 0.01 uF cap to the box itself, so I can clip to nothing, to the cap, or to the side of the box directly. There seems to be an issue with the metal case of the battery. When I have the battery sitting in the box and I clip the circuit common to either the box or the little cap, the waveform gets really complicated and my scope can't trigger cleanly on it. But if I remove the battery from the box and just set it alongside, then clipping the circuit common to the box slightly smooths the ripples and I think gives the nicest looking and most stable waveforms. So there is some issue with coupling to the metal case of the battery. When I built the thing I put a sheet of thin plastic underneath the circuit board itself but didn't think that the battery area would need insulation... so it is too tight in there now to add any easily. But I'll tear it apart and get something lining the battery compartment to insulate the battery case, and maybe that will allow "grounded" operation with stability.
TK,
Rather than insulate the battery, maybe work the problem from a different angle. Consider decoupling across the battery so that only smooth DC is across the battery terminals. You could do this with a cap across the terminals where the batt wires are connected to the board, or, if the top of the batt connector can be removed, solder a cap at the batt connector. Adding the cap at the board will allow a bit more flexibility regarding cap selection, but a single tant will likely suffice.
If osc dies, add more inductance on the board with inductors or coiled wire.
This should allow you to install the batt in the gnd'ed case and provide a probe point for PMP to compare to the NMP.
PW
TK
Here in the jungles of central america your circuit wouldn't be complete without black electrical tape, somewhere. So, consider a tight wrap on the battery. It should still fit in the casing. The only caps in these parts are worn on peoples heads. The black tape might fit into the TarBaby theme as well. Altoid mini is a real breath of fresh air
RF
Quote from: ReFried on May 27, 2012, 08:20:46 AM
TK
Here in the jungles of central america your circuit wouldn't be complete without black electrical tape, somewhere. So, consider a tight wrap on the battery. It should still fit in the casing. The only caps in these parts are worn on peoples heads. The black tape might fit into the TarBaby theme as well. Altoid mini is a real breath of fresh air
RF
The battery and the case are probably introducing a capacitance across the circuit.
Like an ignition spark coil, the can of the coil can be used as a capacitive connection to the coil. Like if you use an AV plug to charge a cap for discharge into the spark coils primary, the AV plug is usually sourcing from a 1 ended HV secondary. But if you take that open end of the HV feeding the AV plug, and connect it to the can, the discharge cap wil fill much faster than with the AV plug alone, as the can capacitance completes the HV circuit.
Being you are in the Mhz, the capacitance could be minute and affect things. Taping it up will reduce it, but not eliminate it completely.
Mags
To test my theory, insulate the battery case, but solder a short wire to the case first near the terminal end. Now take that wire and attach it to either the + or - of the battery then close the altoids case and see if there is a difference in whether it is connected + or -
Simple to try.
Mags
Thanks Mags. Your post helped me understand PicoWatt's suggestion better also. I will add this to the list of the many things I have learned connected with this thread.
RF
TK and Poynt:
Congratulations on the over unity machine. It's like 12 year's worth of Rosemary Ainslie research all distilled down into a sardine can. Can I power my mp3 player with it and the battery will never need charging? Or perhaps replace that zipon-depleted binding material matrix in the body of one of the resistors every 100 years?
Isn't it strangely reminiscent of the Steorn Waterways demo with Sean and the anti-climax with the $20K DSO? Perhaps Rosie and Sean should have a beer together.
Anyway, keep pushing that technology forward. I am still curious about the mechanism for the current reversing direction.
Have fun!
MileHigh
Forwards? Sideways, maybe.
New Altoid video up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bue_ZJ_y1aI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bue_ZJ_y1aI)
I put some plastic lining the battery compartment. I get inconsistent behaviour wrt the rough waveforms and triggering; I think it depends on the load, the battery voltage and also the RF environment, which is very different here late at night for some reason. As you can see in the video I have the battery in the box and the box grounded to the circuit with the cliplead and there are no problems.Putting a small cap across the battery terminals when the roughness is happening doesn't seem to make any difference. But that's OK... as long as I can just hook it up and turn it on, like in the video, to demonstrate the NMP, that's good enough for me.
There is a weirdness shown in the video where I put a cap across where the Zener goes.
It's been awfully quiet around here lately.... what is going on?
TK,
With a 5.1V zener, will the circuit oscillate with any load?
It makes sense that the oscillations would cease when capacitively shorting the Gate to ground; you are also shorting the Gate inductance, which is required for the circuit to oscillate.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 28, 2012, 08:11:23 AM
TK,
With a 5.1V zener, will the circuit oscillate with any load?
It makes sense that the oscillations would cease when capacitively shorting the Gate to ground; you are also shorting the Gate inductance, which is required for the circuit to oscillate.
Yes, it will, with lots of nice ringing and a much lower f0. And I'm sorry I didn't think to show that; in the video I kind of forgot which variation I was in for a moment. I'll make another quick video to show the difference with different loads a bit later this morning. I need another cup of coffee first.
The point of the cap demo was that the current went high, to 40 mA, and stayed there. Just a tiny touch of the cap across the Z position must allow the gate to charge fully, but what keeps it charged once it is?
In fact, with the zener gone and that part of the circuit open, I can see that shorting across these points pulls the gate down and turns the mosfet off, hence current goes to zero. Removing the short allows the gate to charge through the 30K and the LC in the gate-source makes the oscillations. But when I put the cap in, the gate fully charges through the 30K once the 0.01 uF is full, then when I remove the cap.... why doesn't it start oscillating again, instead of just staying on?
I wonder if this circuit has blown all my 3.3 V Zeners on first trial. They test good on the diode check test but give me weird results when I look at them with a power supply and a voltmeter.
What size capacitor was that you were using in place of the zener?
Also, did you get a current measurement when it was working with the 3.3V zener and LED load?
TK,
Try the original circuit again, with the 3.3V zener, and LED load, but place a 470p cap in parallel with the 1N4007. See if that gets it to oscillate and be more stable. In the sim, the Fo goes down.
What sort of weirdness are you seeing with your simple DC zener test?
TK:
I thought that I would mention in your first of the new round of scope shots you can see that when the MOSFET is on, there is a second higher-frequency oscillator running. It completes about 7 or 8 cycles before the MOSFET switches off as part of the main cycle.
It would be nice to see the gate voltage waveform scoped also. That's the link between the battery voltage waveform and the CVR voltage waveform. You might remember my "tripod" offer.
It looks like you will find a nice configuration that shows gobs of power returning to the battery. Then you can load mass quantities of Altoid cases into a shipping container! ;D
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 28, 2012, 12:30:41 PM
I wonder if this circuit has blown all my 3.3 V Zeners on first trial. They test good on the diode check test but give me weird results when I look at them with a power supply and a voltmeter.
I see the 3.3v zens check out. Did you try 2 in series? 6.6v may show you if they are blown or 3.3v is not high enough to work here.
Mags
Quote from: poynt99 on May 28, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
What size capacitor was that you were using in place of the zener?
0.01 uF
Quote
Also, did you get a current measurement when it was working with the 3.3V zener and LED load?
I'm no longer sure it was ever working with the 3.3V zener, but anyway, no.
@Mags
No, I have not tried two in series...yet. I intended to go and get some fresh ones but didn't get around to it today. I'll try two of the ones I've got now in series.
I've posted a video showing some of the variations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtped72pYZQ
With two of my 3.3V Zeners in series and the single LED load, the result is similar to the result with the 5.1 V Zener: a decrease in osc frequency to 1.875 MHz (philips pm6676) and a more pronounced ringing. And the LED brightens visibly over the "nothing in zener slot" level.
When I just look across the empty Zener socket with a voltmeter I get about 2.7 V DC or so.
(The battery is low, though, around 8 volts no-load).
Quote from: poynt99 on May 28, 2012, 07:39:25 PM
TK,
Try the original circuit again, with the 3.3V zener, and LED load, but place a 470p cap in parallel with the 1N4007. See if that gets it to oscillate and be more stable. In the sim, the Fo goes down.
What sort of weirdness are you seeing with your simple DC zener test?
The original circuit, with LED load, 3.3 V zener and 470 pf in parallel with the rectifier: nothing. No oscs. Without the zener, the cap in parallel with the 4007 causes the f0 to go down.
The zeners seemed to have a lot of leakage in the reverse-biased direction when still below the Zener voltage using my crude test. But when I put two in series and put them in the circuit, they behave like they should, decreasing the f0 to about 1.875 MHz and providing a little more room for the ringdowns to show in the traces.
Any DBT scheduled for the Altoids machine?
Quote from: polln8r on May 30, 2012, 01:30:46 AM
Any DBT scheduled for the Altoids machine?
No, I have no plans for such, although I will do some capacitor-powered runs when I take the DSO measurements later this week.
I know the battery runs down already. Did you know Radio Shack gets nearly five dollars for a 9v battery?
The Altoid demonstrator is sort of an exercise in clear thinking. The claim has been made several times by several people that even a negative mean _current_ would indicate battery recharging and overunity performance. This little Altoids box, based on the NERD oscillator circuit, shows that a negative mean current measurement, along with the overall negative mean power product and a decreasing energy integral, can be easily obtained from a circuit that nobody pretends is OU. The measurements are obtained by taking an ordinary feedback oscillator and modelling the wire inductances in the NERD circuit with discrete components in Altoid, and requiring that measurements be made in the same manner that the NERD team performs and analyzes them.
Now... strictly speaking..... one would need to do a comparison of such parameters as LED brightness or resistor temperature (output) and compare those to control circuits using only DC, and see which is more efficient... maybe the battery simply lasts longer making the same output.... Well, I'll happily pass that testing torch to someone else. .99 designed it, it works in the sim, I built it, it works in hardware, so let someone else test Altoid for overall efficiency.
What I want to do next is some actual heat profiles on Tar Baby. This will require that I have some input as to just which of the many waveforms and operating modes I am supposed to be testing. The NERDS, of course, are all over the map and since I do not believe anything from them other than the raw data, I'm not sure just what is considered the "optimum" for getting high heat in the load plus optimum battery....er..... non-use.
When I do the heat profiles I intend to do them like this: I will "tune" the device for the desired waveform using a "dummy" identical load. Then when the device is properly tuned I will switch to the "running" load in its oil bath at a good low starting temperature, and I'll let the circuit run, recording a time-lapse video of the times and temps. I'll either run for a fixed time or until the temp reaches equilibrium. Then I'll let the load cool back down and repeat, except I'll use DC power at the same level that I measure/calculate as was supplied to the circuit during the experimental run.
I'd like to do at least three runs at each waveform setting, starting with freshly charged batteries.
All of this will take some time.
But I'd like some opinions as to which waveforms to use. Here are some of the ones I've been considering: Straight oscillations only, negative bias, supplied by a regulated PS (this simulates the FG set to make the negative gate signal as shown in many of the NERD shots); or the FG set for a bipolar pulse with 18-20 percent ON duty cycle as claimed for some of the high heat trials. I'll do them using a battery supply of 60 volts, even though the NERDS have used anything from 48 (for their later high heat trials) to 72 volts nominal.
@TK: Wouldn't the ideal circuit 'tuning' be at the lowest percentage 'on' duty cycle while still getting the circuit to 'ring' between those 'on' cycles?
Is that a sharp sawtooth or a short/long bipolar pulse?
PC
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 30, 2012, 11:09:14 AM
@TK: Wouldn't the ideal circuit 'tuning' be at the lowest percentage 'on' duty cycle while still getting the circuit to 'ring' between those 'on' cycles?
Is that a sharp sawtooth or a short/long bipolar pulse?
PC
I dunno. What do you mean by ideal?
Here's what I think: When the duty cycle is "ON" the mosfet(s) in the Q1 role can pass substantial current and there are no oscillations. This is when the load can heat substantially. And the Q1 heats too, so this is why I say _role_ and not position. That is, I now believe that later, high-heat trials likely used the schematic in Paper 2, not Paper 1, so that the positive gate signal turns on the stack of 4 and the negative signal turns them off and makes oscillations in the now lone Q2 role. In the demo video, you will recall, it is certain that the positive drive went to the lone Q1.... but they also had to pull out one battery and use only 48 volts for the high heat demo, to avoid destroying this lone transistor on its tiny heatsink.
So.... I think that according to their "thesis" the oscillations are what charge or prevent discharging from the battery. Right? But I think that we have shown that these oscillations, at least in Tar Baby where experimental procedures are known, do not produce substantial load heading. All of the NERD trials where high heat is confirmed and credible waveforms are available show substantial "on" duty cycles and substantial DC power being dissipated during the "on" time when no oscillations are happening.
So the oscillations are pretty special indeed, as I have been trying to emphasise before, with all those DC power analyses. The DC portion of the duty cycle is unremarkable.... how could it be otherwise? In a 2.5 minute period as the NERDs sometimes used, the DC power is on for 20 seconds, about. That is DC, unmagical, unspecial current flowing from a big battery through some ordinary wires and a fully ON mosfet... nothing special.... and heating up a heater element designed to be heated by a current. (The element is probably a 48 volt DC water heater element from an RV installation).
Now.... the 20 seconds of DC, heavy current drain is over and the oscillations begin. What must they now accomplish? They have to produce enough NEGATIVE POWER to offset the high DC power and bring the overall average down to the NERD's scoposcopy. And they have to charge up the battery, somehow, to offset the drain of the 20 seconds of 72 volt DC supplied to a 13 ohm circuit. And they have to do this without any indication (LED, moving coil meter) of reverse current flow other than a scope's computation of undersampled and corrupted waveforms.
But.... notice how the disinformation has tried to lead us away from turning Q1 on at all.... and concentrating on oscillations only, or as you suggest, very very short "ON" times. Of course this mode will fail to produce the spectacular heats in the load.... and so the NERDs will claim that the "replications" have "failed" on that account-- once again demanding that replications show something that they themselves have never shown and in fact admit is not possible.... or they used to so admit.
By ideal circuit design I guess I meant for the highest COP number.
I guess in the case of the TB, the highest negative (lowest?) mean oscillation cycle (value?)?
A short sharp shock and get it to keep ringing with only one 'on' cycle would be the best??
When you swapped out the cap in that 'variations' video the cap 'set' the amperage for the circuit right? (I know it killed the osc.) That makes sense since caps are used for timing purposes, and amperage is how fast the power moves through the circuit. So if the cap were properly matched to the load (whatever you decide to power, looks like hot oil heaters :) ) could the 'ringing' (oscillations) be sustained for longer (indefinitely?)?
I try to stay away from the NERD 'claims', they jump to conclusions too easily...
PC
Quote from: PhiChaser on May 30, 2012, 07:32:09 PM
By ideal circuit design I guess I meant for the highest COP number.
I guess in the case of the TB, the highest negative (lowest?) mean oscillation cycle (value?)?
A short sharp shock and get it to keep ringing with only one 'on' cycle would be the best??
When you swapped out the cap in that 'variations' video the cap 'set' the amperage for the circuit right? (I know it killed the osc.) That makes sense since caps are used for timing purposes, and amperage is how fast the power moves through the circuit. So if the cap were properly matched to the load (whatever you decide to power, looks like hot oil heaters :) ) could the 'ringing' (oscillations) be sustained for longer (indefinitely?)?
I try to stay away from the NERD 'claims', they jump to conclusions too easily...
PC
Well, to get the highest negative mean power product we want 100 percent oscillations, as anything happening during the non-oscillation portion can only be a positive contribution. However.... I don't think this will produce high heat in the load. I think that the circuit can operate for a long time in this mode because the battery drain will be low.
This will of course have to be one of the test modes that I run. But I have to emphasize again that I do not believe that the NERDS have actually shown high heat in the load using this mode. However, Ainslie has claimed that they can.... even though they have never even shown the ability to operate with constant oscillations at all.
I can envision the following scenario: I test Tar Baby using straight oscillations as shown in their long duty cycle trials, but under my controlled conditions (stated above) I fail to find high anomalous heat in the load. The NERD spokesperson will then claim that I have failed to replicate..... even though what I have "failed" to replicate is something that they have themselves never shown. This is also the same thing that happened during my earlier work on the COP>17 claim three or four years ago.
It's not necessary to provide any kind of sharp shock to make the oscillations start, just a constant DC source of bias current supplied to the "red" board connection at negative 4 volts or more. This can come from just about any source, including the main battery itself with a little clever charge pumping.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 31, 2012, 03:57:05 PM
Well, to get the highest negative mean power product we want 100 percent oscillations, as anything happening during the non-oscillation portion can only be a positive contribution. However.... I don't think this will produce high heat in the load. I think that the circuit can operate for a long time in this mode because the battery drain will be low.
This will of course have to be one of the test modes that I run. But I have to emphasize again that I do not believe that the NERDS have actually shown high heat in the load using this mode. However, Ainslie has claimed that they can.... even though they have never even shown the ability to operate with constant oscillations at all.
I can envision the following scenario: I test Tar Baby using straight oscillations as shown in their long duty cycle trials, but under my controlled conditions (stated above) I fail to find high anomalous heat in the load. The NERD spokesperson will then claim that I have failed to replicate..... even though what I have "failed" to replicate is something that they have themselves never shown. This is also the same thing that happened during my earlier work on the COP>17 claim three or four years ago.
It's not necessary to provide any kind of sharp shock to make the oscillations start, just a constant DC source of bias current supplied to the "red" board connection at negative 4 volts or more. This can come from just about any source, including the main battery itself with a little clever charge pumping.
Thanks for clearing that up, I see that the duty cycles are important to keep in there (since you're after extra heat, not low power consumption). Gotcha.
So if you are making LV superefficient hot oil heaters, could you use a thermocouple to provide the juice for your charge pump (assuming you could get -4v from a thermocouple somehow)?
PC
EDIT: NVM about the -4v, I guess you just need to power the charge pump, so can a thermocouple do that?
No, I don't think so, because the bias source has to be able to provide a not insignificant current to the system to maintain the oscillations, and the amplitude of the oscillations seems to depend on this current (or, correspondingly, the negative voltage supplied.) In the Altoid demonstrator this bias current seems to be 20-40 mA depending on load and Zener, and in the Tar Baby with 4 mosfets oscillating it can be 200 mA or more, but I usually have been running at around 160 mA. You aren't going to get those kinds of currents from ordinary thermocouples! . It might be interesting to try but I don't think there would be enough voltage to actually make the oscillations.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 01, 2012, 02:02:48 PM
No, I don't think so, because the bias source has to be able to provide a not insignificant current to the system to maintain the oscillations, and the amplitude of the oscillations seems to depend on this current (or, correspondingly, the negative voltage supplied.) In the Altoid demonstrator this bias current seems to be 20-40 mA depending on load and Zener, and in the Tar Baby with 4 mosfets oscillating it can be 200 mA or more, but I usually have been running at around 160 mA. You aren't going to get those kinds of currents from ordinary thermocouples! . It might be interesting to try but I don't think there would be enough voltage to actually make the oscillations.
Heh heh, yeah, they have tiny tiny current, that is for sure. You would need multiples (and multiples) if you went in that direction. I really dig the Altoid setup BTW, very cool design. The 9v supply (and less 'fets) makes it more 'approachable' for a 'project' (4 to 6 12v batteries not so much...).
Can you get the oscillations going using two (or even one?) AA batteries?
PC
Looking forward to this,
http://www.seabirdadventure.com/seabird/earth-blog/entry/rare-venus-transit-next-week
TK:
You know this whole mess of nonsense would make a great exhibit at a science center. The theme of the exhibit would be how you can get fooled by not understanding what you are doing and by failing to double-check your work with alternative measurements.
You push a button and then observe an electrical circuit show the negative oscillation mode with a live scope shot, a negative power measurement with a DSO, etc. You push another button and then you observe the same behaviour but this time with a large capacitor powering the setup and you observe the capacitor voltage drop.
Then you move on and push another set of two buttons, but this time it's the equivalent hydraulic circuit. The same scope and DSO are now connected to pressure and flow rate transducers, etc.
Then you move on and push another set of two buttons, but this time it's the equivalent mechanical circuit. The same scope and DSO are now connected to velocity and force transducers, etc.
Now that would be sweet, to show the same mistake being made in three different energy domains with approximately the same waveforms. It would be quite thought provoking too.
MileHigh
Guys - POST 2692 - upload that waveform PLEASE to keep record. It's highly significant. I have NOT been able to repost it as there's some kind of 'control' applied.
Meanwhile here's the post that I wrote. For some reason my previous post did not take. And for this contribution I needs must break my silence with respect to TK's work.
Guys it is simply the most significant result that I have ever seen. Please scroll back there and take a long hard look. We've aimed at this result but never achieved it. Only smaller less significant excursions into that battery negative voltage. Amusingly it has not even drawn comment from TK's usual acolytes. I'm only posting about this because we'll be including this in our own demonstrations. I freely admit that this was PRECISELY the definitive battery voltage value that we've been looking for and only managed in very small moments and at much smaller values.
Well done indeed. I realise that this is FAR from your intention - but you've assisted us all greatly in this result - from a circuit DESIGNED by Poynty and - as ever - BRILLIANTLY defined in all its essentials - by Groundloop. We are all of us always deeply indebted to Open Source. And while there is NOTHING else of value in this thread related to your work TK - this experimental evidence is GOLD.
Thank you TK.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I see that we are NOT allowed to upload that waveform? Security checks? Whatever next TK? 8) :o You'll NEVER put a lid on this one.
added emphasis
And for those who are wondering which circuit's involved. Here it is again. Courtesy as ever - the genius of our Groundloop who is quite simply the most brilliant designer I have ever come across.
Regards again
Rosemary
TK:
I think that I have finally figured out the explanation for the apparent negative current flow as indicated by the CVR. This has been bugging me for some time and for all I know Poynt already explained it a long time ago indirectly. For a while I thought that the current was actually reversing and I was trying to explain that. Now the answer seems so simple.
Certainly, assuming that you and others concur, this spells DOOM for Rosemary's claim, not that I ever doubted that her claim was doomed before.
It all goes back to our good old friend the wire inductance. When the MOSFET is switching off, the energy stored in the inductance in the wire (including the CVR) between the MOSFET source and the battery negative terminal has to discharge. During this discharge you have one end of the wire anchored to the ground potential of the battery and the end of the wire at the MOSFET source is "the end of the EMF whip." Relative to the battery ground terminal, and working "backwards" or counterclockwise through the wire, the potential increasingly drops as you move along the wire, and is at maximum negative potential at the MOSFET source. The energy stored in the wire is dissipated in the MOSFET itself.
So, what appears to be "negative current" is really just the "EMF whip" dropping in potential as the wire inductance discharges. The "far" side of the CVR (relative to the battery negative terminal) is simply along for the ride and that shows up as negative potential on the scope trace. So this negative EMF due to the wire inductance discharging appears to be reverse current through the CVR but in fact it's not the case.
Does this make sense to you?
So this means that the current never reverses in direction and there is never any energy being returned to the battery. It's all a fake-out.
In the next posting I will discuss a test to confirm this.
MileHigh
TK:
There is a test that you can do to confirm this. This would have to be verified on the bench because the signals will probably be quite low level and some tweaking may be required.
Start off by making a small rectangular wire loop, say 3 cm x 2 cm and 25 turns. You can use very fine wire. You then place this alongside the main wire so that you can sense the current flow. This test may run better with a small ferrite bead placed through the main wire and through the rectangular loop but I am not sure. That would perhaps give you a stronger signal but the losses and possible bandwidth issues in the ferrite bead may cause some problems.
You connect the output from the rectangular loop to your scope probe. The EMF produced by this loop will be the first derivative of the current flow. That will give us some very important information.
Let's imagine two simplified cases.
In first case imagine there is a pulse of current that starts at zero, rises to +1 amp, then is steady at +1 amp for a while, then it starts to decrease, passes through zero, continues to -1 amp, stays at -1 amp for a very short time, the rises back to zero. In other words, this is a simplified description of what we apparently see through the CVR right now.
In the first case we should see the following output from the current sensing loop: a positive pulse, then zero volts, then a negative pulse followed by a positive pulse, then zero volts.
In second case imagine there is a pulse of current that starts at zero, rises to +1 amp, then is steady at +1 amp for a while, then drops to zero. In other words, this is a simplified description of what I believe is actually happening - there is no reversal of the current.
In the second case we should see the following output from the current sensing loop: a positive pulse, then zero volts, then a negative pulse, then zero volts.
You can see the difference between the two is that in the first case there is an extra positive pulse output from the current sensing loop at the end of the pulse cycle.
If the current really is reversing then you would have to see the second positive pulse. If there is no second positive pulse then you have proof that the current is in fact not reversing.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 03, 2012, 04:31:37 AM
TK:
I think that I have finally figured out the explanation for the apparent negative current flow as indicated by the CVR. This has been bugging me for some time and for all I know Poynt already explained it a long time ago indirectly. For a while I thought that the current was actually reversing and I was trying to explain that. Now the answer seems so simple.
Certainly, assuming that you and others concur, this spells DOOM for Rosemary's claim, not that I ever doubted that her claim was doomed before.
It all goes back to our good old friend the wire inductance. When the MOSFET is switching off, the energy stored in the inductance in the wire (including the CVR) between the MOSFET source and the battery negative terminal has to discharge. During this discharge you have one end of the wire anchored to the ground potential of the battery and the end of the wire at the MOSFET source is "the end of the EMF whip." Relative to the battery ground terminal, and working "backwards" or counterclockwise through the wire, the potential increasingly drops as you move along the wire, and is at maximum negative potential at the MOSFET source. The energy stored in the wire is dissipated in the MOSFET itself.
So, what appears to be "negative current" is really just the "EMF whip" dropping in potential as the wire inductance discharges. The "far" side of the CVR (relative to the battery negative terminal) is simply along for the ride and that shows up as negative potential on the scope trace. So this negative EMF due to the wire inductance discharging appears to be reverse current through the CVR but in fact it's not the case.
Does this make sense to you?
So this means that the current never reverses in direction and there is never any energy being returned to the battery. It's all a fake-out.
In the next posting I will discuss a test to confirm this.
MileHigh
But the inductance of the wire is very small. It would matter only at very high frequencies.
What are they precisely in this device?
Verpies:
The frequencies are very high, they are from the trailing edge of a square wave in a sense.
TK:
I got my inspiration from a clip by Itsu. He has a totally unrelated MOSFET switching circuit with trailing-edge negative spikes on his CVR waveform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZWa-NSQWBc&feature=plcp
The waveform from 5:00 into the clip is shown below. It's the same thing for his circuit; there is no reason for the current to apparently reverse direction but we clearly see the negative CVR voltage on his scope.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 03, 2012, 04:31:37 AM
TK:
I think that I have finally figured out the explanation for the apparent negative current flow as indicated by the CVR. This has been bugging me for some time and for all I know Poynt already explained it a long time ago indirectly. For a while I thought that the current was actually reversing and I was trying to explain that. Now the answer seems so simple.
Certainly, assuming that you and others concur, this spells DOOM for Rosemary's claim, not that I ever doubted that her claim was doomed before.
It all goes back to our good old friend the wire inductance. When the MOSFET is switching off, the energy stored in the inductance in the wire (including the CVR) between the MOSFET source and the battery negative terminal has to discharge. During this discharge you have one end of the wire anchored to the ground potential of the battery and the end of the wire at the MOSFET source is "the end of the EMF whip." Relative to the battery ground terminal, and working "backwards" or counterclockwise through the wire, the potential increasingly drops as you move along the wire, and is at maximum negative potential at the MOSFET source. The energy stored in the wire is dissipated in the MOSFET itself.
So, what appears to be "negative current" is really just the "EMF whip" dropping in potential as the wire inductance discharges. The "far" side of the CVR (relative to the battery negative terminal) is simply along for the ride and that shows up as negative potential on the scope trace. So this negative EMF due to the wire inductance discharging appears to be reverse current through the CVR but in fact it's not the case.
Does this make sense to you?
So this means that the current never reverses in direction and there is never any energy being returned to the battery. It's all a fake-out.
In the next posting I will discuss a test to confirm this.
MileHigh
The negative current comes from the inductive part connected to the Drain of the MOSFET. When the MOSFET turns off and the charged
inductance changes polarity then there is a path through the internal MOSFET body diode through the diode and through the CSR
and to the negative terminal of the battery. The inductance in the CSR is probably so small that it does not matter anyway.
GL.
Groundloop:
I disagree with you and in addition I barely understand what you are saying. Your description is inadequate. If you want to try again with a longer and clearer description that would be nice, possibly with a diagram. I believe that English is not your first language and I can understand how that can make it a bit harder.
I am convinced that the current never reverses direction at all, and the whole time Rosemary and the NERD team have been chasing after an illusion.
MileHigh
Before I post some more I just want to give Itsu a plug, because he makes great clips.
Check out his fantastic clip where he compares the performance of three different multimeters for measuring a sine wave at different frequencies. You can see how the multimeters respond as the frequency increases.
DMM's AC RMS test.mpeg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHcl-85baHs&feature=plcp
TK:
I am just going to expand on the theme that I started. Please anyone correct me if I am making a mistake or comment.
Here is a simple model for the instant when the MOSFET switches off. Note that I am saying a generic "MOSFET" and not Q1 or the Q2 array. That's because it doesn't matter, the concept will apply in either case.
You model the wire loop as two separate distributed inductances. The "top" inductance goes from the battery positive terminal to the MOSFET drain. The "bottom" inductance goes from the battery negative terminal to the MOSFET source. You can split them like this because the MOSFET is in the process of switching off and becoming an open circuit.
The top inductance is anchored to the positive potential of the battery positive terminal. The bottom inductance is anchored to the ground potential of the battery negative terminal.
Both of these inductances become "EMF whips" when the MOSFET shuts off. The further you travel along the length of the whip (keeping the scope channel ground clip on the battery negative (or positive) terminal), the higher the measurable EMF you observe in the whip.
The top inductance "whips up" in EMF as the MOSFET shuts off.
The bottom inductance "whips down" in EMF as the MOSFET shuts off.
So it's likely that the top inductance could explain the apparent spike up in battery voltage. When the top inductance is discharging it's stored energy it is charging the MOSFET drain-source capacitance. So that could be reflected back at the battery terminal as an extra EMF source on top of the battery EMF for a brief amount of time. That would have to be investigated further.
When the bottom inductance whips down in potential, we see the fake negative voltage across the CVR. That implies that as you move your scope probe counter-clockwise along the length of the wire (again,keeping the scope channel ground clip on the battery negative terminal), you see a higher and higher negative voltage.
When you look at the scope shot from Itsu's clip, you can see a single definite negative spike when the MOSFETs in his circuit switch off. In his case you have the luxury of operating at a low frequency so you can isolate the single separate event of the MOSFETs switching off. For the NERD circuit you are running at a much much higher frequency so you don't have that luxury. Everything seems to blend into a full regular waveform. However, the same effects are still taking place. The apparent negative current is simply the "EMF whip" effect taking place in the bottom inductance.
MileHigh
A picture is worth a thousand words:
@MileHigh:
I believe your analysis is largely correct. However, the current in the CVR itself is real and is reversing and can have a real negative-going component; this is shown by the various LED tests, where it is possible to get an LED glowing in either orientation depending on where inductances are placed, as well as by the instrumental measurements. Whether the currents are caused by probe pickup, inductive shunts, or zipons, they are indicated on the scope and so they are in some sense "real", I will at least agree with the head NERD on that point. In the total circuit, though, the power flows from the battery and is dissipated in the load and the other circuit components; some of it sloshes around and depending on where your measurements are taken you can watch it doing all kinds of crazy stuff, like differentiating spikes, bouncing energy from electric to magnetic fields and back again, or making incredibly high powers for really short times. These isolated measurements can be called artefacts or data, depending on what you are trying to prove. The real issue, however, is easily answered and no oscilloscope is required to answer it.
I believe that cHeeseburger/humbugger actually illustrated what you are describing, using his simulator and showing how a simple circuit can respond to the rate of change of a voltage that never reverses, indicating negative currents when there really are none. I can't find it now but I think it's in the old, locked thread, from about a year ago, or perhaps on OUR. The voltages shown are real, detected voltages; ascribing them to a real, significant change in current direction is where the mistake is made. In the case of Altoid, Tar Baby, and NERD, the matter is the same: if you make the measurements as shown you will get the voltages shown, and if you interpret them as showing real currents, you will be tempted to make some conclusions. And if you install components that also perform the same differentiation (LEDs and inductors) you will get the same results in hardware: a current that reverses direction _in that part of the circuit_. Oddly enough.... this current and the power it dissipates in a load are coming from the only power source(s) in the circuit: the main battery and the bias source.
And of course all our work here is bullshit, our equipment junk and our procedures worse than amateurish ....except when it appears on casual inspection that the work supports the Ainslie conjectures. Then the praise is voluminous, the equipment excellent and the procedures golden and bulletproof -- and the praise is still wrong, because it fails properly to assign credit where it is due.
But of course..... Altoid's battery still discharges. Doesn't it?
TK:
Thanks for your comments. They are appreciated and in taking them into account it's indeed possible that what I am describing is taking place but it's only part of the big picture. Some people might not be aware that multiple effects can be happening at the same time, and they all get added together. It also sounds about right what you said about Humbugger. My memory is fading for what's taken place in this long drawn-out drama.
Please keep that current pickup transformer test in mind. It will not be faked out my any inductive EMF effects and only responds to the current flow. You just have to look at the current pickup transformer waveform and do the integration in your head to derive the real current flow. I would not be surprised if you don't see that second positive spike like I mentioned. It's a poor man's real current probe.
MileHigh
@MH:
I actually have a couple of real current transformers and Rogowski coils, but the frequency range isn't what we really need. Your little coil will work fine just as you expect, I expect.
Meanwhile I've been involved in some other things, getting ready for the transit of Venus on Tuesday afternoon. Here are a couple pix of Luna taken over the past couple of days, taken with the same kit I'll be using to photograph the first part of the Venus transit (except the solar filter, of course!)
I need to make sure my battery power packs are charged and all other ducks in a nice row, because I need to go to a different spot with my gear on Tuesday -- no power available -- to see the Western horizon where the action is.
TK:
Pretty awesome pics!
As I am sure you know with all of the satellites in orbit around the moon nowadays they have imaged some or all of the lunar landing sites and you can even see the the trails left by the astronaut's footprints!
So that either puts a damper on the moon landing conspiracy theorists or it's a new layer on top of the original conspiracy! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 03, 2012, 01:28:49 PM
@MileHigh:
I believe your analysis is largely correct. However, the current in the CVR itself is real and is reversing and can have a real negative-going component; this is shown by the various LED tests, where it is possible to get an LED glowing in either orientation depending on where inductances are placed, as well as by the instrumental measurements. Whether the currents are caused by probe pickup, inductive shunts, or zipons, they are indicated on the scope and so they are in some sense "real", I will at least agree with the head NERD on that point. In the total circuit, though, the power flows from the battery and is dissipated in the load and the other circuit components; some of it sloshes around and depending on where your measurements are taken you can watch it doing all kinds of crazy stuff, like differentiating spikes, bouncing energy from electric to magnetic fields and back again, or making incredibly high powers for really short times. These isolated measurements can be called artefacts or data, depending on what you are trying to prove. The real issue, however, is easily answered and no oscilloscope is required to answer it.
I believe that cHeeseburger/humbugger actually illustrated what you are describing, using his simulator and showing how a simple circuit can respond to the rate of change of a voltage that never reverses, indicating negative currents when there really are none. I can't find it now but I think it's in the old, locked thread, from about a year ago, or perhaps on OUR. The voltages shown are real, detected voltages; ascribing them to a real, significant change in current direction is where the mistake is made. In the case of Altoid, Tar Baby, and NERD, the matter is the same: if you make the measurements as shown you will get the voltages shown, and if you interpret them as showing real currents, you will be tempted to make some conclusions. And if you install components that also perform the same differentiation (LEDs and inductors) you will get the same results in hardware: a current that reverses direction _in that part of the circuit_. Oddly enough.... this current and the power it dissipates in a load are coming from the only power source(s) in the circuit: the main battery and the bias source.
And of course all our work here is bullshit, our equipment junk and our procedures worse than amateurish ....except when it appears on casual inspection that the work supports the Ainslie conjectures. Then the praise is voluminous, the equipment excellent and the procedures golden and bulletproof -- and the praise is still wrong, because it fails properly to assign credit where it is due.
But of course..... Altoid's battery still discharges. Doesn't it?
I can understand that.
You are saying that the CSR has real back and forth current, but all together, the oscillations seen in the CSR are ridding on a dc bias. Lets say for here, it is a positive DC bias, does the oscillation ever go below positive?
It seems odd to think that if the oscillations, dc biased throughout the cycle, even on the down stroke, would actually be a reversed current. One might "think" that the currents would be just a raising and lowering of forward current throughout the cycle, thus an led should only light in one direction.
If the leds can light in both directions, then the leds must be in a position in the circuit that allows the bias to be ignored?
I suppose it would be interesting to try the 2 leds, 1 forward and the other reversed, using an ac sig with a battery bias, using current limit resistors of course, to show for sure that the reverse led would light during the down stroke of the sig gen against the dc bias.
Then include an inductor to see the difference. ;] But maybe it is not that simple.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 03, 2012, 02:22:35 PM
I can understand that.
You are saying that the CSR has real back and forth current, but all together, the oscillations seen in the CSR are ridding on a dc bias. Lets say for here, it is a positive DC bias, does the oscillation ever go below positive?
Well.... I suppose you could look at it that way. But.... the proper way to look at it, I think, is as a symmetrical (area-wise) AC waveform with a tiny _negative_ DC bias, much smaller than the peak AC excursions. Don't mistake what is happening on the bias CVR if there is one: here, there is a DC current with a smaller ripple..."AC" on top, caused by the oscillations. In the main CVR during the oscillations, there is very little "dc offset" and what there is shows up as the "mean current" being either positive or negative, rather than zero. Of course the "mean current" of an AC symmetrical waveform is given by the RMS current and isn't zero even if the positive and negative portions are equal: something else that should tell you that "they are not doing it right".
Quote
It seems odd to think that if the oscillations, dc biased throughout the cycle, even on the down stroke, would actually be a reversed current. One might "think" that the currents would be just a raising and lowering of forward current throughout the cycle, thus an led should only light in one direction.
If the leds can light in both directions, then the leds must be in a position in the circuit that allows the bias to be ignored?
Actually, what I said was that the LED can be made to light in _either_ direction, depending on where and how the additional inductances are added. You can't just take the LED out, turn it around and put it in and have it light up the same. But with an inductor in parallel you sometimes can. And again, during the oscillations, there is little or no real DC current visible at the main CVR.
Quote
I suppose it would be interesting to try the 2 leds, 1 forward and the other reversed, using an ac sig with a battery bias, using current limit resistors of course, to show for sure that the reverse led would light during the down stroke of the sig gen against the dc bias.
Then include an inductor to see the difference. ;] But maybe it is not that simple.
Mags
I think I've done something like the demonstration you suggest, and I have linked to it several times, and each time it gets buried by a bunch of bloviation. So here, I'll do it again. This doesn't show a reverse LED lighting up "against" the battery voltage, but the scope traces surely show that it would do so if in circuit.
Ainslie famously said,
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And TK replied:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
That video, combined with this one, should make the point you raised in your last paragraph, I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg2_yE5dEQg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg2_yE5dEQg)
Quote from: MileHigh on June 03, 2012, 02:20:34 PM
TK:
Pretty awesome pics!
As I am sure you know with all of the satellites in orbit around the moon nowadays they have imaged some or all of the lunar landing sites and you can even see the the trails left by the astronaut's footprints!
So that either puts a damper on the moon landing conspiracy theorists or it's a new layer on top of the original conspiracy! lol
MileHigh
Thanks!
Anybody interested in Lunar observing will have a lot of fun with the LROC zoomable nearside:
wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/wac_nearside (http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/wac_nearside)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 03, 2012, 03:06:00 PM
Actually, what I said was that the LED can be made to light in _either_ direction, depending on where and how the additional inductances are added. You can't just take the LED out, turn it around and put it in and have it light up the same. But with an inductor in parallel you sometimes can. And again, during the oscillations, there is little or no real DC current visible at the main CVR.
I'm surprised that no one caught this. I thought it was relatively obvious, so I didn't mention it. TK, the average current through the circuit is from the battery. When you install an inductor in parallel to the reversed LED, it lights up only because of the energy release of that inductor due to the flyback effect.
You could prove this by installing a forward-oriented 1N4007 in series with this arrangement, and the reversed LED should still illuminate.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 03, 2012, 12:19:24 AM
Guys - POST 2692 - upload that waveform PLEASE to keep record. It's highly significant. I have NOT been able to repost it as there's some kind of 'control' applied.
Meanwhile here's the post that I wrote. For some reason my previous post did not take. And for this contribution I needs must break my silence with respect to TK's work.
Guys it is simply the most significant result that I have ever seen. Please scroll back there and take a long hard look. We've aimed at this result but never achieved it. Only smaller less significant excursions into that battery negative voltage. Amusingly it has not even drawn comment from TK's usual acolytes. I'm only posting about this because we'll be including this in our own demonstrations. I freely admit that this was PRECISELY the definitive battery voltage value that we've been looking for and only managed in very small moments and at much smaller values.
Well done indeed. I realise that this is FAR from your intention - but you've assisted us all greatly in this result - from a circuit DESIGNED by Poynty and - as ever - BRILLIANTLY defined in all its essentials - by Groundloop. We are all of us always deeply indebted to Open Source. And while there is NOTHING else of value in this thread related to your work TK - this experimental evidence is GOLD.
Thank you TK.
Kindest regards
Rosemary,
The circuit diagram you referenced bares little resemblance to the circuit I posted and that TK built. If you want to obtain the wave forms TK posted, you need to build it similar to the way shown below.
If you build the other circuit, chances are that it won't oscillate because there won't be enough inductance in the circuit. My design calls for significant values of inductance, purposely installed in strategic places.
Yes. Those 2 vids are exactly what I believe. Sorry I missed those. Thanks for reposting.
So to get a reverse led to light in the circuit, is it the inductor producing the reverse current to do so? When it is switched off that is. ;] And when in the proper position, as you say.
Or is it as you said where the "led is across an inductor", and the reversed led is just taking on the continued forward current from the collapse during mosfet off time? In this case it looks as if the led is in reverse in the loop of the circuit, but really does nothing other than recycle the inductors collapse.
Mags
Quote from: poynt99 on June 03, 2012, 03:58:14 PM
I'm surprised that no one caught this. I thought it was relatively obvious, so I didn't mention it. TK, the average current through the circuit is from the battery. When you install an inductor in parallel to the reversed LED, it lights up only because of the energy release of that inductor due to the flyback effect.
You could prove this by installing a forward-oriented 1N4007 in series with this arrangement, and the reversed LED should still illuminate.
I hear ya. Just posted about the same thing. ;] When you say flyback effect, do you mean the continued forward current produced by the inductor? Fly"back" could be a confusing term. If that reverse led or diode isnt across that inductor, the inductors forward emf will try and a lot of times succeed in breaking down the switch(reed, etc) gap or transistor barrier and disperse through the circuit, in forward motion. Like in a switching supply, if there were no freewheel diode to a cap, the inductors forward current is absorbed safely as a charge in the cap, instead of causing breakdown of the switch.
But if the collapse current doesnt break down the switch, the inductor will produce a reverse current, giving another go at breaking down the switch, but using another polarity to do so.
According to the original circuits showing leds in the loop, I believe there were 2 in parallel, one reversed. in the loop. But I guess we have veered away from that way for some time now.
Mags
I've made a quick video illustrating Altoid's behaviour using the single LED load and an extra 2.2 uH inductor. It's nice to have a "pushbutton" overunity demonstrator on my bench! (Even if it is really a slide switch instead of a pushbutton.) Now if we could just figure out a reactionless inertial drive that fits in an Altoid tin, and combine that with an Altoid buoyancy drive.... we could start building our Altoid UFO.
Video uploading now, it will be half an hour before it's ready, probably.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 03, 2012, 03:58:14 PM
I'm surprised that no one caught this. I thought it was relatively obvious, so I didn't mention it. TK, the average current through the circuit is from the battery. When you install an inductor in parallel to the reversed LED, it lights up only because of the energy release of that inductor due to the flyback effect.
You could prove this by installing a forward-oriented 1N4007 in series with this arrangement, and the reversed LED should still illuminate.
Yep, like I said earlier:
"In the total circuit, though, the power flows from the battery and is dissipated in the load and the other circuit components; some of it sloshes around and depending on where your measurements are taken you can watch it doing all kinds of crazy stuff..."... like even lighting up a reversed LED if you put the inductor in the right place.
As long as one is allowed to pick and choose which measurements to take where, and to interpret them however one wishes, one may garner support for just about any contention. It is only when measurements of a particular quantity, taken and analyzed one way, are found to agree with other measurements of that quantity taken differently by known good methods and analyzed by known accepted methods .... that they may be relied upon to inform valid conclusions.
Altoid: Reversed Current at Load?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkZKXSZTzA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkZKXSZTzA)
TK:
Just to be sure we are on the same page, that clip does not prove there is any reverse current. It's the forward current charging up the inductor, and then when the forward current shuts off, the inductor discharges through the LED. There may also be reverse current. We don't know, but the test is inconclusive.
I am still really suspecting that most, if not all, of the negative potential across the CVR is a fake-out. But I can't get my hands dirty sitting in my armchair.
MileHigh
MH is right. If you are measuring across where the led/inductor are plugged in, it is only because of the dump from the inductor that makes the led light. Seemingly anyways. ;]
As for the finding out if there is negative flow, then the test should be done with just the inductor, no led, to see if there is negative current flow. Its not hard to understand. With the led forward biased, it lights, but negative bias and the circuit isnt working to possibly produce a negative swing. And also with the led forward biased, how could there be a negative current? There cant be, its a diode. ;]
So showing it with the led forward biased, your A shot shows some( i say some you say strong) negative battery voltage, as you say and show in the vid. How does that happen if the led does not conduct current in reverse? Are the oscillations beating on the leds barrier to send that negative flow back to the battery? Is the led going through reverse breakdown?
Then with the inductor and reverse led, yes, the lighting of the led could be the inductor dumping into the led, but by having them connected this way, how can we say that there is not negative current flowing through the led from elsewhere? I see that the scope A is not showing any negative at the bat any longer, but that combo, the led/inductor, tries to keep that inductor in forward motion. That inductor is too busy dumping into the diode to be part of any negative flow.
Mags
We have had lots of clues, from Lewin's lecture, through the TK JT measurement pitfalls demo, through to the present case, that should be telling us that isolated measurements within an oscillating circuit need to be taken with a grain of salt, at least. The big takehome message here is that casual electrical measurements can be misleading as to the true state of affairs. I maintain that the oscilloscope does not lie (at least not at these frequencies) and that what it is measuring is "in some sense" real circuit behaviour. The present measurements aren't telling us useful data wrt the real power, though. So what if a bit of current can be shown to reverse momentarily across a component.... this is really irrelevant to the main issue, which is this: Does all the power dissipated in the circuit come from the battery, or not? Does the battery discharge while running a load, or not? So I come back to the analogy of the toaster: it is a mistake to take the "mean current" in an AC situation as indicative of anything much, as both phases of the power curve are dissipated in the load and none is returned to the source. Similarly, if one provides a minuscule DC offset, with a battery, to a purely sinusoidal and symmetric AC waveform.... that DC power is also going to be dissipated in the load, not sent back to the source battery, no matter the polarity of the added DC offset, I think.
But all that is a red herring.... because the net current in the circuit is DC, it has the oscillations superposed on top of it, and all the power comes from the battery and is dissipated in the circuit components, including the battery (heating) and the load.
The negative going excursion on the battery trace is another red herring. The battery voltage is certainly not doing this... but the circuit is, it's a real reading of a real phenomenon. It's just not "battery voltage reversal."
Hey TK
When you show that trace A, the lower one, is a reading of the battery, is the ground of the probe on the neg of the batt and the probe on the pos side of the battery?
Mags
TK:
A real quickie: The LEDs of Doom test on the Altoids box. It works fine with a single forward-biased LED so...
If you had a CVR waveform that showed significant negative current but only the forward-biased LED lit up that would at least be indicative of impending doom...
MileHigh
Quote from: Magluvin on June 03, 2012, 11:32:31 PM
Hey TK
When you show that trace A, the lower one, is a reading of the battery, is the ground of the probe on the neg of the batt and the probe on the pos side of the battery?
Mags
The schematic and the measuring points are as .99 posted. Yes, the grounds of both probes are at the same point. The positive lead of the battery channel is not directly at the positive battery terminal but is separated from it by 4.4 uH of inductance, to simulate the long leads and interbattery jumpers of the NERD device. (In every position on the schematic where 3.3 uH is specified I used 4.4 uH because of the availability of components.) The negative probe leads are similarly separated from the neg batt terminal. You can think of it as if the battery is separated by the inductors on both sides, simulating the long leads.
Remember, the Altoid demonstrator was designed to model the extra "stray" inductances of the NERD device in a smaller package. The same measurement "error"... that is, taking a contaminated measurement as the battery voltage .... is used in Altoid to make the same result as it does in NERD and Tar Baby: a major contribution to the negative mean power product.
Hey Tk
Im just wondering about the A trace of the batt.
Lets say you have your base line set. Is that 0v or is that set to show the 9v as a base line?
If 0v, then the 9v line is just above that? Or is the 9v up near the peak of the waveform?
Doest the battery trace A show any voltages above 9v? And is all the rest of the trace showing below 9v, as though the battery is being drained most of the time?
Because if you think about it, if the base line is 0v, or 9v, anything above the 9v level would be a higher voltage. And those higher voltages would mean that the battery is getting some charge at those times that the voltage is above 9v.
Im just not getting the idea of the negative part as being anything but a showing of the battery being drained hard, possibly through inductive forces.
If you can clear that up for me I would appreciate it. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 04, 2012, 12:47:41 PM
Hey Tk
Im just wondering about the A trace of the batt.
Lets say you have your base line set. Is that 0v or is that set to show the 9v as a base line?
If 0v, then the 9v line is just above that? Or is the 9v up near the peak of the waveform?
Doest the battery trace A show any voltages above 9v? And is all the rest of the trace showing below 9v, as though the battery is being drained most of the time?
Because if you think about it, if the base line is 0v, or 9v, anything above the 9v level would be a higher voltage. And those higher voltages would mean that the battery is getting some charge at those times that the voltage is above 9v.
Im just not getting the idea of the negative part as being anything but a showing of the battery being drained hard, possibly through inductive forces.
If you can clear that up for me I would appreciate it. ;]
Mags
I generally give the baseline positions and values in the video or along with the screenshots. In the latter series which we have been discussing, the battery trace is shown at 20 volts per division, and when I ground the channel to show the baseline, that of course makes the scope show its "zero" volts position since the channel is shorted to ground.
The whole point of these exercises is to indicate that the "battery" trace as viewed on the scope using these probe positions and lack of filtering.... does _not_ actually indicate what is happening at the battery! The "battery" trace is telling you more about the inductances in the circuit than anything else. And this is true of the NERD measurements as well. I don't think the battery is being "drained hard" at any time by this circuit: the most real current I've seen is under 100 mA with the mosfet fully on.
Perhaps the scope shot below, which I posted earlier in the thread I thought, will help. I have indicated, as usual, the zero baseline level and the channel settings. This shot was taken with a weak battery, though; it only indicated about 7.9 volts no-load, IIRC. A fresh battery would make the frequency go up a little and raise the "average" of the battery trace wiggles up to near the nine-volt level, just below one half major division above the zero volt baseline.
The CVR in Altoid is one ohm, uncorrected for inductive reactance. So you can just read the current directly off the trace or multiply by whatever correction for the CVR inductance at around 2.5 MHz.
And, just to reiterate, I did a manual mean power calculation using a single cycle of that waveform and got a negative mean power of a little over -0.5 Watt. Here are the points I used, minus the grid overlay, and the spreadsheet calcs. Negative values are in red.
This is not corrected for the inductive reactance of the shunt. Since this will be a positive number, a scaling factor, it will only decrease the power value, it will not change its sign.
TK:
Thank you for the effort. I am starting to visualize the two separate halves of wire that are distributed inductors as per my previous postings. When the MOSFET shuts off they both start to do their energy burn through the conductive channel of the switching-off field effect transistor that is the MOSFET. The inductors create high voltage when they do their energy burn. The top-half distributed inductance goes from 9 volts to 40 volts (or thereabouts) in a blaze of glory, as per what you see on the scope trace. The bottom-half distributed inductance might also go from ground to -40 volts during it's energy burn. Hence you can imagine the MOSFET seeing 80 volts across it somewhere in the middle of the burn.
It's this energy burn by these two quasi-phantom inductor temporary power sources that are throwing a monkey wrench into the average power measurement. It is a disturbance signal superimposed on top of the "regular" operation of the circuit. Here is the critical thing: The loads are different. So you can see there is a fundamental problem with the power measurement right there. The battery wants to drive Load A, the inductive resistor. However, when the two distributed inductors are discharging, it's into a different load, Load B. Load B is a temporary load, the switching off MOSFET.
So you have a single set of measuring instruments to get your voltage and current, but you can't make a proper measurement because there are two different events happening at the same time and they are superimposed, the battery into Load A and the discharging distributed inductors into Load B. This completely throws a monkey wrench into making your measurements - unless you know what you are doing.
So chew on that! lol
MileHigh
Second contact:
Thanks TK!
Welcome to the future!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v--IqqusnNQ
milelow, another litmus test fail from you. energy doesn't 'burn'... ::) generally for something to burn it is combined with oxygen.
Wilby:
It's a legitimate use of an idiomatic expression coming from the energy realm. The "burn" ultimately becomes a burn-off of heat in the MOSFET.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 06, 2012, 02:45:01 AM
Wilby:
It's a legitimate use of an idiomatic expression coming from the energy realm. The "burn" ultimately becomes a burn-off of heat in the MOSFET.
MileHigh
no, it's not. a google search for 'energy burn' confirms this. it's just more of your hyperbole, like 'blaze of glory'... ::) a scientific description of a phenomena doesn't require literature of the imagination.
now repeat after me. energy doesn't 'burn', it is conserved... tra la
QuoteEffectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity.
A capacitor has no retained potential difference after a discharge of its energy. Therefore, to test whether this retained potential difference is a required condition to enable the oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during operation when the oscillation was fully established. The batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that the retained potential difference at the primary supply source is required, if not entirely responsible, for driving this oscillation. Which, in turn, points to the need for any applications of this technology that are either restricted to battery supply sources or, if a grid supply is used, that the circuit is applied directly in series with that supply source thereby being able to access the potential difference at that supply.
Tra la.
@MH: The original LEDs of Doom test was done placing the LEDs in series with the battery at the battery itself, with the Tar Baby's normal load in place.
Altoid's "LED Loads of Doom" test is a little different in that the LED, or LEDs, is/are the load. The results are very interesting. I've made a little video, and it's uploading now. Should be ready in a few minutes and I'll post the link when it's ready.
In the quote above, it appears that the NERD authors are claiming that their circuit will not run using a capacitor bank as the main power supply. Or does the phrase "the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage" mean..... the oscillations collapsed once the capacitor voltage had dropped below that necessary for the circuit to oscillate? The two interpretations are very different.... and lead to different conclusions, don't they. What would happen if one used a really _large_ capacitor bank of several thousand _Farads_ charged to 48 volts? Would the circuit run for a while, thus falsifying the conclusions in the above quote, or would the oscillations collapse immediately to a zero voltage, as required by the NERD "theory"?
Altoid LOADs of DOOM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hl4YWlU0i4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hl4YWlU0i4)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2012, 12:17:55 PM
In the quote above, it appears that the NERD authors are claiming that their circuit will not run using a capacitor bank as the main power supply. Or does the phrase "the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage" mean..... the oscillations collapsed once the capacitor voltage had dropped below that necessary for the circuit to oscillate? The two interpretations are very different.... and lead to different conclusions, don't they. What would happen if one used a really _large_ capacitor bank of several thousand _Farads_ charged to 48 volts? Would the circuit run for a while, thus falsifying the conclusions in the above quote, or would the oscillations collapse immediately to a zero voltage, as required by the NERD "theory"?
the above quote you refer to doesn't say
"immediately"... ::) are you adding your own arbitrary and whimsical qualifications now?
Altoid runs on capacitor only:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy7Sm_Npg40 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy7Sm_Npg40)
(I mistakenly call it "tar baby" a couple of times at the beginning, due to a coffee deficiency, which I am remedying now.)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 06, 2012, 12:40:55 PM
the above quote you refer to doesn't say "immediately"... ::) are you adding your own arbitrary and whimsical qualifications now?
You and I both know that the quote is designed to imply that the circuit won't run on a capacitor. And in English, the symbol " ? " which appears several times in my post, indicates a QUESTION, that is, an interrogative, asking for a clarification of an ambiguity in the original quotation which you are astute enough to point out.
Now, will you deign to apply your wet-noodle skills, such as they are, to the Ainslie claims made in their papers, like the one above, or will you continue to argue about what the meaning of "is" is, like a Bill Clinton clone squirming on the witness stand? No, of course not... you've got better things to do with your time.
How about this: I'll put a battery and a capacitor in black boxes, and run the NERD or Tar Baby or Altoid circuit for a while on each one, and YOU tell me which is the power source, battery or capacitor? When is "immediately" soon enough or long enough ?
One Farad Remix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf12g8HPnI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf12g8HPnI)
THEREFORE, with a large enough capacitor and/or a small enough battery, the behaviour of Altoid will be the same regardless of which power source is used, and this, I believe, has been demonstrated experimentally to be true, and this can be repeated by anyone with opposable thumbs and an Altoid tin.
BY INDUCTION, one may also wager confidently that this will also be true for Tar Baby. And further.... it will also be true for the NERD device itself.
This is my prediction: if a large enough capacitor is used, the NERD circuit will perform just like it does with a battery. And if a small enough battery is used, the battery will be easily seen to run down while the NERD circuit is operating. I also predict that the NERDS will never perform these tests adequately.
Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.
It would be interesting to see the NERD circuit running off 5 or 6 series-connected rechargeable NiCad 9V batteries. ;)
Would it run indefinitely and/or outlast their rated capacity?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2012, 01:23:40 PM
You and I both know that the quote is designed to imply that the circuit won't run on a capacitor. And in English, the symbol " ? " which appears several times in my post, indicates a QUESTION, that is, an interrogative, asking for a clarification of an ambiguity in the original quotation which you are astute enough to point out.
Now, will you deign to apply your wet-noodle skills, such as they are, to the Ainslie claims made in their papers, like the one above, or will you continue to argue about what the meaning of "is" is, like a Bill Clinton clone squirming on the witness stand? No, of course not... you've got better things to do with your time.
How about this: I'll put a battery and a capacitor in black boxes, and run the NERD or Tar Baby or Altoid circuit for a while on each one, and YOU tell me which is the power source, battery or capacitor? When is "immediately" soon enough or long enough ?
you and both know that
nowhere in that quote was the word "
immediately"... ::)
so i'll ask again... even though everyone reading knows you will reply with a logical fallacy again... why are you adding your own arbitrary and whimsical qualifications?
so you applied your wet noodle skills and came up with a good twist of of the truth...imagine that! no, of course not. not until you amend your errors and your whimsical, arbitrary additions... ::) and then there is that mea culpa you owe me... ::)
but you don't have the nerd circuit... ::) so troll, how about you just amend your idiotic lie that the nerds said "immediately".
You are once again the idiot liar, you crap-shooting reprobate with three blond hairs, you. I never said they said "immediately". I was the one who said "immediately" when I pointed out that is what their "explanation" requires. If you examine their "explanation" though, even you will perceive that what is meant by their quotation is that the circuit won't run on capacitors, and the reason is that the oscillations cease. They have also made this claim elsewhere. But you choose to ignore the fact that I have refuted them, yet again, in order to display your fake erudition and your nearsighed attempts at textual deconstruction. That is, for some strange reason, your continuing privilege here, but know this: it just reinforces the opinion that seems to be nearly universally held about you: you are a troll, plain and simple, and you've never been helpful to anyone at all, ever. You probably don't even wash your own socks.
Now I am asking you again: what is the definition of "immediately" in this context? One second? One minute? Five minutes?
Don't bother to answer, I know you are busy trying to fix your bicycle so it doesn't get your pants cuffs dirty while you are on your way to your ambush location.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2012, 09:04:10 PM
You are once again the idiot liar, you crap-shooting reprobate with three blond hairs, you. I never said they said "immediately". I was the one who said "immediately" when I pointed out that is what their "explanation" requires. If you examine their "explanation" though, even you will perceive that what is meant by their quotation is that the circuit won't run on capacitors, and the reason is that the oscillations cease. They have also made this claim elsewhere. But you choose to ignore the fact that I have refuted them, yet again, in order to display your fake erudition and your nearsighed attempts at textual deconstruction. That is, for some strange reason, your continuing privilege here, but know this: it just reinforces the opinion that seems to be nearly universally held about you: you are a troll, plain and simple, and you've never been helpful to anyone at all, ever. You probably don't even wash your own socks.
Now I am asking you again: what is the definition of "immediately" in this context? One second? One minute? Five minutes?
Don't bother to answer, I know you are busy trying to fix your bicycle so it doesn't get your pants cuffs dirty while you are on your way to your ambush location.
The question you are again avoiding was. Why are you adding your own whimsical and arbitrary qualifications?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 06, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
It would be interesting to see the NERD circuit running off 5 or 6 series-connected rechargeable NiCad 9V batteries. ;)
Would it run indefinitely and/or outlast their rated capacity?
Yes, it would, but we won't. No it won't, and no it won't.
Quote from: anomdeguerre on June 06, 2012, 09:08:04 PM
The question you are again avoiding was. Why are you adding your own whimsical and arbitrary qualifications?
How does it feel to be a sock puppet, with someone's hand up your skirt?
Read what the NERDs have said. They have said repeatedly that the circuit won't run on capacitors, and I am saying it will. Are you now saying that the NERD circuit will run on capacitors, and that the NERDS have acknowledged that? Or are you saying that the NERDs are saying that it WON'T run on caps? Either way, I am happy....
Because if they are saying it WON'T..... then they lie. And if they are saying it WILL.... then fine.... let them do so and show the progression of the oscillations.
The statement in the quotation misrepresents the true state of affairs, which is that if the circuit is provided with a realistically sized capacitor it will run just fine and will make oscillations that are indistinguishable from the "real thing" running on the battery. The only difference is that the energy in a capacitor can be known with some precision, and the energy in a battery cannot. Thus, testing with a capacitor will not allow the kind of handwaving sloppiness that results in the false claims of the NERDs.
And this is why the NERDs have resisted testing with capacitors and only cite... as an anecdote, not as real data.... the "capacitor test" described in the quote.
What was the value of the capacitor used? Can anyone tell me? Can any NERD supporter even tell me why that is important?
Can any NERD supporter even make a post on this forum?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2012, 09:20:04 PM
How does it feel to be a sock puppet, with someone's hand up your skirt?
Ask your mom.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2012, 09:20:04 PM
Read what the NERDs have said. They have said repeatedly that the circuit won't run on capacitors, and I am saying it will. Are you now saying that the NERD circuit will run on capacitors, and that the NERDS have acknowledged that? Or are you saying that the NERDs are saying that it WON'T run on caps? Either way, I am happy....
Because if they are saying it WON'T..... then they lie. And if they are saying it WILL.... then fine.... let them do so and show the progression of the oscillations.
The statement in the quotation misrepresents the true state of affairs, which is that if the circuit is provided with a realistically sized capacitor it will run just fine and will make oscillations that are indistinguishable from the "real thing" running on the battery. The only difference is that the energy in a capacitor can be known with some precision, and the energy in a battery cannot. Thus, testing with a capacitor will not allow the kind of handwaving sloppiness that results in the false claims of the NERDs.
And this is why the NERDs have resisted testing with capacitors and only cite... as an anecdote, not as real data.... the "capacitor test" described in the quote.
What was the value of the capacitor used? Can anyone tell me? Can any NERD supporter even tell me why that is important?
Can any NERD supporter even make a post on this forum?
Read what I said. I'll say it again. Why are you avoiding the question Wilby asked you?
Your tactic of constructing an argument against an inaccurate representation of the original proposition is a classic definition of a 'strawman'.
I think "anomdeguerre" is Rosemary.
MileHigh,
That was my first thought as well ..not difficult to spot.
From the paper:
QuoteThe batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage.
The definition of collapse:
Quotev.intr.1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.2. To break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function: a monarchy that collapsed.3. To fold compactly: chairs that collapse for storage.v.tr. To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.n.1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health; a breakdown.3. An abrupt loss of perceived value or of effect:
The term "collapse" is generally associated with a sudden brief event. In electronics for example, we speak of the collapsing magnetic field of an energized inductor when the souce of energy is cleanly removed from it.
From the context in Rosemary's quote it is fairly clear she meant the oscillations ceased to persist within a few seconds of removal of the batteries. Relative to the 2 minute long period of the duty cycle they used in their tests, the term "immediate" is a fair assessment of the time required for the oscillations to cease.
Regardless of how long it actually took for the oscillations to cease in their test, their conclusion was that the circuit would not operate when powered by capacitors. The simulation and TK's TB and altoid tests indicate otherwise.
I see that Ainslie is starting up a fresh discussion of her claims at Rossi's JNP. Many people are already starting to ask the same questions and make the same points that have been discussed and made here and on OUR over the past several years.
At least the versions of the papers she has linked to from there both have the same schematic diagram in them now, with the Q2 gang of four on the left in both papers, and the function generator is correctly identified. I don't see any statement that these are "revisions" or that errata in previous versions have been corrected in these versions.
I haven't poured over them to see what else has been changed.
But it looks like she's got another small group of interested people who will be jumping on "replications"... and who will inevitably find themselves doing just what the rest of us have already done, and with the same set of results.
She's trying to deflect questions and discussions off the public forum over there and into her private emails. What a great idea that is! She can control each individual's perception without the annoying and inconvenient interference of.... facts.
There was a new member at Energetic forum "brian-s-ahern" that popped up on 06-05-2012 that had some interesting wording they posted .....
http://www.energeticforum.com/196506-post7.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/196506-post7.html)
Quote
I have performed measurements on a device similar to The South African device with great success. Somehow this stuff can work, but I do not know how the circuit achieves the performance.
http://www.energeticforum.com/196535-post9.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/196535-post9.html)
Quote
I am not sure if I am doing this right.
I was working on Rossi-like stuff for EPRI when I ran into Arthur Manelas in Pelham NH. He has an electrical circuit not unlike Rosemary and I made many measurements of the output/input..
His circuit fits inside a shoebox and he ccauses fast rising pulses from a back EMF off a large transformer core. The core runs at a 'negative hysterisis of -3.0C.
He takes 11 watts out of a 12 volt battery and send 42 watts back into a 24 volt battery.
As a physicist with 30 years of lab experience, I know this sounds like a First Law violation. It woks nonetheless.
My working hypothesis is that his ferrite core has nanograined material in the 10 nanometer range. A new form of super-ferromagnetism was reported in Nature in 2006 by van Wayenberge. It comes in the form of a vortes and as such the asymmetric magnetism may be able to access energy from the fourth dimension, iCt.
When I saw the ROSSI and Rosemary in the same post it makes me wonder ..... " As a physicist with 30 years of lab experience, I know this sounds like a First Law violation. It woks nonetheless. "
He hasn't posted again since my replies but in my opinion their not whom they say they are, and the motives are questionable. ???
Fuzzy
;)
ADDED - :o
Arthur Manelas in Pelham NH
http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/
http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ahern-manelas-device.pdf
Could someone please post a link to Rosemary's new forum?
A "vortes" that "accesses energy from the fourth dimension".
Yep, that's professional physicist talk, all right. I love the part about "watts". I invite him to test my TinselKoil using the exact same protocols and interpretations he is using.
Rosemary's New Forum? Do you mean this one?
www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?p=/discussions
Or the JNP of Rossi, where there is more discussion:
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645
I've looked at the Manelas material that Fuzzy linked.
Here is my understanding of what is being shown. It seems that the electric car is run for a while -20 to 25 miles- to partially discharge its battery, and then the battery charge meter (a voltmeter) reads some percentage, around 2/3, of a full charge. Then the car sits there with the batteries running the circuit, and charges itself, and after seven days the battery charge meter (a voltmeter) reads some much higher percentage, around 9/10, of full charge. And electrical measurements of "watts in" and "watts out" are made on a different system (watts in from a 12 volt battery and watts out to a 24 volt battery). And a magnetized ferrite block is shown "levitating"... that is, repelling, a magnetized needle restrained in a tube, and this ferrite block or one like it is incorporated in the device somewhere as a "black box" that does the magic.
And Ahern is excited about this and thinks his nanoferrite theory is supported and the device sucks energy from the fourth dimension.
Well, he may be right about that last part..... you could call time wasted on yet another pulse charger "energy sucked from the fourth dimension."
Quote from: poynt99 on June 07, 2012, 08:21:32 AM
From the paper:
The definition of collapse:
The term "collapse" is generally associated with a sudden brief event. In electronics for example, we speak of the collapsing magnetic field of an energized inductor when the souce of energy is cleanly removed from it.
From the context in Rosemary's quote it is fairly clear she meant the oscillations ceased to persist within a few seconds of removal of the batteries. Relative to the 2 minute long period of the duty cycle they used in their tests, the term "immediate" is a fair assessment of the time required for the oscillations to cease.
Regardless of how long it actually took for the oscillations to cease in their test, their conclusion was that the circuit would not operate when powered by capacitors. The simulation and TK's TB and altoid tests indicate otherwise.
cough...cough... bullshit...
nice strawman... but we aren't arguing the definition of 'collapse'. ::)
the definition of
immediateim·me·di·ate/iˈmÄ"dÄ"-it/
Adjective:
1. Occurring or done at once; instant.
2. Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority".
::)
Bullshit yourself Wilby. You are nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking.
Do you ever plan on adding some value to a discussion?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 07, 2012, 05:07:51 PM
Bullshit yourself Wilby. You are nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking.
Do you ever plan on adding some value to a discussion?
.
kiss my ass poynty... you picked my nit... for the sake of nitpicking. and you were wrong. and you didn't add any value ::) idiot. ::)
tinselkoala/alsetalokin attempts this garbage on a regular basis, misrepresenting what was ACTUALLY said and then using it as his (fallacious) leverage point and no one but me calls him on it.
why don't you demonstrate that i am talking bullshit and show with your sim ::) or tk's hackbaby these oscillations stopping
IMMEDIATELY? ::)
What the hell is the matter with you anyway, Wilby?
Read my original post to which you are objecting. I am ASKING if they are claiming the oscillations cease immediately... as their theory requires... or if they continue for some time. They definitely are implying that the circuit will not run on a capacitor and they are saying that it does not because the oscillations decay. They do not specify a time but the use of the word "collapse" definitely conveys the sense of abruptness or immediacy. "Decay" would have been perfectly appropriate... but that was not the word used. Hence we can reliably conclude, you logic-impaired cricket-chirper, that the capacitor used simply wasn't of great enough capacity for a real test, SINCE these other similar and identical circuits run perfectly well on large capacitors.
You are being unbelievably and ridiculously obtuse. Do you wish to challenge any substantive point, like whether or not the circuits in question will run on capacitors? Of course not... because you know that they will. You know that you cannot challenge me on ANY substantive point at all, with demonstrations, facts and checkable references. Instead you will chortle in your beer about the difference between a Japanese mosfet and a Chinese one and whether "identical" means "the same" or "almost the same". Meanwhile, those that CAN, proceed to DO, while those, like you, who can only bloviate and obstruct.... proceed as well.
Link to a zipfile containing the collection of NERD scopeshots and the collection of images of choice RA forum postings:
http://tinyurl.com/7497ffl
Altoid runs with no battery at all, making oscillations that don't collapse.... or even decay much, evidently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y)
Therefore..... overunity, right?
Here we see a demonstrator that produces the same evidence that Ainslie has provided for her claims: a strong negative mean power product, as measured and calculated from scope traces, while powering a "useful" load: the twin,oppositely parallel LEDs. In addition... it is a demonstrator that doesn't even USE a battery, that produces oscillations, an AC component across the load, and a negative mean power product all at once.
And the whole thing... .including the NON BATTERY.... fits in a shirt pocket.
I suggested the idea for a pocket demonstrator using a 2n7000 mosfet. .99 designed the circuit, which is a single mosfet version of the Ainslie NERD device, and simulated it on his sim. I built it with some little tweaks, and it works.
Tk, your a nut case. ;)
So how did ya get both leds to light without the parallel inductor on the led?
Mags
TK
Totally cool great work .... you can actually ( maybe ) see the "zipons" loosing their grip and falling off of the skin effect on the wire their clinging to when your showing their DECREASING.... energy integral.
But than again .... I could be wrong ??? about the zipons that is.
Fuzzy
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 07, 2012, 11:29:50 PM
Altoid runs with no battery at all, making oscillations that don't collapse.... or even decay much, evidently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y)
Therefore..... overunity, right?
Here we see a demonstrator that produces the same evidence that Ainslie has provided for her claims: a strong negative mean power product, as measured and calculated from scope traces, while powering a "useful" load: the twin,oppositely parallel LEDs. In addition... it is a demonstrator that doesn't even USE a battery, that produces oscillations, an AC component across the load, and a negative mean power product all at once.
And the whole thing... .including the NON BATTERY.... fits in a shirt pocket.
I suggested the idea for a pocket demonstrator using a 2n7000 mosfet. .99 designed the circuit, which is a single mosfet version of the Ainslie NERD device, and simulated it on his sim. I built it with some little tweaks, and it works.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 07, 2012, 11:50:18 PM
Tk, your a nut case. ;)
So how did ya get both leds to light without the parallel inductor on the led?
Mags
I just soldered them together and plugged them in, and it worked. Weird, huh. It's .99's circuit exactly, except different: with 4.4 microHenry inductors everywhere where he has 3.3 uH, and no Zener. But it works with Zeners too, just not so much negative power.
I like to think I'm not superstitious, but I look for little "omens" or messages from the Universe. When I saw that the two capacitors fit so exactly in the battery space of Altoid... I knew I was getting a little message that I was on the right track.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 07, 2012, 05:46:09 PM
What the hell is the matter with you anyway, Wilby?
Read my original post to which you are objecting. I am ASKING if they are claiming the oscillations cease immediately... as their theory requires... or if they continue for some time. They definitely are implying that the circuit will not run on a capacitor and they are saying that it does not because the oscillations decay. They do not specify a time but the use of the word "collapse" definitely conveys the sense of abruptness or immediacy. "Decay" would have been perfectly appropriate... but that was not the word used. Hence we can reliably conclude, you logic-impaired cricket-chirper, that the capacitor used simply wasn't of great enough capacity for a real test, SINCE these other similar and identical circuits run perfectly well on large capacitors.
yes, let's recap...
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2012, 12:17:55 PM
In the quote above, it appears that the NERD authors are claiming that their circuit will not run using a capacitor bank as the main power supply. Or does the phrase "the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage" mean..... the oscillations collapsed once the capacitor voltage had dropped below that necessary for the circuit to oscillate? The two interpretations are very different.... and lead to different conclusions, don't they. What would happen if one used a really _large_ capacitor bank of several thousand _Farads_ charged to 48 volts? Would the circuit run for a while, thus falsifying the conclusions in the above quote, or would the oscillations collapse immediately to a zero voltage, as required by the NERD "theory"?
i bolded where you are asking the question you claim exonerates you. clearly the word "immediately" is strangely missing... ::) oh look, LIAR, it's at the bottom of the paragraph in glow!
so it's clear to anyone who can read english
you added the qualification of "immediately"... ::) and then tried to imply "immediately" was required by the NERD "theory" when it is obvious by your first question in the paragraph IT WASN'T. ::)
i snipped the rest of your post and didn't respond because it was just more of your logical fallacies.
i'm not quite sure why you think i should comment... you "experts" can't even agree on KVL... ::)
Is there a mute user function in the forum software? Maybe a greasemonkey script / Chrome plugin?
ETA: to be more specific, can some reliable source such as a moderator point me in the right direction if one or the other features exist?
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 08, 2012, 04:33:52 AM
Is there a mute user function in the forum software?
yup
edited to add value... ::)
http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Profile/english#Buddies.2FIgnore_List
try RTFD once in a while. ;)
For that, I thank you.
TK:
Great clip. Finally we get to see negative computed power while the capacitor discharges. An oxymoron!
I jumped a little inside when I saw that you were working with one-farad capacitors at five volts! They have been upping the voltage I see. Good old technology.
Isn't a one-farad capacitor supposed to be the size of a steamer trunk? ;D
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 08, 2012, 07:21:52 PM
TK:
Great clip. Finally we get to see negative computed power while the capacitor discharges. An oxymoron!
I jumped a little inside when I saw that you were working with one-farad capacitors at five volts! They have been upping the voltage I see. Good old technology.
Isn't a one-farad capacitor supposed to be the size of a steamer trunk? ;D
MileHigh
I looked up some specs on some of these. 30ohm? I was a bit surprised. 1F is quite a bit of energy. I suppose they are more for long term slow discharge compared to the old 40oz can looking caps from car audio.
Mags
Howdy all,
I acquired PDF copies of the new NERD RAT "COP>INFINITY" device papers, although where posted the two document presented were in a one column not in a two column format which is a requirement for submission to a accredited journal or magazine for possible peer review and publication. ::)
These attached documents are for reference to compare and contrast the logical fallacies within. ::)
( "NEW" revised edition ) ???
Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_rev1_energy-shiftingparadigms.pdf )
Proposed Variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a Magnetic Dipole in its Structure ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_rev1_energy-shiftingparadigms.pdf )
( "OLD" open source community vetted edition ) :P
Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
Proposed Variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a Magnetic Dipole in its Structure ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
Fuzzy
;)
Yep, she's made revisions without issuing an "errata" sheet showing where they are, and without removing all old, superseded versions of the papers.
Anybody reading those papers might also be interested to read Ainslie's blog posts 117 and 118, where the experimental technique and the results are described more accurately.
And no report of Ainslie's experiment would be complete without her analysis of the energy flow, which somehow got left out of the "papers":
QuoteNOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
This statement and the blog posts 117 and 118 are describing the exact same experimental session. This material should definitely be considered along with the papers by anybody who might be interested in evaluating the matter.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 08, 2012, 07:49:32 PM
I looked up some specs on some of these. 30ohm? I was a bit surprised. 1F is quite a bit of energy. I suppose they are more for long term slow discharge compared to the old 40oz can looking caps from car audio.
Mags
Yes, these are "keep alive" batteries for devices that have some active ROM or other low-drain circuitry. They are designed to act as a power supply for low drain situations, so a high ESR is acceptable. It's interesting to watch the current as they are charged by my regulated power supply. It starts low, then rises to a peak, then tapers off exponentially as the cap approaches full charge.
And of course you know that "1 Farad" isn't an energy at all, but a capacity. I calculated that the cap pair has about 30 Joules in it when charged to 5.5 volts. E = 1/2 CV
2 so
(CVV)/2 = (2 x 5.5 x 5.5) / 2 = 30.25 Joules
If I put them in series instead of parallel I can charge the stack to 11 volts but the capacitance is only 0.5 F, so the energy becomes (0.5 x 11 x 11) / 2 = 30.25 Joules. Hmmm.
TK,
We got a correction to the FG model. I guess you and I were right. (from Rosemary's new forum, click on "Paper 1")
But I see there is an error with the RL1 inductance; it should be "2.23uH", not "2.23mH".
Quote from: poynt99 on June 09, 2012, 08:15:51 AM
TK,
We got a correction to the FG model. I guess you and I were right. (from Rosemary's new forum, click on "Paper 1")
But I see there is an error with the RL1 inductance; it should be "2.23uH", not "2.23mH".
Heh.. I didn't notice that one. But look at the circuit diagrams in the two papers: they now agree, with the "q2" stack on the same side on both diagrams.
But they chose what I consider to be the wrong one -- the one that Tar Baby does use usually and that Ainslie has claimed is correct -- since it will subject the lone Q1 to high currents when the gate drive is HI. It makes more sense to me to use a stack of parallel mosfets to carry this high current, and a single mosfet will do just fine handling the low current from the oscillations. And Ainslie has said that the mosfets don't get hot during operation, and the only way this could be true is if there are 4 mosfets in parallel on large heatsinks handling the high current when the gate signal is HI. So for this reason I continue to believe that the diagram with the 4 mosfets on the "RIGHT" where they would receive the
positive FG signal at their gates is the actual, correct, diagram to use for the high heat modes with substantial "on" times. There is no reason at all for the heavy heatsinks if those transistors are in the "q2" role.
She cannae take the strain, Captain!
;D
Grrr.
This incident has also blown my F43 function generator. And I don't have a schematic or manual for it.
I'm sure this will make certain parties very happy. Me, it's all in the game.
(But if anyone can find a schematic/manual for my Interstate F43 High Voltage Function Generator, I would be happier than I am right now.)
Sorry to hear about the FG. What mode caused that?
If all else fails, you can always try tracing out the output section.
TK:
OMG, that's the big beautiful beefy analog FG that we were admiring about two-three months ago? That's a shame.
I assume that the output section is just a big beefy operational amplifier. It's probably got some big T05 NPN and PNP transistors in the output section. That's where I would look first.
From what I understand, T05 transistors are becoming a rare breed and they can get expensive. It's funny because they were the workhorses of a generation. There is school of thought that says that 1970s audio gear is the real thing because of those parts. Nothing better than a GIANT HEATSINK on a 70s amp with a row of T05 transistors! Plus a transformer that weighs as much as a concrete cinder block.
MileHigh
On the nerd side of things, I know TK plays around with PCs and makes Ubuntu boxes and stuff like that.
Well, I am finishing off building an AMD 3.6 GHz 8-core (count 'em) 16-gig-RAM monster computer! OMG, what a machine! USB 3.0, SATA3! Sorry, TK, but it's running Win7 64-bit.
I haven't built a computer in about three years, which is a long time in computer time. You will be able to run 10 applications at the same time including all sorts of Flash games and other crap and this computer should slice though it all like a white hot knife through butter!
It's so damn fast that I am assuming that after about six months the computer will not get sluggish. The software itself will get sluggish, but you won't perceive it because the computer is so damn fast!
It's been running Prime95 for 12 hours without a hiccup. It's a build for a friend and I am not bothering to overclock it. There is no point. It's whisper quiet under normal operation.
Okay, back to the never ending story.
MileHigh
Hi Guys,
It's a work in progress but the new forum is now up and running. Energy and Shifting Paradigms. Here's the link.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.0.html#lastPost
I'll be dealing with the protocols to the proposed tests that we're going to be showing live. All are welcome - with the obvious exception of TK - Picowatt & FTC and sundry other trolls. That's just to ensure that we keep things topical.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 10, 2012, 06:56:40 PM
Hi Guys,
It's a work in progress but the new forum is now up and running. Energy and Shifting Paradigms. Here's the link.
I'll be dealing with the protocols to the proposed tests that we're going to be showing live. All are welcome - with the obvious exception of TK - Picowatt & FTC and sundry other trolls. That's just to ensure that we keep things topical.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
YA ..... RIGHT ???
Like I want to be a member somewhere that my IP address is available to the biggest
"SHIL" and
"FRAUD" in the history of the open source community.
So all you other members and guests thinking about going to this new cave of Rosemary's, just remember your IP address leads to your home address area and just logging onto Rosemary's new "MANAGED" JooJooBerry ( http://www.joojooberry.co.za/ (http://www.joojooberry.co.za/) )
forum, gives up that information and you don't even get a cookie for your troubles. :o
FTC
;)
Post Script -
A example of no tracking cookie and IP address exposed just by going there .... http://whatismyipaddress.com/ (http://whatismyipaddress.com/) .... enjoy :)
@.99: I was just fooling around, using the FG to drive the Tar Baby at 356 kHz, about, and using my new Tesla resonator's primary as the load, using a bipolar square wave, and 72 volt battery pack for Tar Baby. I wasn't paying attention to the waveforms, nor did I have the thermocouple on "6" (the Q1) hooked up to the meter. Clearly it got a bit too warm. The weird thing is that the 10 amp fuse inline at the battery positive didn't blow.
@MH: Yes, you are right about the output stage, but it doesn't have 3055s or other TO-5 transistors.... it uses these weird little 10 Watt transistors in two complimentary pairs: MPSU06 and MPSU56. They are in a little tabbed case called "152" which is like a half-sized TO-220.
I'd like to sub these out for more easily obtainable ones; there is plenty of room for a different case; TO220s would fit.
I see there are a few places that list these but they are really expensive. They cross to ECG/NTE 188 and 189, but there are probably some other subs if the case is allowed to vary from the "152" case.
One of them is definitely shorted, another I broke a lead off of when removing it for testing, another is probably open. I'd like to replace all four, but if I order the exact replacements it will cost me around 80 dollars, so I'm definitely interested in subbing these out.
Any ideas for subbing these transistors?
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 10, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
YA ..... RIGHT ???
Like I want to be a member somewhere that my IP address is available to the biggest "SHIL" and "FRAUD" in the history of the open source community.
So all you other members and guests thinking about going to this new cave of Rosemary's, just remember your IP address leads to your home address area and just logging onto Rosemary's new "MANAGED" JooJooBerry ( http://www.joojooberry.co.za/ (http://www.joojooberry.co.za/) ) forum, gives up that information and you don't even get a cookie for your troubles. :o
FTC
;)
Post Script -
A example of no tracking cookie and IP address exposed just by going there .... http://whatismyipaddress.com/ (http://whatismyipaddress.com/) .... enjoy :)
I concur.
Therefore:
http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html
Hi Guys,
That's an amusing series of posts. It seems that TK et al want to protect their identities. I solemnly promise NOT to exploit my knowledge of your own IP address MilesUpInTheAir. I'd LOVE you to join. We need you to start a thread on 'pure nonsense'. That way you can exploit your true genius.
And little TK - just a quick reminder - lest you lead poor PhiChaser up the garden path by pretending you're getting significant OU results - YOU NEED TO USE A RECHARGEABLE BATTERY. That is IF you want to take advantage of all that negative voltage across that battery. I'm not sure that the one you're using on that little pocket version number - can cut it.
You poor readers are being so UTTERLY DUPED. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Our own forum will at least give you a true picture. This thread is PURE spin. From beginning to end. And it cannot END soon enough. Little TK's disaster with his function generator is amusing. But his anxiety to hide his results is now no longer intriguing. It's downright dishonest.
Regards,
Rosemary and
Rosie Pose
respectively. LOL. 8)
And FTC and Picowatt - don't bother to even sign up. Your posts will be deleted - on principle. The last thing we want are admitted con artists with the declared intention of denying any evidence of over unity. You - FTC - need to withdraw that Scribd publication that you pretend is your work. The legal term here is 'PLAGIARISM'. At least our TK acknowledges a negative wattage albeit he's trying very hard to deny its significance. You on the other hand are claiming some valuable technology that is NOT yours to claim.
But TK - you're welcome. I'd love to have the opportunity of arguing with you while you're also constrained to a modicum of politesse. It will render your posts vacuous - at best - because their only flavour comes from the borrowed ingredients of our technology. We have impeccable proof of unity breaches - strangely endorsed by your own continual replication of these results - and your sad efforts at pretending that they mean nothing.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary:
QuoteI'll be dealing with the protocols to the proposed tests that we're going to be showing live. All are welcome - with the obvious exception of TK - Picowatt & FTC and sundry other trolls. That's just to ensure that we keep things topical.
You are intentionally ignoring the definition of "troll" as we covered it here just a few weeks ago. You are fully aware of how the term is supposed to be used yet you abuse it anyways.
That's symbolic of your whole proposition. You have been presented with overwhelming evidence that you've got nothing yet still you press on.
QuoteThat's an amusing series of posts. It seems that TK et al want to protect their identities. I solemnly promise NOT to exploit my knowledge of your own IP address MilesUpInTheAir. I'd LOVE you to join. We need you to start a thread on 'pure nonsense'. That way you can exploit your true genius.
Kiss my ass. The real pure nonsense is your proposition. A few astute people at your new location will quickly realize this and before too long "kindest as always" will devolve to "mindless as always" and people will be treated to your low-life vicious and ugly gutter trash talk.
The nonsensical idiocy will continue and you will seemingly spin your wheels forever.
MileHigh
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 10, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
YA ..... RIGHT ???
Like I want to be a member somewhere that my IP address is available to the biggest "SHIL" and "FRAUD" in the history of the open source community.
So all you other members and guests thinking about going to this new cave of Rosemary's, just remember your IP address leads to your home address area and just logging onto Rosemary's new "MANAGED" JooJooBerry ( http://www.joojooberry.co.za/ (http://www.joojooberry.co.za/) ) forum, gives up that information and you don't even get a cookie for your troubles. :o
FTC
;)
Post Script -
A example of no tracking cookie and IP address exposed just by going there .... http://whatismyipaddress.com/ (http://whatismyipaddress.com/) .... enjoy :)
why in the world would you be concerned about your IP address (unless you are planning on doing something nefarious via the internet)? you've given out your name glen... a simple google search shows that a glen a. lettenmaier
....
Edit by admin...
Please don´t post real addresses of users who don´t like this...
Everybody can do himself a search if he need to do this...
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 10, 2012, 11:13:04 PM
I concur.
Therefore:
http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html
the mental midgets agree... ::) well, at least all is right with the multiverse. ;)
is your IP anonymous? mostly, unless you have your own assigned address space or you're doing your surfing from a business or enterprise that has its own assigned address space. finding out who is behind an ISP's dynamically assigned IP usually takes a letter from an attorney.
can your IP address be used to track you? absolutely not. i can walk out the door right now and although i'll have to stop typing, i can guarantee you that nothing about my IP address will have given away the fact that i went to get a bottle of coca-cola from across the street. ::)
can your IP address be used to track your [web] activities? yes, to a limited extent, but due to the prevalence of dynamic IP addressing and the number of proxy -based systems (frequently used more for security in large companies than for privacy), generally nobody bothers. cookies are a more reliable way to associate a person (or at least a computer) with their browsing habits. but for that to happen successfully some cooperation is required among the sites that place those cookies on your computer. don't even get me started about cookies - another overblown source of panic from mental midgets without propeller beanies... those of us with the beanies know better than to care.
furthermore, IP check makes anonymouse.org look like a service that would only be endorsed by a blathering idiot... or a troll...
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://ip-check.info/?lang=en
the privacy test IP check demonstrates that web proxy providers like anonymouse.org are not providing the privacy protection that they, or the troll, imply.
any arbitrary website is able to circumvent web proxies and to uncover the user's IP address and browser data, which should be actually protected by the proxy.and finally, once again, tu stultus es!
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 11, 2012, 03:49:04 AM
And FTC and Picowatt - don't bother to even sign up. Your posts will be deleted - on principle. The last thing we want are admitted con artists with the declared intention of denying any evidence of over unity. You - FTC - need to withdraw that Scribd publication that you pretend is your work. The legal term here is 'PLAGIARISM'. At least our TK acknowledges a negative wattage albeit he's trying very hard to deny its significance. You on the other hand are claiming some valuable technology that is NOT yours to claim.
But TK - you're welcome. I'd love to have the opportunity of arguing with you while you're also constrained to a modicum of politesse. It will render your posts vacuous - at best - because their only flavour comes from the borrowed ingredients of our technology. We have impeccable proof of unity breaches - strangely endorsed by your own continual replication of these results - and your sad efforts at pretending that they mean nothing.
Rosie Pose
Are you now saying that somewhere I have admitted to being a "con artist" or declared an intention of denying evidence of overunity? It sounds like you are continuing to make things up and put your words in other peoples' mouths as you usually do.
I really don't know what your problem is and don't really care. I am glad that after the best part of a year you now see that the FG has a 50 ohm output (not thousands and thousands) and that an FG can indeed pass current. Possibly in a few months you will see the AC path around the generator as well.
When you learn how to read your LeCroy, possibly you will also see the problem with your FIG 3 regarding Q1.
As for your claim of overunity, please show me a quote where I ever said your device was not overunity or otherwise. I stated that a neg mean pwr indication as measured cannot by itself be presented as proof of overunity and agree with .99's analysis regarding that.
As to joining your new site, I have no interest whatsoever. I am sure that there will be plenty of discussion here and elsewhere when you once again claim the overunity prizes.
TK,
Sorry to hear about the F43.
Subbing out the MPSU06/56 is a bit more difficult then it may seem. First, I believe the pinout on those devices have the base lead in the center position. This is not a big deal as one can put a bit of heat shrink on the collector lead of another package and with a bit of careful lead bending, make the pinout correct.
The tough part is finding an 80 volt, 2amp device with an fT of 150MHz or so and an Hfe of at least 100. Not only were the '06/'56 high voltage for their day, but they were also very fast with a fair amount of current gain.
You will find that most of the 220 packages are either slower and/or do not have as much gain.
I'll dig around in my data books as time permits and see if I can come up with something suitable. Right off hand I was thinking the 2SD669/2SB649 might work for you, but they are only 1.5 amp devices.
Are the '06/'56 in the F43 on heatsinks? Do the outputs appear to be paralleled?
If you can isolate the output section, or, as you have all the pwr devices pulled, you might try firing up the unit to see if only the output section was damaged. If you can identify the input to the output section, possibly you can 'scope around and see if the osc section is still functioning. Consider a variac and monitoring AC current as you attempt to fire it up without the output section. Also, monitor the supply section voltages to ensure that they make sense and have some regulation. Likely there is a +/- 15 volt or so supply and a HV section for the output stage. If there are any IC's, look for an identifiable IC that you can get the supply pinout for and monitor voltages at the IC as you ramp up with the variac. Do not let the supply exceed the IC's rating. Also, a problem with the supplies (shorted reg, etc) usually shows a lot of ripple when 'scoped.
Let's hope only the output section was damaged!
Without a schematic, its fly by the seat of your pants time.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 11, 2012, 12:21:19 PM
TK,
Sorry to hear about the F43.
Subbing out the MPSU06/56 is a bit more difficult then it may seem. First, I believe the pinout on those devices have the base lead in the center position. This is not a big deal as one can put a bit of heat shrink on the collector lead of another package and with a bit of careful lead bending, make the pinout correct.
Yes, that's right; fortunately there is plenty of room, although one pair did have a ferrite bead on the base leads so there is some concern about keeping these wires short.
Quote
The tough part is finding an 80 volt, 2amp device with an fT of 150MHz or so and an Hfe of at least 100. Not only were the '06/'56 high voltage for their day, but they were also very fast with a fair amount of current gain.
You will find that most of the 220 packages are either slower and/or do not have as much gain.
I'll dig around in my data books as time permits and see if I can come up with something suitable. Right off hand I was thinking the 2SD669/2SB649 might work for you, but they are only 1.5 amp devices.
Are the '06/'56 in the F43 on heatsinks? Do the outputs appear to be paralleled?
They are (were) all attached to a small common heatsink attached to the inside of the case, with insulating mica. I don't think the outputs are parallelled. The copper traces from the collectors of the first pnp-npn pair to the bases of the second pair are relatively thin and their emitters go thru some heavy resistors to the collector traces of the second pair, and the traces coming from the collectors of the second pair are very heavy, go back to the PS section and are bypassed to ground with 3.3 uF 50 V tantalums and the emitters of this second pair go to the output attenuator through a maze of big 2 Watt carbon resistors. So the first stage pnp drives the second stage npn and vice versa, I think. I'm not good at tracing diagrams from the circuit board, but at least the board is marked off in functional block sections so I can tell what is what. I _think_ that the U56 transistor that is the clear short on testing was the first stage of that side, and the second stage one is the one that I think might be open.
Quote
If you can isolate the output section, or, as you have all the pwr devices pulled, you might try firing up the unit to see if only the output section was damaged.
This is about where I am at so far.
QuoteIf you can identify the input to the output section, possibly you can 'scope around and see if the osc section is still functioning. Consider a variac and monitoring AC current as you attempt to fire it up without the output section. Also, monitor the supply section voltages to ensure that they make sense and have some regulation. Likely there is a +/- 15 volt or so supply and a HV section for the output stage.
Yep; I've already looked at the current draw without the output transistors and it's reasonable, about 250 mA and it's fused for 375 mA. So at least that eliminates the main DC rectifier and filter section, I guess.
QuoteIf there are any IC's, look for an identifiable IC that you can get the supply pinout for and monitor voltages at the IC as you ramp up with the variac. Do not let the supply exceed the IC's rating. Also, a problem with the supplies (shorted reg, etc) usually shows a lot of ripple when 'scoped.
There are a handful of identifiable ICs and today, after the parts run, I'll be looking at voltages.
Quote
Let's hope only the output section was damaged!
Without a schematic, its fly by the seat of your pants time.
PW
Yes, that's right, let's hope. Most of the ICs are common types, in sockets, and should not present problems if they are bad. There are a _lot_ of little tantalum capacitors in there, though.
Thanks for your help on this. I really like this old fossil and want to keep it around as long as possible.
TK,
I've done a bit more part searching. Finding 1.5 amp devices that will work is fairly easy. the parts metioned in my post will work as low cost parts for testing. I doubt the 1.5 amp would be exceeded during normal operation. 2SC2275/2SA985 (or the A versions) are also a posibility, very fast and higher voltage, but again only 1.5 amp devices.
Regarding the pinout, I doubt you will find center base configuration, unless you spring for the real parts. I would be tempted to use the low cost parts to troubleshoot and verify operation. If there is gain in the power section of the output stage, you may end up with ringing/overshoot issues (or worst case some oscillation).
It's a shame they now want an arm and a leg for those old 50 cent parts!
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on June 10, 2012, 09:51:18 AM
On the nerd side of things, I know TK plays around with PCs and makes Ubuntu boxes and stuff like that.
Well, I am finishing off building an AMD 3.6 GHz 8-core (count 'em) 16-gig-RAM monster computer! OMG, what a machine! USB 3.0, SATA3! Sorry, TK, but it's running Win7 64-bit.
I haven't built a computer in about three years, which is a long time in computer time. You will be able to run 10 applications at the same time including all sorts of Flash games and other crap and this computer should slice though it all like a white hot knife through butter!
It's so damn fast that I am assuming that after about six months the computer will not get sluggish. The software itself will get sluggish, but you won't perceive it because the computer is so damn fast!
It's been running Prime95 for 12 hours without a hiccup. It's a build for a friend and I am not bothering to overclock it. There is no point. It's whisper quiet under normal operation.
Okay, back to the never ending story.
MileHigh
MH,
What MB, case, fans, etc. did you use?
PW
TK,
Do you know what the output supplies are in the F43? I am assuming that they are close to +/- 40 volts or so. If so, the MPSU's were being pushed a bit hard regarding their V rating. I would consider the 2SD669/2SB649 pairs I mentioned. They have a higher V rating (the A versions even moreso). Likely it was the V rating of the MPSU's that got you in to trouble in the first place. Even though the 2S parts are only 1.5 amp devices, they will likely suffice. Even with a full 40 volt offset at DC (I think you said it would do +/- 40 volts) into 50 ohms and with a little bias, you would still be under an amp.
Look at the board and trace from the 50R output. See if you can find a couple diodes going from the amp side of the 50R trace to the rails. If you cannot find them, I would consider adding them. These would protect the output section from overvoltage by dumping any voltage in excess of the output supply to the rails. I would to use a pair of fast 3 amp diodes with a PRV of 600 volts or so.
What does the unit have for the 50R?
Let me know how it's going.
PW
@PW:
Well, my supplier didn't have any of the plausible subs for the MPSU06 and 56 transistors. He did list the NTE189 as available... for THIRTY DOLLARS !! But the NTE188 is discontinued and not available from him.
He did have the NTE 128 and 129 pair in stock but I think my present ones are probably still good... but I bought some new ones anyway.
And I got some fuses.... a .375 A slowblow is over two dollars, now... I am flabbergasted.
So I'm down to ordering from the internet.
(The "new" RA blog will be the same old same old, after a while. But this time....there is a history available, in my scope shots compendium and my collection of pertinent blog and forum posts. The wonderful thing is that all of it is in her own words, and her own data. No TK spin possible, just the facts from the horse's mouth!! And it's all publicly available for anyone with a computer.)
I just ordered 2 MPSU56 and 2 MPSU05 (not 06) from Utsource.net for 18 dollars plus 4 dollars shipping... I think. They are supposed to email me with details.
I also see some on EBay, MPSU06 for around 7-9 dollars each depending on source, and the same for MPSU56. So they are out there. Still... it would be nice to find some cheaper substitutes for testing purposes.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 11, 2012, 11:34:16 PM
@PW:
Well, my supplier didn't have any of the plausible subs for the MPSU06 and 56 transistors. He did list the NTE189 as available... for THIRTY DOLLARS !! But the NTE188 is discontinued and not available from him.
He did have the NTE 128 and 129 pair in stock but I think my present ones are probably still good... but I bought some new ones anyway.
And I got some fuses.... a .375 A slowblow is over two dollars, now... I am flabbergasted.
So I'm down to ordering from the internet.
(The "new" RA blog will be the same old same old, after a while. But this time....there is a history available, in my scope shots compendium and my collection of pertinent blog and forum posts. The wonderful thing is that all of it is in her own words, and her own data. No TK spin possible, just the facts from the horse's mouth!! And it's all publicly available for anyone with a computer.)
I just ordered 2 MPSU56 and 2 MPSU05 (not 06) from Utsource.net for 18 dollars plus 4 dollars shipping... I think. They are supposed to email me with details.
I also see some on EBay, MPSU06 for around 7-9 dollars each depending on source, and the same for MPSU56. So they are out there. Still... it would be nice to find some cheaper substitutes for testing purposes.
TK,
I would not use the MPSU05. I believe it is only a 60 volt device compared to the '06 which was an 80 volt device.
I'll bet that IEC would have used a higer voltage device if a fast enough one could be found in the F43's day.
If the output supplies are +/- 40 volts or so, you will need a minimum of an 80 volt device.
PW
TK,
Looks like the '06 and '56 is available on ebay for 8-10 dollars each... ouch!
Have you checked with your surplus stores?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 11, 2012, 11:14:38 PM
TK,
Do you know what the output supplies are in the F43? I am assuming that they are close to +/- 40 volts or so. If so, the MPSU's were being pushed a bit hard regarding their V rating. I would consider the 2SD669/2SB649 pairs I mentioned. They have a higher V rating (the A versions even moreso). Likely it was the V rating of the MPSU's that got you in to trouble in the first place. Even though the 2S parts are only 1.5 amp devices, they will likely suffice. Even with a full 40 volt offset at DC (I think you said it would do +/- 40 volts) into 50 ohms and with a little bias, you would still be under an amp.
No, not yet, I haven't had a chance to work on it today other than the parts run which was a bust. My supplier doesn't have any of the likely replacements.
Quote
Look at the board and trace from the 50R output. See if you can find a couple diodes going from the amp side of the 50R trace to the rails. If you cannot find them, I would consider adding them. These would protect the output section from overvoltage by dumping any voltage in excess of the output supply to the rails. I would to use a pair of fast 3 amp diodes with a PRV of 600 volts or so.
What does the unit have for the 50R?
Let me know how it's going.
PW
There is a maze of big 2 Watt carbon resistors between the output transistors and the attenuator switch. It looks like 2 series, 2 parallel of 50 ohm 2 Watt carbon resistors.
There are 8 diodes associated with the two final output transistors, going from their bases over to these 50R resistors. I can't read their numbers. Some of them are reverse biased; Zeners maybe. Here's where I like to look at schematics.
I dunno what these are doing.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 11, 2012, 11:55:52 PM
No, not yet, I haven't had a chance to work on it today other than the parts run which was a bust. My supplier doesn't have any of the likely replacements. There is a maze of big 2 Watt carbon resistors between the output transistors and the attenuator switch. It looks like 2 series, 2 parallel of 50 ohm 2 Watt carbon resistors.
There are 8 diodes associated with the two final output transistors, going from their bases over to these 50R resistors. I can't read their numbers. Some of them are reverse biased; Zeners maybe. Here's where I like to look at schematics.
I dunno what these are doing.
TK,
Sounds like a switched T or L pad. Many more modern gens put the pad before the output to reduce parts/current handling at the pad switch (i.e., cost). However, this setup is nice on a low THD gen as THD and noise are attenuated as the output is stepped down. Not so important on a higher THD FG.
Again, I would not go with less than 80V parts...
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 11, 2012, 03:38:24 AM
Hi Guys,
That's an amusing series of posts. It seems that TK et al want to protect their identities. I solemnly promise NOT to exploit my knowledge of your own IP address MilesUpInTheAir. I'd LOVE you to join. We need you to start a thread on 'pure nonsense'. That way you can exploit your true genius.
And little TK - just a quick reminder - lest you lead poor PhiChaser up the garden path by pretending you're getting significant OU results - YOU NEED TO USE A RECHARGEABLE BATTERY. That is IF you want to take advantage of all that negative voltage across that battery. I'm not sure that the one you're using on that little pocket version number - can cut it.
You poor readers are being so UTTERLY DUPED. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Our own forum will at least give you a true picture. This thread is PURE spin. From beginning to end. And it cannot END soon enough. Little TK's disaster with his function generator is amusing. But his anxiety to hide his results is now no longer intriguing. It's downright dishonest.
Regards,
Rosemary and
Rosie Pose
respectively. LOL. 8)
Er... I never said the TB was OU. TK never said the TB was OU. TK said quite the opposite in fact. Repeatedly... He was trying to lead me somewhere?!? Huh? ???
What are you going on about Rosemary?? ??? Again, just a bit out of context, a bit out of touch with reality, a bit touched... Really.
You are STUCK to the Tar Baby muhahahahaha! Jeeze, you really don't get it do you? So damn funny it is a shame you don't get it...
"...little pocket version number..." A touch of jealousy there Ainslie? Admit it, you couldn't build the Altiods rig TK built, even if you DID understand it.
Go talk to yourself on your own site Rosemary, I would LOVE to read your daily diatribe into madness...
PC
OK... power supplies check out, +/- 30, +/- 15, and +/- 5 volts, all within a few mV.
Waveshapes, frequencies, and all other oscillator functions also check good on the oscilloscope. Whew. All except the DC offset... that looks like it's handled right at the input to the final amp stage. I'm getting a response but not the magnitude expected.... I'm sure that will clear up when I get the final output stages put back together.
So it's just the final output amp that's fried, probably just the two transistors too, but I'll replace all four if this internet order goes through.
A friend today just gave me a bunch of old equipment. 2 HP 5381a frequency counters, 80 MHz very basic, working, and I have an immediate application for one of them, my gyro levitation experiment needed a RPM counter and now it has one. Also an HP 8640B signal generator, for RF work, but it has a power supply fault in the +5 and the -20 volt regulated supplies, probably easy to fix. I don't need something like that very often but it makes a nice doorstop.
And an ancient Q-meter, Boonton Radio Corp. 260A. Real mad scientist stuff.
Also he gave me about ten thousand (no kidding) ceramic and mica capacitors plus about 20 big electrolytics, a dozen brand new 50k 10-turn wirewound pots, a handful of turn-counting knobs, and about a hundred little toggle switches, DPDT, SPDT, SPDT CO, SPST. Brand new in original packaging. And a bunch of Analog Devices modules, instrumentation amps from the looks of them, also some old Nixie panel indicators.... he used to work for Praxis, making NMR machines, and when they went out of business they gave him a bunch of their bench stock.... and now I've got some of it. I'll never need to buy another miniature toggle switch, at least.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 12, 2012, 12:46:13 AM
OK... power supplies check out, +/- 30, +/- 15, and +/- 5 volts, all within a few mV.
Waveshapes, frequencies, and all other oscillator functions also check good on the oscilloscope. Whew. All except the DC offset... that looks like it's handled right at the input to the final amp stage. I'm getting a response but not the magnitude expected.... I'm sure that will clear up when I get the final output stages put back together.
So it's just the final output amp that's fried, probably just the two transistors too, but I'll replace all four if this internet order goes through.
A friend today just gave me a bunch of old equipment. 2 HP 5381a frequency counters, 80 MHz very basic, working, and I have an immediate application for one of them, my gyro levitation experiment needed a RPM counter and now it has one. Also an HP 8640B signal generator, for RF work, but it has a power supply fault in the +5 and the -20 volt regulated supplies, probably easy to fix. I don't need something like that very often but it makes a nice doorstop.
And an ancient Q-meter, Boonton Radio Corp. 260A. Real mad scientist stuff.
Also he gave me about ten thousand (no kidding) ceramic and mica capacitors plus about 20 big electrolytics, a dozen brand new 50k 10-turn wirewound pots, a handful of turn-counting knobs, and about a hundred little toggle switches, DPDT, SPDT, SPDT CO, SPST. Brand new in original packaging. And a bunch of Analog Devices modules, instrumentation amps from the looks of them, also some old Nixie panel indicators.... he used to work for Praxis, making NMR machines, and when they went out of business they gave him a bunch of their bench stock.... and now I've got some of it. I'll never need to buy another miniature toggle switch, at least.
TK,
Glad to hear the supplies and osc section are still working. The 30 volt rails are the output section I assume. With the 80 volt parts their is about 20 volts of headroo relative to the MPSU06/56 ratings. Don't drop to 60 volt parts.
Regarding the offset, what range are you seeing? About a half or a third the normal output swing?
As for all the parts and equipment, that's a great friend to have!
PW
Look, she lies with every post she makes, still.
HIDE my results? I beg your pardon? Every single thing I've done is right here in this thread or in my YT channel videos and comments. Spreadsheets, scopeshots, circuit diagrams, mistakes, victories, all of it. I'm hiding nothing.
There is certainly HIDING of results happening... but not by me. It is AINSLIE who is hiding results, hiding coworkers, hiding original data, hiding corrections to the ridiculous math.... hiding the TRUTH, seeking even to censor truth from others.
And I guess it's beyond her comprehension that Altoid DOES NO LONGER EVEN USE A BATTERY OF ANY KIND. But sure, I've got some rechargeable 9v batteries.
How about this: I'll run Altoid on 1) a regular 9v battery; 2) a rechargeable 9v battery; 3) the 2 F capacitor that I am using lately; and 4) a regulated power supply. I'll photograph scope shots for the 4 different conditions ... and anyone who wants to play can try to match up the shots with the power supply used.
Meanwhile.... will Ainslie be doing a Dim Bulb test, or any battery rundown tests? Of course not. She will only show just what she's always shown: a negative mean power product. Will she boil a liter of water using oscillations alone, with NO positive gate signal? No, she will not. Will she refute any of my videos, for example the Function Generator Passing Current From its "Probe" to its "Ground"? No... she cannot. Will she put 72 volts and 5 amps through the lone Q1 mosfet without it getting warm, as she claims? Not in a million years.
Um.... DO THE MATH. Is the conclusion True... or not true?
The basis for Ainslie's claims of overunity and battery non-discharge are based on multiple examples of similar ABSURD calculations, all of which are badly in error and none of which _actually_ support her claims.
Spin on that.
A 60 amp-hour, 12 volt battery contains 60 amps x 12 volts x 1 hour x 60 seconds per minute x 60 minutes per hour = 2592000 Joules and six of them therefore contain 15,552,000 Joules. You left out an entire factor of sixty, because you do not respect units nor do you understand what you are doing with your blind multiplications, Ainslie.
Ainslie's test used 54 hours at 10 Watts, she says, which is 10 Watts x 60 seconds per minute x 60 minutes per hour x 54 hours or 1,944,000 JOULES, Ainslie, not Watts. The quantity is Joules, dissipated at a RATE of ten watts, for a time period of 54 hours. You got the number right but you STILL don't understand the difference between the quantity of energy (the JOULE) and the rate per second that energy is dissipated: the WATT.
And the fully charged battery pack has 15,552,000 Joules in it. So you have not even come slightly close to reaching anywhere near the neighborhood of the battery's capacity, much less exceeded it. 15.5/1.9 = a little over EIGHT. So you could have done EIGHT such tests before your batteries showed a real loss of voltage.
Have fun on your new blog, Ainslie. You will be repeating history for the what, eighth time now? But this time.... an entire database exists containing your lies, prevarications, bad math, threats, insults, and ridiculous claims, all in one place ... actually several places now.... that anyone can download and read for themselves to see just what you really are.
@MH: I can't even imagine an eight-core processor!
What is the main purpose of that computer? Is it a gamer? What kind of graphics card does it use again?
I don't game, but I do have RealFlight which is a really neat model airplane and helicopter simulator with real model airplanes modelled in it.... I have a few of the actual models and they do fly just like the sim! (Only they are much more expensive to crash.) It needs lots of graphics power to run in full resolution scenery, full flight physics, helicopter acro mode. I'll bet your beast would run it in a window, while running four other games at the same time.
Wilby, stopy posting private addresses of users, also if they could be found by a google search... !
Last warning, otherwise you will get moderated...
And please stop posting here on this thread as you don´t add any useful technical info !
It is time for Ainsley now to make new experiments...and prove her fact,
not the other way around...
TK has shown many tests of this circuit and has basically done the work, what Ainsley should have done
by herself or her team...
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on June 12, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
Wilby, stopy posting private addresses of users, also if they could be found by a google search... !
it's
PUBLIC INFORMATION!!!... idiot.
Quote from: hartiberlin on June 12, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
Last warning, otherwise you will get moderated...
last warning? ::) you never gave me a first warning... ::) you removed my informative posts that refuted glen and tk ASININE insinuations about rosemary's forum WITHOUT REASON OR NOTICE... again, tu stultus es...
Quote from: hartiberlin on June 12, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
And please stop posting here on this thread as you don´t add any useful technical info !
until you apply that to everyone one this forum WITHOUT BIAS, i'll post what i please where i please.
regards... ::)
Astounding, yet entirely predictable.
@PW: One of the bags of parts my friend gave me contains 25 each Motorola MC1590G broadband amplifiers, new old stock. I looked them up and found this "low" price.... other places have them listed for even more.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-Unused-Motorola-MC1590G-Amp-w-AGC-Round-Can-IC-/220746958368
I might have a use for two or three of them. The rest.... well, first I'm going to let him know their value in case he wants them back, then we shall see if I can convert any of them to spendable gold.
TK, PW:
The computer was built for a friend that you might consider to be a "power casual user" but not a 3D gamer.
I read on Newegg.com and picked components. I also cannibalized parts from another computer, the box, the VGA card ($200 GeForce from three years ago), hard drives, and the DVD drive.
The heart of the system is the newish AMD 8-core processor. The new FX-Series has gotten a lot of lukewarm and bad press, but it can be argued that that's all hard-core nitpicking. You read the comments on Newegg to get a sense of what people think. It screams and you figure 8-cores is somewhat future-proof.
So after looking at options and reading user reviews and such, this is the heart of the setup:
Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 AM3+
Processor: AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz
Fan: COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus RR-B10-212P-G1
Memory: G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333
Throw in a power supply and you have a super-supercomputer for about $600 less the operating system. It's amazing.
There is a dual-tuner Hauppauge video card in the box, one tuner is old-fashioned and picks up the conventional Channel 3 signal from the cable box. The other tuner is a HD ATSC over-the-air tuner. The one card can display two channels (NTSC and ATSC) in two separate video windows. The CPU isn't doing much for the NTSC display, and the CPU, and possibly the video card GPU have to decompress the ATSC signal. This takes about 7% of the available computing power to accomplish this task and only a fraction of the available memory.
It's not the fastest possible memory or an ultra fast video card (but was three years ago) and the motherboard is not a high-end motherboard, but it's a medium-range quality motherboard. I have to assume that it's actually a formidable gaming machine also, but it's not in nose-bleed gaming territory at all.
All in all, it's amazing!
MileHigh
What's really amazing is what you can learn on the internet.
Did you know that TK, MileHigh, and FuzzyTomcat are all obvious plants? Yep. They fit the profile of paid disinformation agents to the T.
Did you know that picowatt is Harvey Gramm?
Or that fuzzytomcat is a plagiarist, or that TK keeps endorsing "the technology" that he is maligning at the same time?
Did you know that Groundloop's circuit is able to "move the battery voltage into FULL negative voltage values" ?
And all this time I thought it was .99's circuit that I modified and used with a capacitor to DEMONSTRATE those "FULL negative voltage" values. How wrong can a person be.
The key line for me is this one:
"However we're still to prove that the measured benefits also reflect on gains to the batteries' rated performance. But our early indications are that these results are also 'in the bag'."
That is an open admission by Rosemary that she has never proven her batteries last longer than they should = NO OVERUNITY PERFORMANCE EVER, and after all she has been at this for more than a decade so those early indications sure are taking a long time to manifest.
The only other option is that excess energy is being produced in the form of heat radiated from the circuit components, but as calorimetric testing by the RATS has been useless, and no readings have ever been taken of components that radiate heat like the mosfet's, then no evidence to support the conjecture there either, which makes this line perfectly reasonable:
"I'm entirely satisfied you'll be able to replicate what we've got."
For once Rosemary and I are in complete agreement.
And let's not forget this page because it's such a good read:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/915/
;D
@ evolvingape, et al,
The problem with the new claim of exceeding a battery's amp hour rating is that a battery's amp hour rating is quite variable.
Typically, on a battery as large as 60 AHr, the rating is derived at a 20 hour discharge rate. That means that for a 60 AHr battery, it will power a load of 3 amps for 20 hours (from whatever is specified as full charge to its full discharge voltage which is typically 10.6V for a 12 lead acid). If the load is increased above 3 amps, the AHr rating will typically be less than that acheived at the 20 hour rate. If the load is less than 3 amps, the AHr rating will typically be greater than the 20 Hr rate. Pulsing the load will also typically yield a higher AHr rating than the equivalent steady state average current.
The manufacturer has to be consulted to see what discharge rate was used to determine the advertised AHr rating and also to see if other discharge rate curves/ratings are available. Also, it is not reasonable to assume that if several 60AHr batteries are procured and tested that all will be exactly 60AHr, so any available data from the manufacturer regarding the tolerance on the AHr rating would also be informative.
When the claim was COP=infinity, that would have been easy to prove/disprove with a long duration battery rundown test. If the battery runs down, COP=infinity is disproved.
Now that the claim has changed to merely exceeding a battery's amp hour rating, proving or disproving this will be near impossible. Whatever load profile is applied to the battery to acheive a given AHr rating is the battery's AHr rating for that particular load profile.
If a pulsed or non-linear load is applied that averages out to 3 amps but causes the 60AHr battery to last for the equivalent of 120AHr, that only proves that the battery is capable of delivering 120AHr when discharged with that load profile.
It would seem nearly impossible to prove/disprove this new claim. We will have to wait and see how large the claimed increase in AHr rating is in the new tests that are to be performed, but what would one use as a load profile to compare the new numbers to?
PW
PW:
Very astute comments about the battery issue. Of course Rosemary is reading your comments also but chances are she will ignore them. I believe the issues you raised are too complex for Rosemary to deal with herself and it's undetermined if she will get someone to help her. Assuming that she does some testing it will be interesting to see what kind of data she generates.
Data based on battery voltages alone is junk data.
The two-farad cap test would have been more dramatic with a multimeter monitoring the cap voltage in real time. In case anybody has any doubts, you can clearly see that the capacitor is discharging while it powers the Altoids box based on the changes in the observed waveforms on the oscilloscope. Rosemary, that was the kiss of death for your proposition.
MileHigh
PW,
I completely agree with you. We have been here before but I am happy to go over the issues again.
Here are some links that will help the people who do not know what we are talking about:
http://www.engineersedge.com/battery/capacity_battery_ratings.htm
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/what_is_the_c_rate
http://www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/EV_BatteryPhysics.html
A battery will have a recommended C rating by the manufacturer. This will determine the charge or discharge energy over time (/ or per if you prefer) that the battery can handle. Not complying with these ratings could damage your battery's ability to store or deliver charge.
I agree that the prior claim of COP=infinity would be easy to prove or disprove with a continuous battery draw down test. I think that is the reason why that claim is no longer being made.
The issue of exceeding a battery's rated capacity to me is not an issue. It is a claim based on three things. The amount of energy originally stored in the battery at time zero (fully charged), and the rate at which energy is expended, which means how much energy over what time period. A battery that discharges 2 Amps in 1 hour has expended the same amount of energy as a battery that discharges 1 Amp per hour for 2 hours, in both cases the battery has used the same amount of total energy.
The problems will start when the claim is made based upon only a single component of the equation, for example time alone, or similarly Amps drawn alone. However, the battery can only contain a certain amount of energy to start with, and no more, so it will be simple to calculate the total amount of energy expended in a duration test if you know the discharge rate, ie. how many watts for how long. The rate must remain constant though, no 'tuning' to rig the results.
The issue of a control load profile is actually an issue. The only way to test this is to use a minimum of three different control load profiles, which discharge the battery at different C ratings, this will give you an idea of the TOTAL ENERGY the battery contains. Direct DC loads will be the most reliable for this purpose.
If you base your test on the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying, and not on either time or Amps delivered in isolation, a reasonable indication of performance should be gained, with respect to the control loads.
Not quite as simple as a definitive COP=infinity test I agree, but we were never going to get that test so the shifting of the goal posts to a harder to (dis)prove claim is not at all a surprise.
We have of course determined here in these experiments that what .99 and humbugger were saying more than a year ago is true: that when the oscillations are happening with the negative gate signal, then whatever is providing that bias voltage and current is a power source that is in series with the main battery and the load, and if the circuit is wired as shown in the NERD video demo, this part of the current bypasses the CVR altogether. Even if the circuit is wired "properly" as in the current set of schematics, the bias source is still supplying power. Ainslie, however, continues to disregard that fact, as she still denies that the FG can "pass current" and supply power of its own to the circuit, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. As usual. But this will confound any battery capacity testing they do, if they do not take it into account.
It is going to be interesting to watch the NERDs and the sycophants repeating my experimental work and discovering for themselves what we have discovered in this thread: experimental confirmation of what the sims told us more than a year ago.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 14, 2012, 07:03:15 PM
PW,
I completely agree with you. We have been here before but I am happy to go over the issues again.
Here are some links that will help the people who do not know what we are talking about:
http://www.engineersedge.com/battery/capacity_battery_ratings.htm
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/what_is_the_c_rate
http://www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/EV_BatteryPhysics.html
A battery will have a recommended C rating by the manufacturer. This will determine the charge or discharge energy over time (/ or per if you prefer) that the battery can handle. Not complying with these ratings could damage your battery's ability to store or deliver charge.
I agree that the prior claim of COP=infinity would be easy to prove or disprove with a continuous battery draw down test. I think that is the reason why that claim is no longer being made.
The issue of exceeding a battery's rated capacity to me is not an issue. It is a claim based on three things. The amount of energy originally stored in the battery at time zero (fully charged), and the rate at which energy is expended, which means how much energy over what time period. A battery that discharges 2 Amps in 1 hour has expended the same amount of energy as a battery that discharges 1 Amp per hour for 2 hours, in both cases the battery has used the same amount of total energy.
The problems will start when the claim is made based upon only a single component of the equation, for example time alone, or similarly Amps drawn alone. However, the battery can only contain a certain amount of energy to start with, and no more, so it will be simple to calculate the total amount of energy expended in a duration test if you know the discharge rate, ie. how many watts for how long. The rate must remain constant though, no 'tuning' to rig the results.
The issue of a control load profile is actually an issue. The only way to test this is to use a minimum of three different control load profiles, which discharge the battery at different C ratings, this will give you an idea of the TOTAL ENERGY the battery contains. Direct DC loads will be the most reliable for this purpose.
If you base your test on the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying, and not on either time or Amps delivered in isolation, a reasonable indication of performance should be gained, with respect to the control loads.
Not quite as simple as a definitive COP=infinity test I agree, but we were never going to get that test so the shifting of the goal posts to a harder to (dis)prove claim is not at all a surprise.
Evolvingape,
Thanks for the links.
It is exactly "the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying" that is the issue. Different load profiles yield different AHr ratings or capacities.
If the increase in AHr rating demonstrated in the new tests is only minimal, any anomalous action will be hard to prove/disprove. However, possibly we will be talking about orders of magnitude, which would at the least, be interesting. Even then, the acheived AHr rating would best be compared to a similar load profile minus a control. For example, if 4 amps is drawn at a 10% duty cycle and oscillations made in between that 4 amp draw, the acheived AHr rating could be compared to a load profile that only applies the 4 amp/10% load.
We will just have to wait and see what any new tests are claimed to acheive.
PW
TK,
How goes the battle with the F43?
Have you attempted using a rechargeable battery with the Altoid's circuit? After all, I believe all else was approved as being functionally similar to the NERD circuit, that is, that you would see the OU if only you were using a rechargeable battery. No particular chemistry was dictated for that rechargeable battery. Possibly it does not need to be a lead acid.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 14, 2012, 10:27:07 PM
TK,
How goes the battle with the F43?
The F43 is checked out completely, and waiting for the output transistors to arrive from Singapore, the actual Motorola parts. The payment has been deducted from my bank account and the website says my order has processed and I will have a tracking number "soon". So it's just a matter of time for the transistors to arrive. I have also ordered a couple more from someone on Ebay just in case, but they were twice as expensive.
Quote
Have you attempted using a rechargeable battery with the Altoid's circuit? After all, I believe all else was approved as being functionally similar to the NERD circuit, that is, that you would see the OU if only you were using a rechargeable battery. No particular chemistry was dictated for that rechargeable battery. Possibly it does not need to be a lead acid.
PW
Well, all batteries are to a certain extent rechargeable. But.... the capacitor is sort of the "ultimate" rechargeable battery, isn't it? I mean, it stores its energy in the electric field between large metal surfaces, and the battery stores its energy in the electric field between tiny little ions in some chemicals....
But sure, OK. How about if I run it on a two-cell LiPo? I have a few of those around that aren't too important. And I can keep a bucket of water handy just in case.
How will I be able to tell if it's running longer than it should, though?
The really Really nice thing about the capacitor is that it is possible to charge it consistently to the same or nearly the same energy content for repeated testing. Batteries... well, as you have been saying, not so much. The LiPos are usually charged by an automatic charger -- but the only way to really tell how much charge is in a battery is to discharge it completely and measure what came out.
TK,
>>>But sure, OK. How about if I run it on a two-cell LiPo?
>>>I have a few of those around that aren't too important.
>>>And I can keep a bucket of water handy just in case.
Lithium and water is a dangerous mix. Never throw leaked
lithium batteries in water. Use a bucket of sand and transfer
the battery outside if it is leaking and smoking. If you have
nickel cadmium batteries then use them instead, much safer.
GL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 14, 2012, 11:31:41 PM
The F43 is checked out completely, and waiting for the output transistors to arrive from Singapore, the actual Motorola parts. The payment has been deducted from my bank account and the website says my order has processed and I will have a tracking number "soon". So it's just a matter of time for the transistors to arrive. I have also ordered a couple more from someone on Ebay just in case, but they were twice as expensive.Well, all batteries are to a certain extent rechargeable. But.... the capacitor is sort of the "ultimate" rechargeable battery, isn't it? I mean, it stores its energy in the electric field between large metal surfaces, and the battery stores its energy in the electric field between tiny little ions in some chemicals....
But sure, OK. How about if I run it on a two-cell LiPo? I have a few of those around that aren't too important. And I can keep a bucket of water handy just in case.
How will I be able to tell if it's running longer than it should, though?
The really Really nice thing about the capacitor is that it is possible to charge it consistently to the same or nearly the same energy content for repeated testing. Batteries... well, as you have been saying, not so much. The LiPos are usually charged by an automatic charger -- but the only way to really tell how much charge is in a battery is to discharge it completely and measure what came out.
TK,
I agree with the cap being the ultimate rechargeable, it is just that I thought "someone" said that you would see OU if only you were using a rechargeable battery. Not sure if it was meant that it would demonstrate COP=infinity or something else.
It is good to hear the F43 is only in need of outputs (if even that is "good"). Did you check the resistors around the pad switch to make sure none of them were toasted?
You might consider adding a bit more protection. Since the pad circuit is at the output, I would want to protect that as well. An inline fuse could be installed going to the output jack. If you don't want to mod the unit, you could make up a cable with a fuse inline. I would use a .750 to 1 amp fast blow. Where distortion is a concern, the non-linear effects of an inline fuse can be reduced by bypassing the fuse with a cap (the resistance of a fuse varies with its temperature/load, similar to an incandescent). For use with the TB, just adding the .75-1 amp inline will likely suffice. Using a lower rating and having a few nuisance blows is better than toasted outputs.
Also, consider adding a pair of very fast diodes between the output and the output supply rails. Anode of one diode to output, cathode to plus rail. Second diode is cathode to output, anode to minus rail. If any voltage is applied to the output that exceeds the output rails by a diode drop, the diodes will conduct and try to raise the rail (which is typically fairly low impedance). The inline fuse will blow if the current draw exceeds the fuse rating during this condition. If the pad circuit was in front of the output section and only a 50R between the amp and the output jack, I would use a fusable 50R and put the diodes at the amp out and sacrifice the 50R during an overvoltage. But, as the F43 pad appears to be after the amp, I would protect the pad by placing the diodes at the pad output (at the output jack or wire thereto).
The reason for using fast or ultra-fast diodes is firstly they will conduct quickly when/if needed for protection and secondly they will have less capacitance to affect the output rise time. For the least amount of rise time reduction, it is best to put the diodes right at the output of the amp section (ahead of the pad/50R). But in your case, this could sacrifice the pad section during an overvoltage. You may have to try the diodes at the output of the pad and see if they reduce rise time too much. With very fast/low capacitance diodes you will probably be OK.
PW
Quote from: Groundloop on June 15, 2012, 12:02:34 AM
TK,
>>>But sure, OK. How about if I run it on a two-cell LiPo?
>>>I have a few of those around that aren't too important.
>>>And I can keep a bucket of water handy just in case.
Lithium and water is a dangerous mix. Never throw leaked
lithium batteries in water. Use a bucket of sand and transfer
the battery outside if it is leaking and smoking. If you have
nickel cadmium batteries then use them instead, much safer.
GL.
Thank you, that's good advice. I use LiPos a lot for my RC aircraft and other portable projects. If anything will make them explode, it will be this circuit !
NiCads are not as much fun. What about NiMH? But I have more LiPos than anything else. Of course, when they don't work, then that will just mean that LiPos don't work. Then when the NiCads don't work.... well, you know. It will turn out that only RayLite Silver Calcium LA batteries manufactured in the Southern Hemisphere will work. Or will they?
You do realise that you are RA's hero experimenter, don't you? I hope that you are having all the fun you can handle.
@PW: Thanks for that analysis. I don't see anything that looks fried in the attenuator but I'll check it more carefully before I run it with the new transistors. I like the idea of the diode protection but I think I'd like to look at a real schematic before I put them in, just to make sure I get them in the proper location.
It's only a 3MHz generator; it's not like it has to make a perfect square pulse at 100MHz or anything. A little added distortion isn't going to hurt me; I mostly use it under 1 MHz, especially at high output levels.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 15, 2012, 12:58:56 AM
Thank you, that's good advice. I use LiPos a lot for my RC aircraft and other portable projects. If anything will make them explode, it will be this circuit !
NiCads are not as much fun. What about NiMH? But I have more LiPos than anything else. Of course, when they don't work, then that will just mean that LiPos don't work. Then when the NiCads don't work.... well, you know. It will turn out that only RayLite Silver Calcium LA batteries manufactured in the Southern Hemisphere will work. Or will they?
You do realise that you are RA's hero experimenter, don't you? I hope that you are having all the fun you can handle.
TK,
>>You do realise that you are RA's hero experimenter, don't you? I hope that you are having all the fun you can handle.
English is not my first language, so I do not "detect" sarcasm easily, if that was the purpose of the above?
That said, RA knows that I always report the circuit measurements as a find them. I do not add or substract
anything. She also said: "He is reasonably satisfied that there is no gain." and that is my view also. I have so
far found no COP>1 in ANY circuit tested the last 10 years, and that includes the RA circuits.
GL.
Sarcasm? No, more like irony, considering all the history.
I find it rather amusing that she considers you the genius experimenter and that she dismisses my work totally--- even after realising for herself that your "minimal circuit" won't oscillate without making it back into the original Altoid circuit that .99 designed...
And of course it is MY modification of that circuit, built into Altoid, that makes the "FULL negative voltage values" that she is so excited about.
It's funny to see her talking about "intellectual honesty" in the same post where she misrepresents your work, my work, .99's work, and all the rest.
She also accuses me, here in this thread, of hiding or covering up data. What a liar she is. Go ahead, anybody, point to a single data set that I have withheld or hidden.
This is absurd, when she herself is carrying on email conversations and other "back-channel" communications with various people, not sharing those experimental results or conversations, and especially after her series of "mistakes" with the circuit diagrams and the admitted omission of data from her own work.
PW, et al,
The manufacturer of the battery will recommend a C rating from which a performance curve can be generated on paper. A suitable load will then allow an experimental comparison to be made generating a theoretical and experimental performance curve, and assessing battery(s) initial condition.
Substituting appropriate loads and adjusting time component accordingly to comply with C ratings will allow multiple experimental load profiles to be generated. Superimpose all curves onto same graph.
Common denominator for calibration is a fixed amount of energy depleted from the battery, creating a constant, measured at load over time. Adjust time component to comply with C rating profiles to achieve constant in each case.
Now run NERD or replication, which with a known energy drain can be adjusted by time component to comply with C rating profiles. Superimpose onto graph, related performance via a constant is now possible for all load profiles.
Once a known constant amount of energy has been burnt off in the load, commence dim bulb testing via timed low voltage shut off control for all C rating profiles (including NERD, which has been converted in to a C rating profile via it's known measurable constant, amp draw, and it's user defined variable, time).
Workable or not ?
It seems that this thread is going nowhere. For want of both readers and contributors. And TK is not likely to do those definitive battery tests as he dare not. I knew this. All that bombast and nonsense. And not 1 test result EVER - related to battery performance. If he's financially rewarded for his efforts - then here's the thing. He should be PENALISED not PAID. He's zealous excess resulted in us creating our own forum. And now we're out of reach. LOL.
In any event I should have my 'protocols' defined by day end. That's the target. And here's the link to our forum
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/ (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/)
Regards
Rosemary
aka Rosie Pose
You are such a liar, Ainslie.
In the first place I have done and published several MORE TESTS of battery performance than YOU EVER HAVE DONE. I have put up THREE Dim Bulb tests, and you haven't even done a single battery state-of-charge test yet. And I will continue to perform and publish more battery rundown tests.... while YOU HAVE NEVER DONE, and DARE NOT do, because your final claim will be destroyed if you do. And I have also done and reported other tests related to battery performance as well. The only thing you've reported is your crazy math errors and the bogus conclusions based on them. YOU HAVE NEVER DONE a proper battery performance test. Never.
In the second place, this thread is indeed going somewhere. I continue to demolish your ridiculous claims by demonstrations, and you are now in the rather strange position of having to CATCH UP WITH ME.
And, you lying troll Ainslie, you know very well that at present my function generator is awaiting parts. When they get here I will resume doing time-temperature profiles, which you HAVE ALSO NEVER DONE PROPERLY, to explore the efficiency of the circuit as a heater.
Yes, I may have succeeded in driving your lies and false claims to some other forum.... but the people who read THAT forum can have free and unfettered access to MY AINSLIE DATABASE, which includes a lot of things you would rather keep buried.
Now.... why don't you go back to your private little forum, you liar, and wait and see what your present set of builders come up with. You will be turning against them within two weeks, as they find out the truth and begin to point it out to you.
Rosemary:
You are truly pathetic sometimes. TK has done a lot of good solid work related to your circuit and you have never had a single good thing to say about it and you try dismiss all of it as being wrong. Plus we can't forget that for the most part you are not even qualified to make any serious comments anyway.
Then, on the other extreme of the spectrum, you heap tons of praise upon and call some people "brilliant" or "experts" just because they happen to offer some support for you. The problem is that in many cases the people that you are heaping tons of praise on are clearly beginners just starting out. It's completely ridiculous.
So that leaves you eroding your own credibility down to zero. You dismiss people that know what they are doing and heap ridiculous amounts of praise all out of proportion onto people that are just beginners. You make grossly inaccurate statements about their qualifications, statements that you yourself are not even qualified to make.
It's a complete farce and it's quite comical to see you bend and stretch yourself like some kind of pseudo intellectual contortionist pretzel. It erodes your credibility down to zero.
You need that brilliant experimentalist Joit to come and save the day.
MileHigh
Me being a single parent and struggeling with energy costs, tell me how to have free energy for our houshold. If you have the answer to me having free enery please do. Als ons in afrikaans kan praten gaat het misschien gemakkelijker zijn.
Hello MileHigh,
I LOVE this analogy. It's rather complex - but very adventurous...
Quote from: MileHigh on June 16, 2012, 10:46:48 PMIt's a complete farce and it's quite comical to see you bend and stretch yourself like some kind of pseudo intellectual contortionist pretzel.
The rest of your comments are pure nonsense. I have only ever praised the contributions of Poynty and Groundloop. They're both supreme experimentalists. And Groundloop is simply a runaway genius. NEITHER have endorsed my numbers or my claims. EVER. You really do need to keep your 'spin' marginally more accurate. As it's your credibility - not mine - that's being eroded.
Do you miss me MileHigh? I must say I rather miss your posts. Wish you'd join our forum. Then we'd have at least 1 troll. At the moment we've got none. Sadly missed. I enjoy a certain amount of confrontation. It keeps me on my toes.
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose.
Rosemary:
My comments are not pure nonsense they are absolutely true.
With respect to the "troll" comment this will now be the third time were are going through this.
You read the definition of a troll and you clearly know that I am not a troll.
Therefore you are you are just making yet another bold-faced lie. You know that you are doing it and everybody that knows you knows that you are doing it.
How low can you go Rosemary? Your credibility is zero and you keep scraping away at that zero boundary when you make ridiculous statements in an attempt to go into negative credibility territory. It just doesn't go any lower than zero.
We will drop in an observe the fantasy goings on at your forum from time to time. The capacitor test was the death blow for your proposition. Your whole proposition is a joke. If some of the members in your forum are not sycophants then everything is eventually going to blow up! However, it's clear that you have established your own totalitarian dictatorship over there so there is more likely to be heads being chopped off the moment any thoughtcrime becomes speakcrime.
MileHigh
;D MileHigh ;D 8) ???
Quote from: MileHigh on June 16, 2012, 11:24:35 PM
You read the definition of a troll and you clearly know that I am not a troll.
Therefore you are you are just making yet another bold-faced lie. You know that you are doing it and everybody that knows you knows that you are doing it.
We have indeed defined 'troll'. It's that 'talking head' that not only hides his identity but also defies the forum objectives. I'm not sure that I qualify. And I'm entirely satisfied that you do. Unless, of course, you can show any support of any kind at all against any of the experimental endeavors of any of our members EVER. Perhaps I've missed something?
Quote from: MileHigh on June 16, 2012, 11:24:35 PMHow low can you go Rosemary? Your credibility is zero and you keep scraping away at that zero boundary when you make ridiculous statements in an attempt to go into negative credibility territory. It just doesn't go any lower than zero.
'negative credibility territory?' Is that in the same ballpark as 'negative wattage'? I can't get my head around this value when its applied to 'credibility'. If anything it means that there's less than no credibility - which makes it a double negative. Which also then makes it HIGHLY credible because a double negative implies a positive. Quite apart from which - credibility is boring. I prefer to deal with real data. Something that you and yours need 'duck'. And on the face of it my own credibility is very much on the up and up. Which is likely to make your disclaimers ever more neurotic. IF, that is - they can exceed their current levels. On the face of it - it's unlikely.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 16, 2012, 11:24:35 PMWe will drop in an observe the fantasy goings on at your forum from time to time. The capacitor test was the death blow for your proposition. Your whole proposition is a joke. If some of the members in your forum are not sycophants then everything is eventually going to blow up! However, it's clear that you have established your own totalitarian dictatorship over there so there is more likely to be heads being chopped off the moment any thoughtcrime becomes speakcrime.
I'm waiting to see TK's 'continuous voltage' from a capacitor supply source. He promised us this some few pages back and is now using the fact that his function generator is out of wack - to pretend that he can't run this test. So sad. :'( That's an example of the 'spin' required by your own little totalitarian regime of over unity deniers and denials which is actually the hidden agenda of this forum. Again. So - so sad. Unlike you MilesOfHotAir - I LOVE wrestling with good scientific argument. It's the lack of this that litters this thread.
Regards as ever,
Rosie Pose
:-*
Rosemary:
Yes you clearly have "missed something" as you do your silly dance. Put your brain in gear and go back and read the definition for the term. Do not call me a troll.
QuoteI'm waiting to see TK's 'continuous voltage' from a capacitor supply source.
Unless you mean something else he already did the clip where a capacitor powers the Altoids box for several minutes until the capacitor voltage drops too low for it to run the circuit anymore. Did that one fly by you?
QuoteI LOVE wrestling with good scientific argument. It's the lack of this that litters this thread.
Right. More bullshit from Rosie the Bullshitter. That's a statement coming from a woman who after more than ten years pushing her big free energy proposition still cannot compose more than three sentences about power and energy without making a gross and embarrassing mistake.
It's all a conspiracy Rosie, watch out for the one-armed man.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on June 14, 2012, 10:23:13 PM
Evolvingape,
Thanks for the links.
It is exactly "the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying" that is the issue. Different load profiles yield different AHr ratings or capacities.
If the increase in AHr rating demonstrated in the new tests is only minimal, any anomalous action will be hard to prove/disprove. However, possibly we will be talking about orders of magnitude, which would at the least, be interesting. Even then, the acheived AHr rating would best be compared to a similar load profile minus a control. For example, if 4 amps is drawn at a 10% duty cycle and oscillations made in between that 4 amp draw, the acheived AHr rating could be compared to a load profile that only applies the 4 amp/10% load.
We will just have to wait and see what any new tests are claimed to acheive.
PW
Quote from: evolvingape on June 15, 2012, 07:33:34 PM
PW, et al,
The manufacturer of the battery will recommend a C rating from which a performance curve can be generated on paper. A suitable load will then allow an experimental comparison to be made generating a theoretical and experimental performance curve, and assessing battery(s) initial condition.
Substituting appropriate loads and adjusting time component accordingly to comply with C ratings will allow multiple experimental load profiles to be generated. Superimpose all curves onto same graph.
Common denominator for calibration is a fixed amount of energy depleted from the battery, creating a constant, measured at load over time. Adjust time component to comply with C rating profiles to achieve constant in each case.
Now run NERD or replication, which with a known energy drain can be adjusted by time component to comply with C rating profiles. Superimpose onto graph, related performance via a constant is now possible for all load profiles.
Once a known constant amount of energy has been burnt off in the load, commence dim bulb testing via timed low voltage shut off control for all C rating profiles (including NERD, which has been converted in to a C rating profile via it's known measurable constant, amp draw, and it's user defined variable, time).
Workable or not ?
Quote from: evolvingape on May 24, 2012, 12:12:35 PM
TK, PW,
How about a Dim Bulb Test with an integrated Batt Meter ?
http://www.gorum.ca/batt-cap.html (http://www.gorum.ca/batt-cap.html)
Based on what has been discussed in the quotes above I propose that the following would be an acceptable “protocol†for testing the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying.
The NERD circuit runs in two modes, direct DC and oscillation. Both of these modes can be tested independently until half of the calculated energy has been burned off in the battery. This should give us two load profiles over two different time periods, which both consume the same amount of energy from the battery. The first profile should be approximately 4 amps during DC only mode and then the second profile should be approximately 200 ma during oscillation only mode.
This will give two load profile performance curves that can be superimposed onto the control load profiles experimentally generated to confirm the manufacturers data is accurate, because we all know they always tell the truth about product ratings, don't we ?
We can now address the duty cycle issue correctly raised by picowatt. If the NERD circuit is run at a 10% duty cycle, the DC phase will be on for 10% of the time drawing approximately 4 amps, and the oscillation phase will be on for 90% drawing approximately 200 ma.
The proposed load profiling of both phases independently as outlined above will give two curves at the outer limits of performance, therefore the combined duty cycle profile will fall somewhere between these two curves, and can be shifted left or right on the graph by varying the duty cycle.
When half of the energy has been burned off in the battery from load profiling, a modified dim bulb test can be performed using the circuit in the link above.
Calorimetric load testing must be done properly giving you an accurate assessment of energy burned in the load. To calibrate the battery to C profiles a known load can be used such as a bulb with a known amp draw, no need for calorimetric testing there because it is direct DC, the addition of an inline ammeter will allow easy monitoring of the current flowing.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_6/chpt_2/4.html (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_6/chpt_2/4.html)
The calorimetric testing of the actual NERD circuit is necessary because of the oscillation phase which requires a heating element resistor as the load.
Ideally there would be no isolated direct DC phase at all because the magic is in the oscillation, apparently.
Thoughts ?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2012, 11:49:01 PM
(snip a bunch of Ainslie verbiage)
I'm waiting to see TK's 'continuous voltage' from a capacitor supply source. He promised us this some few pages back and is now using the fact that his function generator is out of wack - to pretend that he can't run this test. So sad.
(snip more irrelevant garbage)
IN the first place, lying troll idiot... where did I "promise continuous voltage from a capacitor supply source"? Nowhere, that's where. I said, and demonstrated, that your oscillations do not collapse immediately as your "thesis" requires them to, and that if a capacitor is correctly sized, it can provide energy -- "voltage" if you like -- for circuit operation indistinguishable from battery power, for as long as one likes. Again refuting another of your bogus claims.
And yet again... you are misrepresenting what I've said. Provide a link to what you are talking about, you liar. I have promised, and SHOWN SEVERAL TIMES, without any need for FUNCTION GENERATORS AT ALL, that a capacitor is perfectly able to run the Altoid circuit, producing a STRONG NEGATIVE MEAN POWER, for many minutes at a time, with long periods of "no measureable voltage decrease". I've shown this several times, as I said, and I've even shown Tar Baby itself running on just a capacitor for its bias source. And you can show the same thing with your NERD circuit-- or you could, if you had any intellectual honesty at all. But you won't, and you don't. However, some of the people you are currently trying to fool are smart enough to do it for themselves, and will, and will confirm my findings..... and refute your claims yet again. It will be amusing to watch you turn on them as the results begin to come in from their tinkerings.
IN the second place, these capacitor tests, as MileHigh points out, directly contradict another set of your bogus claims. You cannot tell the difference between the performance of the circuit running on caps or running on batteries, by looking at scope traces or load heat or any other performance parameter other than length of run, and if the energy content of the cap and battery are the same starting out.... the run lengths will even be the same. There is no difference between running on caps or batteries, except that the energy in a cap is known and repeatable.
You are so far behind it's pitiful. The only thing I need the function generator for at all is for heat profile tests.... I haven't even used a FG on Tar Baby in weeks, since we've been exploring your weak heat oscillation mode lately, for which NO FG IS REQUIRED. And the Altoid demonstrator has NEVER EVEN USED A FUNCTION GENERATOR AT ALL. Your grasping at straws is really pitiful. The fact that the F43 is awaiting parts is insignificant and prevents nothing. YOU LIE AGAIN when you claim that I am using its present inoperability as an "excuse" for anything, you liar.
Besides, the F43 is not the only FG in my stable, and the only thing that's "keeping" me from performing more tests--- tests which YOU, AINSLIE, you bloviating liar, have never yet done and are still not doing --- is that I am rather bored with your bullshit crap and I've been working on other things which are much more interesting to me. I'm not PRETENDING anything and I'm not prevented from anything .... you, Ainslie, are the Red Queen of Pretense. And just what is it that continues to PREVENT YOU from performing any work of your own? Have you gotten your expensive useless oscilloscope back from the repair shop yet?
You really should watch my videos, you willfully ignorant, arrogant liar Ainslie. You just might avoid putting your foot so deeply down your own throat, as you so often have done lately with your idiotic statements and lies. How long does a voltage need to be continuous before you call it continuous? 18 percent of 100 milliseconds? Twenty five seconds out of every two and a half minutes? Five minutes? Ten minutes?
Note the date on this video and the ones before it, troll Ainslie. I can demonstrate to anyone, anytime, using their own measuring equipment, the exact same "negative mean power" that you claim is evidence of overunity performance, and I can do it with no Function Generator and NO BATTERY at all. And I've been doing it for a week and a half already.
You are an arrogant, ignorant liar, Ainslie, and YOU continue to prove it, with every post you make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y)
@ea:
The continuous oscillation mode is another Ainslie red herring.
Yes, the "magic" must be in the oscillations, because the other mode is simply straight DC through a mosfet. However.... the oscillations alone cannot produce the high heat in the load that Ainslie requires. She knows this too, and has made several statements pointing out the fact that there must be a duty cycle which incorporates significant positive gate drive to Q1 in order to get the full heating effect.
Here's just one such example, from the "new forum". There are many other examples in the RAPosts.zip database.
(Where is the 555 circuit that makes the oscillation mode, though? You can see in this post that she is claiming that a 555 can be used. But we know, and even her correspondent knows, that a simple 555 timer cannot produce the negative voltage required for oscillations unless it is powered by a charge pump inverter, an additional battery added to the main battery, or a separate floating supply. And it will be providing current to the system.)
@PW, EA:
A simple analysis using Ohm's Law will show that significant power is dissipated in the Q1 mosfet itself during the DC portion of the operation, and experiment has shown that the Q2 mosfets also heat perceptibly during the oscillation mode. The heatsinks are required, but as I have repeatedly stated, the configuration shown in the current editions of the papers makes no sense, heat-wise. The stack of 4 on big heatsinks should be in the Q1 role, sharing the high current of the "Q1 positive gate drive" mode that makes the high load heat, and the oscillating Q2 only needs the single mosfet on the smaller heatsink. The waveform operation of the circuit will be almost exactly the same, but the mosfets will be much less stressed if "Q1" is played by the stack of 4 and "Q2' is the lone mosfet.
Regardless, the mosfets do heat significantly, depending on duty cycle and total battery voltage used, in spite of Ainslie's claims to the contrary, and anyone building her circuit will find this out for themselves.
This means that the circuit is not as efficient at heating a load as straight DC will be at the same average _input_ power levels, since significant energy is wasted heating the circuit elements other than the load resistor. However.... some intrepid experimenter could immerse the entire circuit, load, mosfets and everything, except the battery, in oil and monitor the heat of the oil, and compare the power dissipation of the total circuit to that of the load alone that way.
Or one could wave hands around and allude to "tests" for which no data are presented and make up all kinds of crazy crap, like the NERD does.
TK,
I cannot disagree with anything you said there. I don't have any time right now gotta go but I will check back in later.
The immersed enclosure is something I would have suggested a long time ago, except the total exclusion of heat dissipated in the circuit components, while measuring the heat in the load as intended proof of an anomaly, is a constant source of amusement for me. ;D
http://www.pugetsystems.com/submerged.php
Yes, it has been a barrel of laughs for me too.
I especially am amused by Ainslie's continued claims that the mosfets don't heat, when they are mounted on large heatsinks for some strange reason, and she has reported several failures.
Also.... no one _except me_ has yet offered ANY explanation of why ALL the NERD "high heat mode" tests from the Demo video on have only used a 48 volt (4 main battery) power supply. (This is evident from the Ainslie scopeshots I've managed to collect and post.)
Come on.... I'd really really like to hear some explanation (other than mine) of why, even in the demo video, one battery was removed from the original stack of 5 used in the first half of that video.
QuoteAnd now we're out of reach. LOL.
Like hell you are out of reach.
Are you gonna stop people from personally contacting those newly seduced recruits of yours on your forum and presenting them with your 10 year history of delusion-induced lies?
I dont think so.
They're all available here:
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645 where there is no censorship of truthful comments.
See you around where you least expect me Sweetheart ..I aint goin' away.
@picowatt:
It might not be possible to add the internal protection diodes to the F43's output stage as simply as you have suggested, because of this very handy feature of the F43 function generator:
Tar Baby is in good health:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WHzVGHadcE
Tar Baby and the Capacitors from Beyond:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2012, 04:53:11 PM
@picowatt:
It might not be possible to add the internal protection diodes to the F43's output stage as simply as you have suggested, because of this very handy feature of the F43 function generator:
TK,
That switch is not a problem re adding the diodes. Draw your basic opamp triangle (output to the right) and a horizontal line/rail above and below. Draw your output line. Add a reverse connected diode from plus rail to out and from minus rail to out. That's the basic idea. The chassis lift switch won't be involved, and yes, nice switch to have...
Quick question(s). Who is this H.G. that RA thinks I am? Did I grab an old user handle when I signed up? Was "picowatt" being used by someone else prior to me?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 17, 2012, 07:12:22 PM
TK,
That switch is not a problem re adding the diodes. Draw your basic opamp triangle (output to the right) and a horizontal line/rail above and below. Draw your output line. Add a reverse connected diode from plus rail to out and from minus rail to out. That's the basic idea. The chassis lift switch won't be involved, and yes, nice switch to have...
Quick question(s). Who is this H.G. that RA thinks I am? Did I grab an old user handle when I signed up? Was "picowatt" being used by someone else prior to me?
PW
I am going to have to look at the schematic. I think the combination of a floatable negative and the offset function might complicate things, although I know what you mean with the simple opamp analogy.
Her accusation of you being HG is another of her delusions. I think he was one of her principle early collaborators, along with FuzzyTomCat, during that stage of the work, beginning I think in 2009. He's a bright fellow. Why she would try to make that connection is simply this: she cannot come to grips with the fact that so many people -- all unrelated and at different times -- have been telling her the same thing about her circuit and her claims... so you see, they must all be the same person, or at least under the control of the same person who is "pulling the strings" of the conspiracy to suppress her earthshaking work. She thinks I am humbugger/cheeseburger, you are Harvey, and who knows who else is who else, simply because we have all told her more or less the same things about her circuit and her mismeasurements.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2012, 07:30:09 PM
I am going to have to look at the schematic. I think the combination of a floatable negative and the offset function might complicate things, although I know what you mean with the simple opamp analogy.
Her accusation of you being HG is another of her delusions. I think he was one of her principle early collaborators, along with FuzzyTomCat, during that stage of the work, beginning I think in 2009. He's a bright fellow. Why she would try to make that connection is simply this: she cannot come to grips with the fact that so many people -- all unrelated and at different times -- have been telling her the same thing about her circuit and her claims... so you see, they must all be the same person, or at least under the control of the same person who is "pulling the strings" of the conspiracy to suppress her earthshaking work. She thinks I am humbugger/cheeseburger, you are Harvey, and who knows who else is who else, simply because we have all told her more or less the same things about her circuit and her mismeasurements.
TK,
As lonk as the available offset swing is less than or equal to the output amp rails, there is no problem. By the way, that's a floating common, unless the output supply is uniploar.
I see RA is still claiming a COP=infinity. What the heck does that mean? I can see where the term is being "slanged up" from its normal usage with heat pumps, but is this really meant to imply that for any amount of work input to the system one can extract an infinite amount of work (or heat)? Has she ever explained what COP=infinity actually means as she uses it?
Maybe your cap video has processed by now...
PW
"floating common"
Yes, you are right, sloppy language on my part. It's a bipolar output, certainly.
I think her daffynition of "COP Infinity" or even "exceeds infinity" as she sometimes has claimed, is her reference to her belief that the batteries do not discharge at all, so all output is "free" with respect to the nonexistent input from the battery. Anything divided by zero is "infinity" according to the math-challenged. Actually of course division by zero is undefined.
How this is to be reconciled with her untested "thesis" that the circuit material is somehow being converted to usable power is another shady area.
Of course, her entire set of claims is based on two things: first, the negative mean power product, and second, her belief that the batteries, in some of the single tests that she's described, have had their total capacity exceeded by the energy required in those single tests.
The first is of course not evidence of overunity at all, as we have been showing here for months, and the second is a clear result of her mathematical and conceptual incompetence, as has also been shown amply for years now. In other words, she has based her overunity conclusions on the results of math errors, repeated over and over again, and conceptual muddling of the concepts of power and energy.
Poor Rosemary is in over her head.
I am in 'lite' mode around here and I did not yet read PW's long posting dealing with this issue. It looks like Rosemary is going to do that run-down test where one of the two batteries is a control connected to a fixed load. She will then swap the batteries after the first run, recharge them, and then do the test again.
So, supposing that you do this test and in each case the battery driving the NERD setup runs longer. Has that proven anything? The answer is a resounding NO!
Are you sure your control load is the same as the NERD setup load? NO!
Since your scope traces are telling you that there may be some energy returned to the source battery then you can expect that the battery running the NERD setup will run longer than the control battery (assuming that the loads were perfectly matched) because there may indeed be some energy being returned to the battery.
So, factoring that in, how much longer should the NERD battery run? Not an easy question to answer at all because you are not sure how much recharging might be going on. So Rosie hasn't a clue what the "expected increased run time" should be, if we are assuming that the NERD battery is getting partially recharged.
Rosie's original argument for "COP infinity" is as follows, "More energy is being returned to the battery while it powers the NERD circuit, therefore the battery is actually being recharged while the setup runs. Therefore the battery is just "providing potential" and it should be able to power the NERD circuit indefinitely. Rosemary backed away from that idea a long time ago.
If this test was to prove something, the discharge time would have to be (standard run time + extra time due to partial recharging + magic NERD bonus Zipon free energy run time). There would also have to be a lot of "magic NERD bonus Zipon free energy run time" to be really convincing.
Note that's a test that has been proposed by Rosemary in the past, just hook the battery to the NERD circuit, and let it run for six months non-stop. After the six months the battery should still be fully charged. After all, we use very sophisticated measuring instruments and the instruments don't lie.
Hence the reasonable dim bulb test as proposed by TK as a way to confirm or deny "COP infinity." To nobody's surprise except perhaps for Rosie, a battery that powered the Tar Baby for a while was then shown to have far less remaining chemical energy than three other batteries that were untouched. Exactly the same thing will happen with the NERD circuit.
That's the test that Rosemary should be doing. She alleges that the batteries don't discharge while they power the NERD circuit so they should power a bulb as long as fully-charged batteries that haven't been touched.
But you are afraid to run that test, aren't you, Rosemary? Or you could run the dim bulb test as a supplement to any other "approved battery testing protocol" but you probably won't dare do it, will you Rosemary?
So poor Rosie is left with a test and a control battery protocol from 2002. She has no clue what the control load should be but with some trial and error and some outside help she may figure that out. She knows that the test battery running the NERD circuit may indeed run longer than the control, but she has no idea how much longer. So she is in a tizzy.
But Rosie dear, the battery is supposed to run "forever," it's a "COP infinity" system!
Me thinks that with Rosie's new battery tests and presumably a new paper, that nobody will publish anything. Back to square one for the woman that knows very little about energy and electronics and barely understands how to use a DSO and interpret the data on the DSO display.
MileHigh
The whole battery issue is another red herring.
Let's hear some coherent reason why capacitors don't "work" and yet they make the same oscillations as happen with a battery or any other power supply.
That is.... capacitors _do_ work fine, they just _do_ discharge, and so do batteries.
Capacitors have the rather inconvenient feature, for Ainslie, that their energy content can be precisely known and repeated trial after trial. They are the ultimate "rechargeable battery" and especially with ELECTROLYTIC capacitors.... there is even ion chemistry involved.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Laugh, I've decided. Definitely laugh.
Yes, Brian, you are missing something.
Here's what the "first article" actually says:
QuoteB. Test 3 Results
The cycle mean and mean average voltage across the shunt measured a negative voltage as did the
math trace being a product of the battery and RSHUNT voltages. These negative values remained
throughout the 1.6 hour test period. The temperature at the RL1 rose steadily to 248°C. The element
resistor (RL1) was then immersed in about 0.85 liters of water and the water temperature then steadied
at approximately 82°C. The switching period was then increased and set to approximately 1.25
milliseconds as evident in Fig. 7. The temperature of the water then rose to 104°C in less than 10
minutes. The battery voltage both rose and fell marginally, throughout this entire test period and
measured 62.1 volts prior to concluding that test period.
Then there is a scopeshot, which clearly DOES show current being drawn from the battery, (this is the paper's Fig 7, which is the SCRN0355 shot included in the Ainslie blogpost 117 and 118); then there is this bit of math:
Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C, which points to a secondary
exploitable potential. At no stage in this test was any energy depleted by the batteries as measured in
the math trace and spreadsheet analysis. Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply. Given 4.1 joules required to heat 1 gram
of water by 1°C then over the entire 1.6 hour test period about 5 904 000 joules were dissipated. The
batteries rated capacity is
And that's where it stops. No battery rated capacity is given here, in this revised and corrected paper.... although it has been given variously as 60, 50 and 40 amphours. I'm happy with 60, although it could even be much higher than that.
Can anyone tell me how that 5,904,000 Joule figure was arrived at for the "total" dissipation over the time of the test?
Now... how many Joules are in that battery pack of 5 each, 60 amp hour, TWELVE VOLT batteries, Brian?
And here are the blog posts 117 and 118 where Ainslie describes this EXACT SAME EXPERIMENTAL TRIAL on the day that it was performed.
Compare, contrast.... conclude.
8)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 18, 2012, 03:14:40 AM
8)
So.
You will have explained to Brian, then, that
1) it was actually more like 700 mL water;
2) the water wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles;
3) the 5.9 megaJoule figure was pulled out of thin air, or your hat, or some rabbit hole, but not any kind of measurement or math;
and
4) that test used nowhere near even close to a small portion of the total energy in the battery pack.
In the interests of intellectual honesty and full disclosure of information, you really should get all your reported versions of that single experiment to agree, Ains-lie.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2012, 07:03:54 PM
Tar Baby and the Capacitors from Beyond:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0)
Did this get buried already?
People for years and years have been trying to get Ainslie to run her circuit on capacitors instead of batteries. She has always refused, but in the draft manuscripts there is an allusion to a failed capacitor trial-- presented without data, simply as an anecdote -- that is presented to claim that the circuit cannot run on capacitors. Here I clearly show that it can, for a significant amount of time, even on commonly available and not too many capacitors, making the usual negative mean power product, heating a load (slightly, as is normal for the oscillation only mode).
Electrolytic capacitors, too. Ion chemistry and everything.
Everything..... except zipons, apparently.
:-*
Rosemary:
Quoting you:
QuotePlease be aware. These characters have gone to some considerable lengths to apply this slander against us as their objective is to sustain as long as possible - the best interests of our energy monopolists. This has been an ongoing event ever since our work was put on the internet. It is only a measure of their anxiety to diminish public interest in these extraordinary results - that are a death knell to their own vested energy interests.
Please therefore treat their interventions with a certain amount of scepticism. If you're not certain as to the validity of their claims - then check on it by all means. But I would caution you to consider that their zeal is hardly appropriate to the eccentric claims of an experiment that can be easily validated through replication. It is the fact that these claims entirely compromise their interests that they are so vigilant. Thankfully their work and its attendant slander is that excessive that it automatically erodes any credibility that it may otherwise have garnered.
That's just complete nonsense. You are the problem Rosemary. You are deluded and ignorant and that's a 'dangerous' combination.
You are an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering. You are misleading people into believing that switching power on and off to an inductive-resistive load will give you over unity. You represent the dumbed-down fool 'teaching' impressionable people and turning them into dumbed-down fools.
You sometimes read comments on YouTube clips and you wonder what's happened to people, how could they be so gullible and stupid? It's shocking sometimes.
So you are just getting a dose of reality. It's a matter of principle. You are the mindless guppy swimming up against the glass and trying to lure other people into becoming mindless guppies also. You are simply an insult to all that is good in the knowledge-based world that we live in. You make a mockery of critical thinking with your ridiculous displays and your very poor grasp of science and energy and electronics.
You are not a 'leader' bringing new knowledge into the world on some noble quest. You might think that and you clearly are completely unaware of what you really are. You are just another person that has no clue what she is doing and you think that you have discovered something. Then to make matters worse, you are trying to spread the word. Your proposition is foolish ignorant nonsensical idiocy.
So it's worth it to resist people like you sometimes because you are 'mental pollution' and I would hate to see a world where the majority of people think like you. You have no clue what you are talking about and you haven't breached anything. It's all a complete farce and people need to hear the truth.
It's a noble effort to point out your ridiculous nonsense. That's a way to make the world a slightly better place. That's a way to encourage people to think. It has absolutely nothing to do with Big Oil.
You are the 'bad guy' Rosie and you don't even realize it. GO TO SCHOOL - that would be a good start. Come back in five years and admit what a complete idiot you were when you pushed your foolish nonsense on the masses.
MileHigh
I won't copy your post MileHigh. It's a comical assemblage of the most absurdly stereotyped propaganda that I've ever had the misfortune to read.
But I think I need to reference my entire quote as you've edited this as well. How typical.
Rosie Pose
Just a word of caution to all our members. Thus far you have all signed up as members in your own names. This is a laudable convention and much lacking in most forums. But it is not required. And to those of you who do use your names please be warned. It is very likely that a vigilante set of internet personalities will likely contact you in order to alert you to some rather distressing blogs that have been initiated by them to diminish our claims and our technology and even my own good name.
Please be aware. These characters have gone to some considerable lengths to apply this slander against us as their objective is to sustain as long as possible - the best interests of our energy monopolists. This has been an ongoing event ever since our work was put on the internet. It is only a measure of their anxiety to diminish public interest in these extraordinary results - that are a death knell to their own vested energy interests.
Please therefore treat their interventions with a certain amount of scepticism. If you're not certain as to the validity of their claims - then check on it by all means. But I would caution you to consider that their zeal is hardly appropriate to the eccentric claims of an experiment that can be easily validated through replication. It is the fact that these claims entirely compromise their interests that they are so vigilant. Thankfully their work and its attendant slander is that excessive that it automatically erodes any credibility that it may otherwise have garnered.
I'm sorry to advise you of this but as their interventions are reasonably certain - then you will also certainly be contacted.
Kindest regards again
Rosemary
Kindest my ass, you can be vicious. Like I said, it's about standing up for what is right. There is a principle involved.
If a Grade Six science teacher started talking about free energy coming from pulsing coils to his or her class you can bet that I would be upset.
You are just an insignificant uneducated amateur doing a silly meaningless experiment. That's your 12-year story in a nutshell.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 19, 2012, 12:48:03 AM
Kindest my ass, you can be viscous. Like I said, it's about standing up for what is right. There is a principle involved.
If a Grade Six science teacher started talking about free energy coming from pulsing coils to his or her class you can bet that I would be upset.
You are just an insignificant uneducated amateur doing a silly meaningless experiment. That's your 12-year story in a nutshell.
If it's 'silliness' that is able to predict an energy benefit in the application of CEMF - then ROLL ON SILLINESS. If it's 'silliness' that proves that benefit experimentally - then again - ROLL ON SILLINESS. In my book all that 'silliness' ROCKS. Much preferred to the archaic mindset of OLD thinking. You guys now quintessentially represent the OLD ORDER OF THINGS. Thankfully it's a chapter that's about to be closed. Can't happen soon enough. WHAT will you do with your time then? MileHigh? And WHO will fund you? You'll have to get busy and build more of those computers of yours. And then sell them to make a living.
kindest regards
Rosie Pose
added. And by the way (BTW) you have NOT been actively involved in electronics. By your own admission. You've been involved in selling electronics. That's an ENTIRELY different thing.
Rosemary:
You make me laugh when you try to make the "new vs. old" claim. It's simply ridiculous. You have no proof of anything, it's all a huge misunderstanding because you are uneducated and you don't know what you are doing.
It's really about truth vs. ignorance and you are the ignorant.
You are not leading us forward into a "new frontier," you are fantasizing. You are doing a disservice to people with your backwards ignorant nonsense and stupidity.
MileHigh
The truth, Ainslie, and what you put in your "papers"... are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. You are a liar, plain and simple. Anyone reading your paper describing the test recorded in your scopeshot SCRN0355, your Paper 1 Figure 7 would believe, as you want them to believe, that you measured WATER temperatures and you boiled water and sustained boiling long enough to dissipate the absurd 5.9 megaJoules figure you cite.
The truth of the matter is somewhat different, isn't it, Ainslie. You measured the temperature of your resistor, not the water; you did not boil the water at all, and you did not dissipate anything like 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours.
There are 5760 seconds in 1.6 hours. 5.9 megaJoules per 5760 seconds is about 1024 Joules per second.... over a KILOWATT, continuously, for over an hour and a half.
YET THE WATER WAS NOT ACTUALLY BOILING. In other words, the 5.9 megaJoule figure is, like most of your other "math", completely bogus and implausible. The strongest portable electric heaters available around here, which can warm an entire room in a Texas winter, are only 1.5 kiloWatts.
And even in your "revised" version the rated battery capacity is still left blank.... and we know why. Because it's a lot, LOT, greater than the ACTUAL energy required for any of your actual reported tests.
The blog post where the scopeshot first appears, along with a more realtime description of the event:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/118-this-was-final-step-to-take-it-to.html#links
And below, is the description of the event in the paper, including the same scopeshot.
My dear little TK
You must believe what you want. God knows you'll get no comfort from the truth. But keep a watch on our own tests. They'll be rolling - SOON. And then you'll need to close your eyes really tight. Because you'll not like what we're going to show you. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Can't wait.
Rosie Pose
Unbelievable. This is truly, truly amazing. I am astounded by the depths to which these people will sink.
Take a look at the original posting of scopeshot SCRN0355 below, and compare it to the reproduction in the "revised" paper 1 which can be downloaded from the new Ainslie forum. Notice any differences?
Where are the baseline indicators for the MATH trace and the GATE trace in the paper's version? The baseline indicators for the other traces are there.... so it's not a cropping issue.
The baseline indicators for these two traces have evidently been edited out of the image of the scopeshot in the paper's version.
These indicators are clearly present in the original scopeshot and in the old version of the paper in its Figure 7, but in the new version, as illustrated above .... these baseline indicators have been edited away, so that the viewer cannot easily determine that the gate signal has substantial positive going portions of +10 volts or more .... which is rather damning, considering that there is no current shown on the CVR at these times, as there must be if the mosfet is present and operating.
This is a clear foul. It is a deliberate cover up of the fact that this scope trace SHOULD be showing current when the gate signal is strongly positive... but does not.
The first shot below is the original SCRN0355. The second shot is how it appears in the present revision of Paper 1.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 02:20:41 AM
My dear little TK
You must believe what you want. God knows you'll get no comfort from the truth. But keep a watch on our own tests. They'll be rolling - SOON. And then you'll need to close your eyes really tight. Because you'll not like what we're going to show you. OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Can't wait.
Rosie Pose
You are a lying hypocrite and after what I've just seen, you should be kicked off the internet completely with your lies and coverups. THAT SCOPESHOT HAS BEEN EDITED TO HIDE INFORMATION THAT IS CONTRARY TO YOUR CLAIMS, and I have uncovered this coverup. You should be ashamed of yourself. I cannot fathom the depths of dishonesty in your mind.
TK,
The images in the edited paper look scanned (or, less likely, screen captures from a vid card with some bad memory). Look at the "Mean" values, the numbers there have been clipped at the top and bottom as if the scanner was dropping lines. The "Mean" values in fig 8 in the edited paper shows this even more clearly.
For whatever reason, the 'scope shots in the edited paper appear to demonstrate generational loss. Possibly the original files have been lost.
It makes more sense to me that the missing zero ref line is due to scanning errors. It is strange that it only dropped that portion of the line scan, but the scanner is clearly demonstrating issues elsewhere in this and other figures.
Besides, it would have made much more sense to edit the zero ref's for the gate drive signals in all the captures that clearly indicate Q1 is not functioning properly. But even that would only make sense if one knew how to read the LeCroy and were aware of what the zero ref and offset numbers actually mean.
PW
Dear picowatt and little TK
Your speculative excursions are considerably more entertaining than anything else in this thread. The omitted zero reference lines were simply the result of a prior compression of the files. This has now been corrected.
What ridiculous people you are. Get a life for God's sake.
Rosie Pose
Guys - let me say this again. IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO CORRUPT THE DATA FROM OUR LE CROY. WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY IT'S SUCH A SUPERB INSTRUMENT FOR TESTS SUCH AS THIS - ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE CONTENTIOUS NATURE OF THOSE SCREENSHOTS.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:06:43 AM
Dear picowatt and little TK
Your speculative excursions are considerably more entertaining than anything else in this thread. The omitted zero reference lines were simply the result of a prior compression of the files. This has now been corrected.
What ridiculous people you are. Get a life for God's sake.
Rosie Pose
Guys - let me say this again. IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO CORRUPT THE DATA FROM OUR LE CROY. WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY IT'S SUCH A SUPERB INSTRUMENT FOR TESTS SUCH AS THIS - ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE CONTENTIOUS NATURE OF THOSE SCREENSHOTS.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
In case you did not notice, I was defending you.
And you are indeed correct, the LeCroy does not lie. So, in the FIG 3 of the first paper, what is the indicated gate drive voltage during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage?
Why is no current flow indicated by the CSR trace during this portion of the cycle?
If you need help reading the LeCroy, fax your FIG 3 to LeCroy and ask them what the indicated voltage is during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle. They will tell you its approx. +12 volts.
So, again, why is Q1 not turning on?
PW
I did not really expect an answer. They are rarely, if ever, forthcoming.
The Q1 not turning on issue can only mean that Q1 was either damaged or disconnected during the 'scope captures where no current flow is indicated during the cycle portion wherein gate drive is indicated as more than sufficient to turn on Q1.
This of coures would mean that all tests and discussions related to FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 would have to be dismissed as erroneous.
Interesting how FIG 5, made the prior month, indicates a sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and indeed, the CSR trace does indicate that it is turning on.
PW
I've looked carefully at the shot in question and it looks like a deliberate edit to me, not a "scanner artefact". After all, whoever made the papers HAS ALL THE ORIGINAL SCOPE SHOTS, and if they don't.... I do, and have posted them all publicly, so there's no excuse whatsoever for "scanning". There is no excuse for this kind of "error" and I don't believe that it is a scanner error.
But so what, maybe it is. The 5.9 megaJoule figure, the "taking water to boil".... all of that is a lie, as well, and there's no "scanner" involved in that part of it.
And the omission of the total battery capacity.... has that been "corrected" as well?
So.... Ainslie is waiting for ME to point out the continual string of errors and misrepresentations and outright lies in those "papers" before she corrects them.... ? Just as she has allowed ME to do her homework for her during the last six months?
I am disgusted by this whole thing. She lies and lies and lies about everything under the sun related to her obsession and isn't the least concerned about accurate reporting or even consistency.
5,900,000 Joules in 1.6 hours !! DO THE MATH.
And, Ainslie, I am NOT Scott Little, you bloviating insulting overweeningly arrogant ignorant lying idiot, so you can stop calling me "little" in an attempt to get a rise out of me.
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 09:22:59 AM
I did not really expect an answer. They are rarely, if ever, forthcoming.
The Q1 not turning on issue can only mean that Q1 was either damaged or disconnected during the 'scope captures where no current flow is indicated during the cycle portion wherein gate drive is indicated as more than sufficient to turn on Q1.
This of coures would mean that all tests and discussions related to FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 would have to be dismissed as erroneous.
Interesting how FIG 5, made the prior month, indicates a sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and indeed, the CSR trace does indicate that it is turning on.
PW
And it's interesting that in this particular case.... the important one describing the "water to boil that wasn't actually boiling" trial..... the information that would allow you to see this... is missing. For whatever reason.... THIS scopeshot has critical information missing.
How much other information is "missing" due to "scan errors" or other selective editing? I have always maintained that only the real RAW DATA from Ainslie can be trusted at all, none of her interpretations or math can be trusted. But now... I see that they are not above publishing even the RAW DATA with ... "errors" .... in it that grossly mislead the readers.
It's actually likely that Fig. 7 is showing the mosfet in the process of failing. If you examine the current and math traces carefully you can see the mosfet in its death throes. This experimental trial was the one where she produced the very high load temperature (if anything of her reportage can be believed) and is using more than 60 volts in the battery pack. It is also apparently the last time they tried for high heat with more than 4 batteries.
5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours is over a KiloWatt, continuously, there, picowatt. Do you really think she was sitting there in that little closet next to a kiloWatt heater for an hour and a half? I sure don't.
And you are right about no answers forthcoming. She'll just continue to skip over the real issues, like the missing current where there should be current shown, and the claims that nothing is drawn from the battery when there IS current shown, and the claims that the circuit won't run on capacitors, and the ridiculous claims about the power dissipation totals.
Ainslie and her "team" have engaged in deliberate covering up of contrary data, have distorted and misinterpreted the data that IS presented, and they have continually refused to correct the math errors and the refuted claims that are still contained in their posted drafts. The various accounts of the SAME experimental trial do not even agree with each other.
Laugh, or cry?
Let's try to go through this again, BRIAN AHERN, thou physicist with over 30 years of lab experience.
To calculate the energy in a battery from the Amp-Hour rating of the battery, one needs to use the VOLTAGE of the battery in the calculation.
5 each 12 volt 60 amp-hour batteries contain how many Joules of energy? Well, we have a battery pack of 60 volts that can deliver 60 amps for one hour. And one Joule is one Watt-second, and one Watt is one Joule PER second, as is explained in WIKI. SO... DO THE MATH.
So that is (60 volts x 60 amp-hours) x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute = 12960000 Watt-seconds... or Joules. TWELVE POINT NINE MILLION JOULES in the battery pack, Brian.
Or, if you like, a single 12 volt, 60 amp hour battery contains 12 volts x 60 amp-hours x 60 seconds/minute x 60 minutes/hour = 2,592,000 Watt-seconds .... or JOULES. And five of these will then contain..... 5 x 2592000 Watt-seconds = 12960000 Watt-seconds... or JOULES.
Now.... how long would the Ainslie device have to run, making 23 Watts, to exceed that value? 12960000 Watt-seconds / 23 Watts = a bit over 563478 seconds. How long is this in hours?
I get a bit over 156 hours, or just under ONE WEEK of continuous, round-the-clock operation.
(NOTE that if you put the UNITS into your algebra, you can avoid making certain basic errors... like forgetting to include the VOLTAGE value when you are calculating Watt-seconds from Amp-hours.)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:06:43 AM
Dear picowatt and little TK
Your speculative excursions are considerably more entertaining than anything else in this thread. The omitted zero reference lines were simply the result of a prior compression of the files. This has now been corrected.
What ridiculous people you are. Get a life for God's sake.
Rosie Pose
Guys - let me say this again. IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO CORRUPT THE DATA FROM OUR LE CROY. WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY IT'S SUCH A SUPERB INSTRUMENT FOR TESTS SUCH AS THIS - ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE CONTENTIOUS NATURE OF THOSE SCREENSHOTS.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
This has now been corrected? Not on the papers posted on your new forum it hasn't, you liar. Here's the current "corrected" version... where you simply deleted the reference to the battery capacity, but the channel baseline indicators are STILL MISSING.
Look, if you are really having trouble finding the original scopeshot to put a good image in your paper, here it is, just as you uploaded it originally..... as a .bmp but with the extension changed to .jpg by you so it would bypass the forum's upload filters. If you download it, it won't display since it's got the wrong extension... just change the extension back to .bmp.
The one with the 301.1 kb filesize is the actual .bmp that Ainslie uploaded by changing its extension to .JPG.
The one with the 84.1 kb filesize is the true .jpg conversion from Ainslie's original .bmp scope-save shot.
No compression artefacts are evident to me. All the baseline references are clearly visible.
Please note the following image, Brian Ahern, physicist with 30 years of laboratory experience.
It is an image of a modern Lithium Polymer battery. You may note that its capacity is given in milliAmp-hours AND Watt-hours.
It is a nominal 7.4 volt battery. It has a rated capacity of 430 milliAmp-hours, or 0.430 Amp-hours. Right? It's on the label.
And this is also given as 3 Wh, which means 3 Watt-hours.
We know that a Joule is a Watt-second, so a Watt-hour is just a bunch of Joules, right? The Watt-hour is an ENERGY measure, giving the energy content of the battery.
So how do we get from 0.430 Amp-hours, to 3 Watt-hours?
What is 0.430 Amp-hours x 7.4 Volts?
So now we have two posts by physicist Brian Ahern (with over 30 years of laboratory experience), over a several day period, in which he twice demonstrates that he apparently doesn't know how to calculate the energy content of a battery, given its voltage and amp-hour rating.
And nobody has corrected his figures.
And the line referring to the battery capacity, formerly simply left incomplete, has now been deleted entirely from the "paper".
Does no one really know what the capacity of those batteries is? Or is the TRUE CAPACITY OF THE BATTERIES something that would call Ainslie's claims into question... therefore it is being deliberately omitted, and outside estimates left uncorrected?
Of course it is easy to calculate the capacity based on the amp-hour rating. What is this rating? Where can it be officially found? Is it 60 amp-hours in fact? Where did this information come from? It could be even higher. But even if it is only 40 amp-hours.... the capacity still is far greater than any of Ainslie's reported tests could have used.
Before I comment, I'd like to ask for some input from the folks here. Thanks.
QuoteProtocols applied to the definitive battery draw down tests
3 To evaluate the applied resistance to the control.
Our schedule has established the wattage dissipated at the element resistor (RL1) empirically - detailed in para 2 above. The next requirement is to determine the optimised settings from the switch to test. When these numbers are established at the required level of dissipation, then one need only look to the stabilised temperature over the resistor element. The applied energy required for this level of dissipation is established within the range of that schedule. Assuming, for instance that the required temperature is, for instance 105 degrees centigrade tested with the application of 4 batteries measuring plus/minus 49 volts - then the schedule indicates that this, in turn relates to a wattage level of 23.68 watts dissipation at that element.
Therefore - assuming the batteries are in series and they have negligible internal resistance, we can apply the following formula to establish the control settings...
Power = [Voltage(Total)]²/Resistance;
Solving for Resistance according to this and assuming that 4 batteries are required for the control - gives us
R = V²/P
= (49.2)²/23.6
= 2420.64/23.6
= 102.56 Ohms
Which means that we need to apply a resistance value of 102.56 Ohms to the control to match the battery draw down requirements under standard application conditions. And this is then compared to the rate of draw down on the batteries applied to the experiment.
Then one need only apply the required resistance level to the control and commence testing both tests simultaneously. And then, obviously to keep due record of both sets of data until either the test or the control or both - depleted to 10 volts per battery or thereby - indicating a total discharge of battery potential.
I think that covers the salient points.
Again, kindest regards,
Rosemary
Poynty - you need to reference all three paras. Else you've only got a third of the argument.
Regards,
Rosie
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg62/topicseen.html#new
Comment?
Well, this proposed protocol is actually more appropriate for testing load heating efficiency than battery capacity. There are major issues with how the temperature-wattage nomograph was obtained, and the use of different loads for the comparison is also problematic. The entire test suffers from the main problem that you don't know how much charge is in either set of batteries to begin with, so you'd have to recharge (Conventionally) each battery and perform the same test, randomizing batteries, several or even many times, to make sure that you've eliminated variance caused by the different batteries and their uneven states of charge. Another comment has to do with the competency and veracity of the experimenters, both of which are sorely lacking.
The test could be done in the manner described, but I think it actually puts the NERD circuit at a disadvantage because there are other elements in the NERD circuit that are also dissipating power, and if only the load temperatures are matched.... (OF COURSE we have identical loads in identical environments so that the temperature nomograms are EXACTLY the same, this is taken for granted) .... if only the load temps are matched, then the NERD circuit will clearly be using more power since it's warming the mosfets, the CVR, etc.
But my main comment has to do with how disgusted I am with this whole affair. Seeing that Ahern, who is alleged to know what he's doing, cannot even calculate the number of Joules in a battery.... and can't even grasp, apparently, that the units in his calculation don't come out correctly..... and seeing the present fiasco over the editing of that scopeshot..... I see that the Ainslie people are already engaging in scientific misconduct, and this should be clear to anyone who knows the full story.
So... now they are in full damage-control mode. The administrator is taking the blame for the altered scopeshot. Curious, isn't it? A "compression artefact" that is like no other, selectively removing only the two most critical items of information on the scopeshot and leaving everything else untouched. And so quickly and easily repaired, too.
OK, fine. Let them start a "corrections" thread and make an announcement that the "error" has been caught, er.. corrected. That's all proper, if a little LATE. But be sure to LEAVE OUT the part about WHO FOUND THE ERROR and who pointed it out.
Also... be sure to leave out any corrections of Brian Ahern's bad math. Don't bother to inform him of the actual Joule content of the battery pack, or show him how his calculations are in error.
And be sure to remove any reference to the battery capacity from the paper, it's not important at all, is it.
And of course, that embarrassing claim that somehow, 5.9 million Joules was dissipated in 1.6 hours during this "experiment" .... Oh, look... it's not there any more either. Why is that, Ainslie?
So we've gone, in one single day, from the first image below, to the second image below, without any mention at all of the previous 5.9 megaJoule absurdity.
Ainslie, you people are pathetic. It literally makes me ill to see what you are trying to do, and what you have done to the truth. Every time I think I've see the worst of you, you come up with something, like today's edits, that top everything else you've done in terms of mendacity and sheer outrageousness.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Poynty - you need to reference all three paras. Else you've only got a third of the argument.
Regards,
Rosie
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg62/topicseen.html#new
You need to explain why Q1 is not turning on in FIG 3...
Dear Little TK
You really are funny. 'mendacious' and 'outrageous' LOL. It sets up little jingles in my mind and I spend hours running up nonsense rhymes in my internal dialogue. It's hugely entertaining. But I won't bore you with those samples.
Actually I see that the 'zero reference' is still missing. I'll ask our administrator to check it out tomorrow. Your idea of an 'error' schedule is good.
Rosie Pose
102.56 ohms? The big batteries in series? That cant be correct.
Mags
Dear Magsy,
Quote from: Magluvin on June 19, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
102.56 ohms? The big batteries in series? That cant be correct.
Mags
This is an EXAMPLE. It's the protocols that are intended to apply against any given setting of any experiment. Please read through that link. I think it starts from post 12. They're not difficult to understand.
Regards,
Rosie
Added
And just as a reminder. We're NOT going to use the Raylite batteries. They're factory rejects as their rating was never stamped into their covers. We'll be buying 12 entirely new 12 volt batteries. Still not determined which to get but they won't be the same 'heavy duty' numbers as that will extend our experimental time beyond anything tenable.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Poynty - you need to reference all three paras. Else you've only got a third of the argument.
Regards,
Rosie
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg62/topicseen.html#new (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg62/topicseen.html#new)
Indeed Rosemary,
I've read parts 1 & 2 as well.
Presently (and formerly as well), my concern is regarding the use of two different load types, and the direct temperature measurement on the load elements.
Ideally, both loads should be the same part number, and both loads should be immersed in some fluid that won't evaporate at moderately high temperatures. Then the temperature probe is placed in the fluid rather than in close contact with the load element.
Since identical loads can not be accommodated, for a true comparison it is equally, if not more important that the loads be immersed in fluid for the temperature measurements.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2012, 07:48:57 PM
Indeed Rosemary,
I've read parts 1 & 2 as well.
Presently (and formerly as well), my concern is regarding the use of two different load types, and the direct temperature measurement on the load elements.
Ideally, both loads should be the same part number, and both loads should be immersed in some fluid that won't evaporate at moderately high temperatures. Then the temperature probe is placed in the fluid rather than in close contact with the load element.
Since identical loads can not be accommodated, for a true comparison it is equally, if not more important that the loads be immersed in fluid for the temperature measurements.
Fair comment Poynty Point
I think we'll run the batteries down as detailed - and then conclude with a final test showing the resistors in some kind of material to show that the temperature rise is equivalent over both tests. But that will be the concluding test. If there's no gain in the first test then there's probably no point in that final test.
Regards again
Rosie
added
I take it that you see the relevance in those subtle temperature changes to reflect the energy actually being dissipated? It's a good parameter.
As ever,
R
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2012, 06:34:39 PM
Before I comment, I'd like to ask for some input from the folks here. Thanks.
Poynt,
I am considering using an aluminum cased wirewound power resistor mounted to an aluminum thermal mass/heat sink and mounted in a vertical chimney with a CPU fan and controller maintaining constant air flow. Thermister would be buried in the thermal mass and its immediate surroundings/wires insulated to ensure the temp measured represents the bulk of the thermal mass. Inlet air temp and humidity would need to be maintained fairly constant throughout all tests.
As to the equivalent load applied to the battery, I do not like this fixed load and separate resistor idea. Will a flooded lead acid battery (or any chemistry) deliver more amp hours if the applied load is a 10ohm load applied at a 10% duty cycle or if the applied load is a constant 100 ohm? If this is the planned test, than the assumption that the amp hour rating is similar for both loads must be confirmed via rigorous testing.
I would use the same load throughout all tests. For a comparison battery run down test, I would pulse a very well controlled, low RDSon MOSFET at a duty cycle that provides an equivalent dissipation in the load as was indicated by the NERD circuit tests. This way the battery sees the same pulsed load but without the oscillations and MOSFET losses inherent to the NERD circuit.
As for measuring the assumed 10.6V per battery cutoff voltage, the circuit used to measure/monitor this must be filtered fairly heavily. First, all oscillations must be removed from this measurement to ensure they do not affect the cut-off point. Second, as the batteries approach 10.6V, their internal resistance will increase and cause voltage drops during pulsed loads which must also be filtered from the measurement. The use of similarly pulsed loads as described above would reduce this issue a bit.
I agree with TK in that the proposed test does not lean in the NERD's favor, as MOSFET dissipation is not accounted for.
What are your thoughts?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2012, 07:48:57 PM
Indeed Rosemary,
I've read parts 1 & 2 as well.
Presently (and formerly as well), my concern is regarding the use of two different load types, and the direct temperature measurement on the load elements.
Ideally, both loads should be the same part number, and both loads should be immersed in some fluid that won't evaporate at moderately high temperatures. Then the temperature probe is placed in the fluid rather than in close contact with the load element.
Since identical loads can not be accommodated, for a true comparison it is equally, if not more important that the loads be immersed in fluid for the temperature measurements.
Poynt,
If the load resistor must be some "special" type, I have considered using fluid immersion in a cylindrical container and then mounting that in the chimney discussed in my last post. The use of a fluid filled container could be made to accomodate all manner of odd shaped resistors, such as the March "demo" resistor.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 08:10:07 PM
I am considering using an aluminum cased wirewound power resistor mounted to an aluminum thermal mass/heat sink and mounted in a vertical chimney with a CPU fan and controller maintaining constant air flow. Thermister would be buried in the thermal mass and its immediate surroundings/wires insulated to ensure the temp measured represents the bulk of the thermal mass. Inlet air temp and humidity would need to be maintained fairly constant throughout all tests.
It would be more interesting if you actually ever performed any tests at all - with respect. You've been promising this from your early adoption of that 'picowatt' name and have, thus far, given us no confirmation of your receipt of those multiple FET's that you apparently ordered - let alone any indication that you are in a position to move yourself off your armchair to build anything at all. But if you prefer to consider things - then I see that you also need much time to complete all that deliberation.
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 08:10:07 PMAs to the equivalent load applied to the battery, I do not like this fixed load and separate resistor idea. Will a flooded lead acid battery (or any chemistry) deliver more amp hours if the applied load is a 10ohm load applied at a 10% duty cycle or if the applied load is a constant 100 ohm? If this is the planned test, than the assumption that the amp hour rating is similar for both loads must be confirmed via rigorous testing.
Where gains are marginal there is no question the concern will be whether the battery is advantaged by a switched cycle. But we're anticipating unequivocal gains.
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 08:10:07 PMI would use the same load throughout all tests. For a comparison battery run down test, I would pulse a very well controlled, low RDSon MOSFET at a duty cycle that provides an equivalent dissipation in the load as was indicated by the NERD circuit tests. This way the battery sees the same pulsed load but without the oscillations and MOSFET losses inherent to the NERD circuit.
We are NOT interested in the heat dissipated at the MOSFETs. At best it will only ADD to the proof of gains. We're satisfied that the heat dissipation at the resistors will be equivalent - ELSE there's NOTHING dependable in standard measurements. And we'll be able to prove this is an final test - if such a final test is ever required. Then the resistors can be immersed in an equivalent quantity of water or oil to prove an equivalent temperature rise.
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 08:10:07 PMAs for measuring the assumed 10.6V per battery cutoff voltage, the circuit used to measure/monitor this must be filtered fairly heavily. First, all oscillations must be removed from this measurement to ensure they do not affect the cut-off point. Second, as the batteries approach 10.6V, their internal resistance will increase and cause voltage drops during pulsed loads which must also be filtered from the measurement. The use of similarly pulsed loads as described above would reduce this issue a bit.
This is ridiculous. How does one test a switched circuit if there's an imposed requirement is to prevent that switch? :o ::) 8) Please! or 'Dear God help us all' or LOL. (MileHigh - take your pick)
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:32:48 PM
It would be more interesting if you actually ever performed any tests at all - with respect. You've been promising this from your early adoption of that 'picowatt' name and have, thus far, given us no confirmation of your receipt of those multiple FET's that you apparently ordered - let alone any indication that you are in a position to move yourself off your armchair to build anything at all. But if you prefer to consider things - then I see that you also need much time to complete all that deliberation.
Where gains are marginal there is no question the concern will be whether the battery is advantaged by a switched cycle. But we're anticipating unequivocal gains.
We are NOT interested in the heat dissipated at the MOSFETs. At best it will only ADD to the proof of gains. We're satisfied that the heat dissipation at the resistors will be equivalent - ELSE there's NOTHING dependable in standard measurements. And we'll be able to prove this is an final test - if such a final test is ever required. Then the resistors can be immersed in an equivalent quantity of water or oil to prove an equivalent temperature rise.
This is ridiculous. How does one test a switched circuit if there's an imposed requirement is to prevent that switch? :o ::) 8) Please! or 'Dear God help us all' or LOL. (MileHigh - take your pick)
Rosie Pose
Maybe you should try to understand what people are saying before dragging out words like "ridiculous".
Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3?
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 08:36:57 PM
Maybe you should try to understand what people are saying before dragging out words like "ridiculous".
Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3?
And WHY do you keep asking this? We've covered this point. EXHAUSTIVELY. In your early posts on my locked thread. Is there some need to keep referencing this? Is it the required 'spin'? I think we're all rather tired of it. With or without respect.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:43:03 PM
And WHY do you keep asking this? We've covered this point. EXHAUSTIVELY. In your early posts on my locked thread. Is there some need to keep referencing this? Is it the required 'spin'? I think we're all rather tired of it. With or without respect.
Rosie Pose
You have never covered this point. You only wanted to argue that I was not reading the 'scope correctly (remember the BS about the offset numbers and .99's annotated 'scope shot?).
I have confirmed that I am indeed reading the 'scope correctly with LeCroy in New York. During the positive voltage portion of the FG duty cycle, approx +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace does not indicate any current flow during this time period as would be expected if Q1 were turning on.
So, again, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3?
My dear picowatt,
When we finally get to run our tests then I anticipate the HUGE gratification that I will get in showing you that setting on a video that there is NOTHING compromised in our MOSFETS as you're trying hard to 'spin' and that the voltage reading across the switch when coupled to AC - does NOT show the same reading.
We most certainly HAVE covered this point. You are now simply trying rather desperately to take the focus off your ABSURD protocol suggestions. I think we're here discussing APPLIED TESTING PROTOCOLS to the battery draw down tests.
All that ego. God help us.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:55:55 PM
My dear picowatt,
When we finally get to run our tests then I anticipate the HUGE gratification that I will get in showing you that setting on a video that there is NOTHING compromised in our MOSFETS as you're trying hard to 'spin' and that the voltage reading across the switch when coupled to AC - does NOT show the same reading.
We most certainly HAVE covered this point. You are now simply trying rather desperately to take the focus off your ABSURD protocol suggestions. I think we're here discussing APPLIED TESTING PROTOCOLS to the battery draw down tests.
All that ego. God help us.
Rosie Pose
You have never answered the question or "covered" this point. You have only deflected it. It has nothing to do with AC coupling, and if you use AC coupling in your upcoming tests, your 'scope captures will be all but meaningless.
Fax FIG 3 to LeCroy. Ask them what the indicated FG voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle. They will tell you it is approximately +12 volts. Surely you and everyone else will agree that this amount of gate drive should be turning Q1 fully on. Yet, the CSR trace shows no current flow as would be anticipated from Q1 being turned fully on.
So, again, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3?
so - Poynty Point,
I think that's about the most you'll get by way of comment. Is that enough? I think we're both more than capable of discussing this without the gratuitous irrelevancies that picowatt and TK need.
Let me know. I'm waiting patiently at a far nicer forum than this. If you're up for it - we'd be delighted to discuss things with you. And the same to Groundloop. Frankly I'd also be delighted to include those circuit variants you've designed - into a thread for further discussion. We've built that circuit BTW. But I've not yet tested it.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:43:03 PM
And WHY do you keep asking this? We've covered this point. EXHAUSTIVELY. In your early posts on my locked thread. Is there some need to keep referencing this? Is it the required 'spin'? I think we're all rather tired of it. With or without respect.
Rosie Pose
I'll tell you why. The issue regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 of your first paper was brought to your attention several months ago. You insisted that I, as well as others, were reading the 'scope incorrectly. You first insisted that the offset numbers somehow needed to be factored in. Then you said it had something to do with AC coupling. An annotated 'scope capture was sent to you (not by me) for you to show to whomever you wished to verify the 'scope was being read correctly. I called LeCroy, and confirmed that the 'scope was being read correctly (something you could have done as well and still can do...).
When you were asked what voltage you thought the 'scope capture was indicating during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG3, you stated around +6 volts or so. Even though this is wrong (it is clearly closer to +12volts), Q1 should turn on even at your stated lower +6 volts or so. The CSR trace clearly shows that Q1 is not turing on even though your stated voltage of +6 volts or so is sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1. When this was brought to your attention, you began using your personal attacks towards me in an attempt to just bury the issue.
You have now made corrections to your "papers" with regard to other errors brought to your attention, such as your math regarding the total battery capacity. You have had plenty of opportunity to verify the readings on the 'scope with one of your "experts" or with LeCroy. If you were interested at all in the truth or in performing due diligence, you would have confirmed the Q1 gate drive voltage as indicated by the LeCroy captures.
If you had done so, you would have to admit that there was indeed a problem with Q1 in the listed figures, making all test data and discussion regarding FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 invalid and in need of modification or withdrawal from your paper.
Your FIG5, made the month before, shows less gate drive voltage than is indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace clearly shows the current flow due to Q1 being turned.
So, again, in FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on?
Feel free to continue your personal attacks, I'll just stick to the facts...
My Dear picowatt
I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts. What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell. It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend. It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote. It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume. Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 12:05:49 AM
I'll tell you why. The issue regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 of your first paper was brought to your attention several months ago. You insisted that I, as well as others, were reading the 'scope incorrectly. You first insisted that the offset numbers somehow needed to be factored in. Then you said it had something to do with AC coupling. An annotated 'scope capture was sent to you (not by me) for you to show to whomever you wished to verify the 'scope was being read correctly. I called LeCroy, and confirmed that the 'scope was being read correctly (something you could have done as well and still can do...)
I did NOT say you had read the scope incorrectly. I simply stated that the coupling was set to DC. You KNOW THIS. It should have been set to AC. The coupling can be varied on each and every channel. CORRECTLY this should have displayed a DC VALUE.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 12:05:49 AMWhen you were asked what voltage you thought the 'scope capture was indicating during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG3, you stated around +6 volts or so. Even though this is wrong (it is clearly closer to +12volts), Q1 should turn on even at your stated lower +6 volts or so. The CSR trace clearly shows that Q1 is not turing on even though your stated voltage of +6 volts or so is sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1. When this was brought to your attention, you began using your personal attacks towards me in an attempt to just bury the issue.
It IS 6 volts or thereby. In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby. YOU KNOW THIS. it is less than 6 volts AC. it is not less than 6 volts DC. AGAIN. You KNOW THIS.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 12:05:49 AMYou have now made corrections to your "papers" with regard to other errors brought to your attention, such as your math regarding the total battery capacity. You have had plenty of opportunity to verify the readings on the 'scope with one of your "experts" or with LeCroy. If you were interested at all in the truth or in performing due diligence, you would have confirmed the Q1 gate drive voltage as indicated by the LeCroy captures.
We have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity. EVER. We have NO NEED TO.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 12:05:49 AMIf you had done so, you would have to admit that there was indeed a problem with Q1 in the listed figures, making all test data and discussion regarding FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 invalid and in need of modification or withdrawal from your paper.
YOU WISH. That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 12:05:49 AMYour FIG5, made the month before, shows less gate drive voltage than is indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace clearly shows the current flow due to Q1 being turned.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I cannot change any of the data that is shown on the LeCroy. I'm not clever enough. No-one is.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 12:05:49 AMSo, again, in FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on?
WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN DEMAND ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS? YOU ARE NOT GOD. How DISGUSTING. That you can sit back and repeat your same stupid questions and expect an answer. TRUST ME ON THIS. I will NEVER again directly answer any of your posts. It leaves me feeling sullied.
picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are. I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum. Here it's likely to be censored. I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.
R.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2012, 12:22:19 AM
My Dear picowatt
I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts. What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell. It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend. It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote. It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume. Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.
It IS 6 volts or thereby. In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby. YOU KNOW THIS. it is less than 6 volts AC. it is not less than 6 volts DC. AGAIN. You KNOW THIS.
We have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity. EVER. We have NO NEED TO.
YOU WISH. That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.
picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are. I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum. Here it's likely to be censored. I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.
Rosie Pose
Your FIG5, made the month before, shows less gate drive voltage than is indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace clearly shows the current flow due to Q1 being turned.
So, again, in FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on?
Feel free to continue your personal attacks, I'll just stick to the facts...
More personal attacks as usual, and no correct or substantive data. I'll bet the truth hurts even moreso...
So, again, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on in FIG3? I must have missed it.
What is the gate voltage being applied during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG5? Does it not look to be less than is indicated in FIG3? Yet Q1 is clearly turning on in that capture's test.
And no, I do not know very well that it is 6 volts AC, in FIG3, it is actually approx +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1.
AGAIN.
so - Poynty Point,
I think that's about the most you'll get by way of comment. Is that enough? I think we're both more than capable of discussing this without the gratuitous irrelevancies that picowatt and TK need.
Let me know. I'm waiting patiently at a far nicer forum than this. If you're up for it - we'd be delighted to discuss things with you. And the same to Groundloop. Frankly I'd also be delighted to include those circuit variants you've designed - into a thread for further discussion. We've built that circuit BTW. But I've not yet tested it.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2012, 12:36:40 AM
AGAIN.
so - Poynty Point,
I think that's about the most you'll get by way of comment. Is that enough? I think we're both more than capable of discussing this without the gratuitous irrelevancies that picowatt and TK need.
Let me know. I'm waiting patiently at a far nicer forum than this. If you're up for it - we'd be delighted to discuss things with you. And the same to Groundloop. Frankly I'd also be delighted to include those circuit variants you've designed - into a thread for further discussion. We've built that circuit BTW. But I've not yet tested it.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
While your at it, ask them what they think the gate drive to Q1 is in FIG3 during the positive portion of the FG cycle. Ask them if Q1 should be turning on even though the CSR trace indicates it is not.
The LeCroy does not lie... superb instrument...
ADDED: And do you really believe the issue regarding Q1 not turning on when it should is "irrelevant"?
Here I preserve this bloviating, insulting, misrepresenting and threatening post from Ainslie, with a few of my comments inserted.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2012, 12:22:19 AM
My Dear picowatt
I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts. What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell. It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend. It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote. It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume. Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.
This is very typical Ainslie-ese. When she cannot address a point substantively she resorts to ridiculous insults and personal attacks--- because she is a bloviating lying troll of a scrawny parroting old woman.
Quote
I did NOT say you had read the scope incorrectly. I simply stated that the coupling was set to DC. You KNOW THIS. It should have been set to AC. The coupling can be varied on each and every channel. CORRECTLY this should have displayed a DC VALUE. It IS 6 volts or thereby. In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby. YOU KNOW THIS. it is less than 6 volts AC. it is not less than 6 volts DC. AGAIN. You KNOW THIS.
You here betray AGAIN that you have no idea what the AC/DC coupling control does or how it is used, nor can you read the traces on your own scope without having numbers in boxes. You are an ignorant, arrogant fool, Ainslie, and you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into your own soil.
QuoteWe have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity. EVER. We have NO NEED TO.
YOU REMOVED your reference to the battery capacity that was left dangling, and YOU REMOVED the ridiculous statement that the trial had used 5.9 megaJoules, which you originally stated as "evidence" that the battery capacity was exceeded. You made this correction in the draft manuscript but you STILL PERSIST in your ridiculous math errors elsewhere. In other words: AGAIN YOU LIE. See the images below, of the old version containing the reference to the unknown battery capacity and the 5.9 megaJoule figure, and the new version where they have been CORRECTED away.
QuoteYOU WISH. That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I cannot change any of the data that is shown on the LeCroy. I'm not clever enough. No-one is.
You are right about one thing: You are not clever enough, by far, to be carrying on this kind of work in the real world of scientists and engineers who actually know how to do things like CALCULATE THE CAPACITY OF A BATTERY.
QuoteWHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN DEMAND ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS? YOU ARE NOT GOD. How DISGUSTING. That you can sit back and repeat your same stupid questions and expect an answer. TRUST ME ON THIS. I will NEVER again directly answer any of your posts. It leaves me feeling sullied.
The questions are not "stupid", Ainslie. Your dodging and refusal to give an answer is STUPID and mendacious and also ignorant and arrogant. They are questions that ANYBODY who knows how to read a scope should be asking and they are questions that you indeed MUST ANSWER about your "opensource" project. And indeed.... we are all waiting for your demonstration of this mode of operation again, since NOBODY can achieve the same thing with a functioning, correctly wired mosfet in place. But... we are going to have to wait even longer now, aren't we...because you are sending your actual apparatus off to the USA to a "well funded laboratory" and you won't be getting it back any time soon.
Quote
picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are. I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum. Here it's likely to be censored. I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.
R.
And here we once again have the threat, not so veiled.
Ainslie, you are a piece of work. There is nothing like you on the internet anywhere. The closest comparison that I can think of is Archer Quinn, with MYLOW being a close second.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2012, 12:22:19 AM
My Dear picowatt
I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts. What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell. It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend. It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote. It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume. Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.
I did NOT say you had read the scope incorrectly. I simply stated that the coupling was set to DC. You KNOW THIS. It should have been set to AC. The coupling can be varied on each and every channel. CORRECTLY this should have displayed a DC VALUE. It IS 6 volts or thereby. In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby. YOU KNOW THIS. it is less than 6 volts AC. it is not less than 6 volts DC. AGAIN. You KNOW THIS.We have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity. EVER. We have NO NEED TO. YOU WISH. That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I cannot change any of the data that is shown on the LeCroy. I'm not clever enough. No-one is.WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN DEMAND ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS? YOU ARE NOT GOD. How DISGUSTING. That you can sit back and repeat your same stupid questions and expect an answer. TRUST ME ON THIS. I will NEVER again directly answer any of your posts. It leaves me feeling sullied.
picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are. I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum. Here it's likely to be censored. I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.
R.
So, exposing identities, as you have already done, is accepted practice at your new forum?
Better let all who post there know this as well. You should probably also let them them know that if they ask a question, based on facts, that you do not agree with, you will go ballistic and make all manner of threats and personal attacks, including legal action. Possibly you can add this to your new forum's rules and guidelines.
If you do not pre-warn your new readers, I can only hope that they may read here as well, to see it first hand.
TK,
I am considering what to use for a load resistor. I mentioned in an earlier post going air cooled with a convective or forced air chimney. Was thinking about using an aluminum encased wirewound for the load attached to an aluminum thermal mass/heatsink mounted in the chimney. I would like to have repeatable results, but not so much thermal mass that it takes a long time for temps to stabilize. Thermal mass would have to be sufficient to integrate the pulsed heating during Q1 on cycles.
How long does it take your oil bath can to stabilize at a given power level and what is the max temp you have driven it to?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 08:10:07 PM
Poynt,
I am considering using an aluminum cased wirewound power resistor mounted to an aluminum thermal mass/heat sink and mounted in a vertical chimney with a CPU fan and controller maintaining constant air flow. Thermister would be buried in the thermal mass and its immediate surroundings/wires insulated to ensure the temp measured represents the bulk of the thermal mass. Inlet air temp and humidity would need to be maintained fairly constant throughout all tests.
As to the equivalent load applied to the battery, I do not like this fixed load and separate resistor idea. Will a flooded lead acid battery (or any chemistry) deliver more amp hours if the applied load is a 10ohm load applied at a 10% duty cycle or if the applied load is a constant 100 ohm? If this is the planned test, than the assumption that the amp hour rating is similar for both loads must be confirmed via rigorous testing.
I would use the same load throughout all tests. For a comparison battery run down test, I would pulse a very well controlled, low RDSon MOSFET at a duty cycle that provides an equivalent dissipation in the load as was indicated by the NERD circuit tests. This way the battery sees the same pulsed load but without the oscillations and MOSFET losses inherent to the NERD circuit.
As for measuring the assumed 10.6V per battery cutoff voltage, the circuit used to measure/monitor this must be filtered fairly heavily. First, all oscillations must be removed from this measurement to ensure they do not affect the cut-off point. Second, as the batteries approach 10.6V, their internal resistance will increase and cause voltage drops during pulsed loads which must also be filtered from the measurement. The use of similarly pulsed loads as described above would reduce this issue a bit.
I agree with TK in that the proposed test does not lean in the NERD's favor, as MOSFET dissipation is not accounted for.
What are your thoughts?
PW
I like your idea of a control system that is pulsed at the same duty cycle as the NERD apparatus.
But I take it then that the pure oscillation mode, that we have been discussing here for so long, is to be abandoned in favor of a continued BIPOLAR gate drive situation as described in Figure 7 and the other high heat trials. This will of course require the use of a function generator or some other arrangement for pulsation and duty cycle control and negative bias current and positive gate voltages on the part of the NERDs. It is unclear how they propose to deal with this issue.
I'm not sure why you would want to do your calorimetry in air. Is it because the original NERD report just had the element hanging there in the breeze, like some unclothed body part, and their data reported "temperature _over_ the resistor" ? This is unreliable, as you know. Your proposed scheme of airflow and so on will be an interesting introduction to the pitfalls of calorimetry. I'd suggest doing it in oil from the beginning, using a fairly heat "leaky" but still stable container for your temperature-Wattage data. It might take a bit longer but it will be easier to get reliable data from a reasonably easy to construct system.
You might like to take a look at the MOAC description here:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf
But seriously... why bother? Surely you've noticed.... in those periods when you can pry yourself up out of your armchair, using your never-yet-received mosfets, as Ainslie would have it.... that your batteries are discharging when your build of the circuit is running. Therefore, you have not replicated the Ainslie circuit at all, so all your other efforts are moot.
;)
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
TK,
I am considering what to use for a load resistor. I mentioned in an earlier post going air cooled with a convective or forced air chimney. Was thinking about using an aluminum encased wirewound for the load attached to an aluminum thermal mass/heatsink mounted in the chimney. I would like to have repeatable results, but not so much thermal mass that it takes a long time for temps to stabilize. Thermal mass would have to be sufficient to integrate the pulsed heating during Q1 on cycles.
How long does it take your oil bath can to stabilize at a given power level and what is the max temp you have driven it to?
PW
Ah, crossed posts, sorry. Let's see.... The air cooling is a method that can give very precise data but is difficult to attain in practice, as the experience with MOAC shows. As I said before I think heating a known mass of oil is the way to go. With a consistent "leak rate" of a moderately insulated container you can determine the heat leak rate by heating it up and letting it cool off. Then your stable temperature values reached will also correlate to precise and repeatable power dissipation values. You can also then get away with using smaller physical sized resistors since you can safely exceed their normal wattage ratings due to the oil immersion. The original Ainslie COP>17 circuit made much of the fact that a tubular ceramic wirewound power resistor was the load of choice; in fact much pain was gone through by her early replicators to try to match this resistor. This is partly why Tar Baby's load consists of the stack of tubular ceramic wirewound resistors. They are arranged so that maximum area is exposed to the oil directly and the oil can convect through the tubes themselves.
I don't know how long it takes for it to reach equilibrium temperatures at various input power levels. If I was intending to use it for the kind of testing we are discussing I'd probably unwrap about half the insulation on it, or even more. But I'd still try to keep it out of drafts and I'd know the ambient temp during testing.
I think you want a compromise between thermal mass and container heat leak rate, for sufficiently slow response yet fast enough to attain new stable values fairly quickly when power input is changed.
Still, I think this is going about it backwards.
Taking the input power to the nerd device, measured by the scope used properly, and setting your DC power (with duty cycle pulsations if necessary) to the same power level, then looking at the time-temperature profile as the load heats to its stable temperature, will show the efficiency at heating a load. Then you know the actual power dissipated at the load, given the input power level. For the NERD claims to be true, the efficiency measured this way would have to be over 100 percent, even taking into account the heat wasted in the NERD mosfets and other circuit components. Their claim is that useful load heating is accomplished without power being drawn from the battery. Since power _can indeed_ be measured to be drawn from the battery during legitimate high heat trials ... clearly... as is evident in their own scope traces.... then any load heating over and above that accounted for by the power that IS being drawn from the battery is all that can be attributed to any "Ainslie effect". If the power being drawn from the battery is sufficient to account for the load heat... that is, if the load heating efficiency is 100 percent or less.... then there is no evidence for an Ainslie effect operating. Only if the heat produced in the load is _greater_ than that which can be accounted for by the battery drain which is measured by proper use of the instrumentation... that is, only if the load heating efficiency is greater than 100 percent... can there be any evidence for Ainslie's claims.
In other words I think a set of graphs like the one below are necessary and will tell the whole story, without the need for protracted battery drain comparisons.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2012, 01:36:09 AM
I like your idea of a control system that is pulsed at the same duty cycle as the NERD apparatus.
But I take it then that the pure oscillation mode, that we have been discussing here for so long, is to be abandoned in favor of a continued BIPOLAR gate drive situation as described in Figure 7 and the other high heat trials. This will of course require the use of a function generator or some other arrangement for pulsation and duty cycle control and negative bias current and positive gate voltages on the part of the NERDs. It is unclear how they propose to deal with this issue.
I'm not sure why you would want to do your calorimetry in air. Is it because the original NERD report just had the element hanging there in the breeze, like some unclothed body part, and their data reported "temperature _over_ the resistor" ? This is unreliable, as you know. Your proposed scheme of airflow and so on will be an interesting introduction to the pitfalls of calorimetry. I'd suggest doing it in oil from the beginning, using a fairly heat "leaky" but still stable container for your temperature-Wattage data. It might take a bit longer but it will be easier to get reliable data from a reasonably easy to construct system.
You might like to take a look at the MOAC description here:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf
But seriously... why bother? Surely you've noticed.... in those periods when you can pry yourself up out of your armchair, using your never-yet-received mosfets, as Ainslie would have it.... that your batteries are discharging when your build of the circuit is running. Therefore, you have not replicated the Ainslie circuit at all, so all your other efforts are moot.
;)
TK,
I agree that if the goal was to quantify the actual amount of heat produced that alternate methods would be more suitable (such as heating a known quantity of fluid to given temp).
However, as the goal, I thought, was to determine if the NERD circuit can generate more heat for a given amount of battery capacity than other methods of applying current to the load, and as these tests could run for some time, I considered the air cooled chimney. Keep in mind that I would use a fairly large thermal mass of aluminum which effectively replaces the oils' thermal mass. Basically I am just increasing or maintaing a faster "leak" rate. I have a location where the apparatus can be placed where the temp and humidity are very constant, changing only slightly and over month long periods. Also, as I want to automate the setup so it will require no intervention on my part, I would like to maintain fairly low temps.
Even if I use a slightly "leakey" cylinder filled with oil, I would likely wrap it in a chimney to ensure consistent convective air flow about its entire circumference.
As for pulsing and the comparison test, I assumed that the NERD circuit as maintained in the papers is the test that is to be performed. I would definitely consider a cleanly pulsed low RDSon MOSFET at an appropriate duty cycle using the same Rload to do rundown comparisons if that circuit is used.
As for a comparison load if only the osc portion of the circuit is tested, it becomes a bit more difficult to envision what would be the best comparison load for that. Possibly the switched load would be suitable as well, but at a higher frequency and increased duty cycle. In other words, attempt to duplicate the switching period and duty cycle of the osc but with cleanly and well dampened switching that does not present a neg mean. Still thinking about that one.
A lot will depend on what the claimed increase in battery capacity is.
Also, if you have noticed, the claims have become a bit fuzzy. COP=infinity, not claiming to exceed the battery's capacity, no observed drop in Vbatt throughout all tests, all in the same post. So, honestly, I do not really know what she means by COP=infinity, or, frankly, what is even claimed.
PW
TK,
Took a bit longer for the graph to appear. This sounds reasonable, but would the argument not be that the method used to measure the circuit's power draw "accurately" is somehow flawed?
What method did you use to determine the circuit's power draw to generate that graph?
PW
Yes, you are right. At present there doesn't appear to be an actual testable hypothesis that is clearly formulated. The actual claims are disappearing, like the 5.9 megaJoule claim.
I can anticipate a claim that would go something like this: Well, TK, your comparison graph like those above don't go long enough. The NERD circuit may heat at lower efficiency in realtime, but it heats much _longer_. In other words, say the control circuit would heat to a stable 50 degrees, maintain that for 100 minutes, then die out and cool off, while the NERD circuit might only heat to 35 degrees using the same power, but could do it for 200 minutes or more.But I think this kind of performance would require some different kind of behavior than is presently claimed, I think, because you would have to postulate some mechanism that _prevented_ the full power drawn from the battery from reaching the load initially but also somehow prolonged that same state of affairs longer than normal.
You asked earlier how hot my oil load has gotten. I have seen it get to nearly 200 degrees C. But under oscillations alone it rarely rises to over 50. Here's a photo of it running fairly warm, using a bipolar triangle pulse drive. Recall that there are 250 mL of mineral oil in there, density 0.83 gm/mL and specific heat 1.67:
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 02:25:35 AM
TK,
Took a bit longer for the graph to appear. This sounds reasonable, but would the argument not be that the method used to measure the circuit's power draw "accurately" is somehow flawed?
What method did you use to determine the circuit's power draw to generate that graph?
PW
I did it by using a digital oscilloscope to generate an instantaneous power trace and average it across multiple waveform cycles. The power input to the circuit was directly related to the "on" time of the duty cycle, as you can imagine. I used a fast risetime pulse generator to pulse the circuit (this is the "Quantum magazine" circuit, presented as "paper 3" on the new forum alongside the present two papers) so the pulses are far more stable than those provided by the original 555 timer (which is another story altogether. I invite you to build the timer circuit as shown in the schematic with the article and see what happens.) I used a regulated power supply, no pulsations, for the DC trials, and measured its power with voltage and current meters, and I used the exact same load for all of those runs. It was a long time ago and I don't have my notes here, but it's all documented in old threads that are still archived somewhere on this forum and on energeticforum as well.
ETA: this circuit also radiated power in RF and heated the single mosfet quite effectively; that's why the load heating efficiency was less than the DC level. This circuit's claims of OU were linked to the inductive spike caused by the collapse of the field in the inductive load and other circuit elements; this spike contained real power and could be siphoned off, as I showed, to charge capacitors to high voltages and even charge batteries... but not the running battery. Once again it was a matter of being able relatively easily to reproduce the basic data, once the major errors had been identified, like the duty cycle issue, but not being able to reproduce the claimed major effect of the perpetual battery charge. I think FuzzyTomCat went a lot further with this than I did and got results that were more in line with Ainslie's claims, but still not supporting her completely. That is another interesting story best told by him.
TK,
I am assuming she means to claim that a given battery lasts longer when producing heat at the load using her circuit than it does when the load is powered "conventionally". But again, at this time, a claim of exceeding a battery's capacity is not being made, but the upcoming tests, we are assured, will demonstrate that the capacity is exceeded.
In light of this, I remain unsure as to what COP=infinity means. I'd ask, but I know I would not get an answer. If the claim were merely that the battery does not discharge, all manner of fairly simple tests can be utilized to prove/disprove this. Proving to exceed the battery's capacity will be a bit more difficult to prove. But again, it will depend on if we are talking about a 20% increase or orders of magnitude. Even in one of her posts, she states it could take a couple days for the battery to discharge (or something similar) and I assume she meant while testing the NERD circuit (although she could have been referring to comparison tests, I do not know).
PW
Yes... but there probably aren't going to be any upcoming tests. Did you not see her notice that she's sending the apparatus.... the one we haven't seen a photo of in over a year and that FTC doesn't think even exists any more...... she's sending that off to a "well funded laboratory" in the USA next week and isn't expected to have it back before mid-July.
(Of course, if I had a free energy device, I could test it a dozen times in the next week before sending it off, but then I don't have a gardener or maid.)
And of course... many's the slip, between the cup and the lip. How many times have you heard of an overunity device that's sent off for testing, and is either never seen again (suppression, you know) or doesn't work on arrival, or even on return home? When you've been watching as long as I have you will have seen this happen many times. That's why it's so rare for anyone to send their devices off !! Heck, you can't even trust UPS or FedEx to deliver stuff without breaking it any more.
Seriously... I really don't think we are going to be seeing any tests at all from the NERDs.
But the one I'd really like to see is one that heats the load to high heat, using a 72 volt battery pack, and sustains it for 24 hours, using the circuit configuration and mechanical build that we have been shown.
Or one that heats to high heat using just the oscillations alone.
Or one that sustains a power level of a kiloWatt for 1.6 hours, yet shows a scope trace like Fig. 7. Oh... right, the 5.9 megaJoule claim has been withdrawn, sorry. How about just boiling some water -- I mean actually boiling it, not some tiny bubbles coming up from the resistor -- in a one-liter container, with a scope trace like Fig. 7.
Mid July is just around the corner...
I did not see that time line.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2012, 03:18:31 AM
Mid July is just around the corner...
I did not see that time line.
Yes, it does seem a bit squeezed doesn't it. Packing up, including presumably the batteries (that we are now informed are factory rejects, hence impossible to match), shipping off to the antipodes, the setup and testing and evaluation by the "well funded laboratory"... sending it back.... all that, in just a few short weeks. Remarkable. I can't even get a flatpack of transistors from Singapore in that time.
See the image below.
Oh.. .and the part omitted from her quotation from Brian Ahern... omitted for some reason, but not commented on or corrected... is this:
QuoteThat would provide 1.99 megajoules. That is nearly double the capacity of 5 batteries with 60 amp-hour rating.
I am sorry to be so stuck on this but it remains astounding.
Look, Brian. The Watt is a rate, of a Joule per second. Its _units_ are, at the top level, JOULES/SECONDS. The Joule is a Watt-second, that is, the amount of energy that a Rate of One Watt, sustained for one second, dissipates. Its units are, at the top level, WATTS x SECONDS.
Now, if you have 5 batteries that are 60 amp-hours, and you simply multiply as you did, 5 x 60 x 60 x 60 = 1080000... is your answer in Joules?
Let's put the units in and see. 5 batteries x 60 amp-hours = 300 amp-hours.
300 amp-hours x 60 minutes/hour = 1800 amp-minutes.
18000 amp-minutes x 60 seconds/minute = 1080000 amp-seconds.
AMP-SECONDS, not WATT-SECONDS.
In other words, your 1080000 number is not a number of JOULES at all. To arrive at the number of JOULES... the ENERGY CONTENT.... you need to multiply again, by the voltage, because Watts = Amps x Volts and you need Watt-seconds, not Amp-seconds, in your answer.
Rosemary,
There is another, and in my opinion, better way to approach the battery draw-down testing.
Forgo the comparison between the experimental apparatus and control, and opt for a set of much lower capacity batteries such as 2 or 4 Ah ratings. Set the apparatus up for optimal performance and run it on the load for 72 hours. Monitor the temperature to be sure the load is heating to some significant degree (such as 50 or more degrees Celsius). The run does not have to be continuous, providing no charging of the batteries is done in between runs.
No 24 hour supervision is required, and the test run will be completed in 9 days or less (if run consecutive 8 hour days). 12 hour runs would allow the test to be completed in 5 consecutive days or less. [Occasional tweaking of the circuit may be required to maintain a constant temperature.]
If the batteries are still at the voltage they were at the start of the test, and the circuit is still producing the same significant heat after 72 hours of operation, then the claim most likely has validity.
Let's assume an operating load power of roughly 20W throughout the test run. Compute how long 4x 4 Ah batteries should last:
- Assume 4 fully charged 4 Ah batteries have a series voltage of 50V (4 x 12.5V).
- Assume a constant 20W delivery of power to the load.
- The constant current used over the test run is then 0.4A.
- Therefore, the batteries would normally be used up and considered "dead" in 10 hours.
I like this idea. What do you think Rosemary?
@.99:
I like the idea too. But don't you think that you, Brian Ahern, and Ainslie should all agree on how to calculate the amount of energy in the battery, to see how long it should run?
The way Ahern does it, which has not been questioned or corrected by Ainslie, is to simply multiply the amp-hour rating by the number of batteries and the number of seconds in an hour. He has illustrated this in at least two different "calculations" over several days, as I have shown in the images above.
Thus, 4 x 4 x 60 x 60 = 57600 "Joules" according to Ahern and, presumably, Ainslie. Dividing this by your 20 Watt output level to arrive at a number of seconds of expected runtime we arrive at 2880 seconds, or about 48 minutes. Ahern would be happy to call Ainslie's device "overunity" if it ran for 48 minutes at an output level of 20 Watts and continued running beyond that, if his statements concerning other battery calculations, as I've illustrated, is really the way he thinks it should be done.
So... I really think that some agreement about battery capacity in Joules needs to be arrived at here, Out In The Open For All To See and AGREE UPON, before continuing on to "test protocols".
I mean, if someone is measuring how far you are going to go on a tank of gas, and you say there are ten gallons in there, and I say that the same quantity of gas is actually only one gallon.... whose numbers are going to look better at the end of the run?
Sure.
- 50V x 4Ah x 60 x 60 = 720,000J
- 720,000J / 20W = 36,000 seconds
- which is 10 hours. Hey, same number! ;D
Poor Rosie got nicely deconstructed and still has no response on the problem scope traces.
PW, I love your proposed test with the fan and the cylinder. That removes the speed of the ambient air issue so touche! Excellent proposed setup.
TK: You screen caps will live on in infamy.
99: Big thumbs up on the proposed battery test.
Rosie Posie: You have to move past your unscientific anecdotal comments about the battery capacity and listen to the suggestions and follow-up on them. Stop retreating behind the facade of the indignant old lady. It's not gong to fly. Stop the trash gutter talk about revealing people's identities. What if your worst nightmare comes true and an insane free energy lurker kills somebody? Wake the fuck up.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on June 20, 2012, 05:36:43 PM
Sure.
- 50V x 4Ah x 60 x 60 = 720,000J
- 720,000J / 20W = 36,000 seconds
- which is 10 hours. Hey, same number! ;D
That works for me.
You've used the voltage times the current-hour rating, times the number of seconds in an hour, and then divided that by the 20 Watt figure to arrive at the number of seconds that it would take for a 20 W drain to deplete the original energy, and then converted that back to hours. All completely kosher methodology and correct arithmetic.
But you'll note that, in both of the battery capacity calculations by Ahern in the "protocol" thread in the new forum, he leaves out the voltage, and so arrives at a much smaller number than the true battery capacity. Applying his incorrect method here predicts only 48 minutes at 20 W.
And, of course, Ainslie hasn't corrected him.
So I think that it is Ainslie who should show some competency in making this kind of calculation, and it is she who should be correcting mistakes like Ahern's IMMEDIATELY that they occur.
In the interests of scientific accuracy and intellectual honesty, you understand.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 20, 2012, 08:02:22 PM
(snip)
TK: You screen caps will live on in infamy.
(snip)
MileHigh
Yes, it would seem to be the best way to preserve forum posts and other interesting stuff. Linking to the post.... links can disappear or break, the post could be edited or removed, etc. Quoting the post: you miss a lot of information and the accusation could be made that the quotation is altered.
Taking the screenshot preserves a lot of data and it's not editable at all by the originator of the post and not easily by me or anyone else.
On my Linux system there is a free and easy screenshot program that I use, it's fast and flexible, just called "gnome-screenshot" as far as I can tell. For Windows systems I recall liking a program called ScreenShotPilot, I think. Mac users can photograph their computer screen with their iPhone.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 20, 2012, 09:52:45 AM
Rosemary,
There is another, and in my opinion, better way to approach the battery draw-down testing.
Forgo the comparison between the experimental apparatus and control, and opt for a set of much lower capacity batteries such as 2 or 4 Ah ratings. Set the apparatus up for optimal performance and run it on the load for 72 hours. Monitor the temperature to be sure the load is heating to some significant degree (such as 50 or more degrees Celsius). The run does not have to be continuous, providing no charging of the batteries is done in between runs.
No 24 hour supervision is required, and the test run will be completed in 9 days or less (if run consecutive 8 hour days). 12 hour runs would allow the test to be completed in 5 consecutive days or less. [Occasional tweaking of the circuit may be required to maintain a constant temperature.]
If the batteries are still at the voltage they were at the start of the test, and the circuit is still producing the same significant heat after 72 hours of operation, then the claim most likely has validity.
Let's assume an operating load power of roughly 20W throughout the test run. Compute how long 4x 4 Ah batteries should last:
- Assume 4 fully charged 4 Ah batteries have a series voltage of 50V (4 x 12.5V).
- Assume a constant 20W delivery of power to the load.
- The constant current used over the test run is then 0.4A.
- Therefore, the batteries would normally be used up and considered "dead" in 10 hours.
I like this idea. What do you think Rosemary?
I very nearly missed this post. Poynty - I'm ONLY discussing this on my forum. You're forcing me back into this disgusting territory to discuss what would otherwise be of interest to a great number of viewers.
if you choose NOT to answer me there - then answer me by email- I'll post your reply.
Regards
Rosie
Rosemary:
QuoteYou're forcing me back into this disgusting territory
You know what would be really disgusting?
A headline that makes the day's news all around the world: "
Woman obsessed with free energy machine triggers unbalanced individual resulting in the execution-style murder of a fellow Internet chat forum user."
People sometimes murder and chop people up and post it on the Internet and then mail the body parts to schools and political parties.
Did you hear?MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2012, 12:22:02 AM
I very nearly missed this post. Poynty - I'm ONLY discussing this on my forum. You're forcing me back into this disgusting territory to discuss what would otherwise be of interest to a great number of viewers.
if you choose NOT to answer me there - then answer me by email- I'll post your reply.
Regards
Rosie
Poynty Here's the link to my reply
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg74.html#msg74
When are you going to correct Ahern's erroneous math, Ainslie? As long as you allow it to stay, uncorrected, then... YOU ARE LYING still.
And this is a real laugh...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2012, 12:22:02 AM
(snip) of interest to a great number of viewers.
(snip)
Rosie
Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 12:42:38 AM
Rosemary:
You know what would be really disgusting?
A headline that makes the day's news all around the world: "Woman obsessed with free energy machine triggers unbalanced individual resulting in the execution-style murder of a fellow Internet chat forum user."
People sometimes murder and chop people up and post it on the Internet and then mail the body parts to schools and political parties. Did you hear?
MileHigh
What the heck is that suppose to imply? A bit off base isnt it?
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 12:42:38 AM
Rosemary:
You know what would be really disgusting?
A headline that makes the day's news all around the world: "Woman obsessed with free energy machine triggers unbalanced individual resulting in the execution-style murder of a fellow Internet chat forum user."
People sometimes murder and chop people up and post it on the Internet and then mail the body parts to schools and political parties. Did you hear?
MileHigh
I rest my case. This thread is DISGUSTING
R
That if you reveal a person's identity on the Internet without their permission then you are consciously exposing them to possible risk.
QuoteI rest my case. This thread is DISGUSTING
I know what disgusting is because I have lived through it. If you reveal someone's identity without their consent then Rosemary you will truly be DISGUSTING.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 21, 2012, 12:54:16 AM
What the heck is that suppose to imply? A bit off base isnt it?
Mags
Why aren't you asking what THIS is supposed to imply:
Quotepicowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are. I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum. Here it's likely to be censored. I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.
R.
And this is only the most recent direct threat from Ainslie.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 21, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Why aren't you asking what THIS is supposed to imply:
And this is only the most recent direct threat from Ainslie.
My dear little TK
I need only refer to the work that has already made very public - all over the internet - by someone who will certainly NOT be allowed membership on my forum. And he posted under his own name and made his own identity FREELY available. It is my opinion that he's a scoundrel and a liar which is evidenced in his calumny and slander. I intend proving this. And I have every RIGHT to defend my good name and our excellent work - from that slander - by anyone at all. Anything less and we're back in the dark ages living under a regime of censorship dominated by bigotry and unsubstantiated allegation. Thank God for our rights to freedom of expression.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2012, 12:58:46 AM
I rest my case. This thread is DISGUSTING
R
Actually, Ainslie, you liar, what is genuinely disgusting is your continued disregard for the truth and your continuing disrespect for those with better educations and more experience than you. You are a bitter old woman, seeking attention desperately, and you continue to perpetrate your lies from forum to forum, and you continue to attempt to cover up the past work that has been done on your claims.
You are currently talking about a laboratory in the USA ... you even use the phrase "our laboratory"... but you have not named this laboratory. Why not? Are you afraid that some other people might contact them with information you don't want them to have? Or is your laboratory really some fringe experimenter like Rick Friedrich or Peter Lindemann or Sterling Allan? Or... is your laboratory simply a figment of your imagination, conjured up to rationalize your continued LACK OF TESTING?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2012, 01:08:29 AM
My dear little TK
I need only refer to the work that has already made very public - all over the internet - by someone who will certainly NOT be allowed membership on my forum. It is my opinion that he's a scoundrel and a liar. I intend proving this. And I have every RIGHT to defend my good name and our excellent work - from that slander.
Rosie Pose
Polly Parrot, if you call me a liar you had better be able to back it up with PROOF. Like I always do when I demonstrate that YOU are a LIAR.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 21, 2012, 01:10:07 AM
You are currently talking about a laboratory in the USA ... you even use the phrase "our laboratory"... but you have not named this laboratory. Why not? Are you afraid that some other people might contact them with information you don't want them to have? Or is your laboratory really some fringe experimenter like Rick Friedrich or Peter Lindemann or Sterling Allan? Or... is your laboratory simply a figment of your imagination, conjured up to rationalize your continued LACK OF TESTING?
Are you referring to this post Little TK?
Hi Poynty Point,
In a way we've done that test. The eternal quibble is that the batteries have in fact discharged and are about to collapse due to complete exhaustion of their capacity. The recommendation is that we need only run it for a while longer and then the collapse will become evident. And thereby are any of these type of results - entirely dismissed. I can't got through all that nonsense again Poynty. I would rather not be twice bitten.
It will certainly result in really long and somewhat boring tests. But we're all of us up for it. I'm throwing a little bit of money at these tests as I'm anxious to get CONCLUSIVE results. And we certainly also need to re-run the COP>17 test with its circuit variant - to counter the manifold denials associated with this test and its replication. This to establish the proof of slander that's associated with this test everywhere on these rather public energy forums. It should then result in some much needed retrospective editing required - even on your own forum, come to think of it. Perhaps you can set an example and do that editing prior to these tests? Poynty Point?
No. I think on the whole that we need to keep to these comparative draw down numbers. That way the results are unequivocal. But I also agree that we need to conclude each test with some evidence that the heat dissipated into a medium such as water or oil - show equivalent temperature rises.
I am hoping to get some indication as to the kind of tests that our lab in the USA are going to do. They're really boffins - to a man. I'd love to see how they resolve this required proof. I think their early intention is to simply establish the measured COP infinity number. That's an anomaly all on its own.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Then EAT YOUR HEART OUT.
Rosie pose
When are you going to correct Ahern's math, you liar Anslie?
Yes, I am referring to the information you are withholding about your "open source project".
Or maybe this one? 8) :)
Dear readers and members
I have some wonderful news. A really well established and LEADING research laboratory in America have undertake to test our apparatus. This means that some highly qualified experts will apply themselves to these anomalous results. It seems that publication of our paper has also resulted in an appropriate response.
I believe their intention is to do some preliminary tests and then to build their own circuit variants in order to explore this effect more thoroughly. Their expertise is across the board - and includes chemists and electrical engineers - and THEORISTS. And all EXPERT - which is precisely what is needed.
I also believe that we'll be given their results on completion of those tests. Subject to their permission I believe we should be able to make this available to you all. When we get that apparatus back I'll start our own 'draw down' tests, which will be made available - 'live' on the internet with smaller youtube clips to explain any questions that may arise from that screening.
So. I think we will soon have the rare and respectable acknowledgement of the anomalous negative wattage - and some indications as to how exploitable this is and what the theoretical implications of this are. At its least it will challenge standard measurement protocols. At best it will point to the need to revise those energy barriers defined in our Thermodynamic Laws. Which in turn will point to a boundless and clean energy source. Much needed - on just so many levels.
It has been a pleasure to deal with this high caliber of talent and I anticipate some really interesting results. Our modest apparatus is about to cross the Atlantic and be thoroughly inspected on every possible level. I am enormously gratified. I've waited some 12 years for this response.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Either way. You're best efforts at all this misinformation - ARE ABOUT TO GO UP IN SMOKE. LOL
Rosie Pose
You are not having a good night, are you Rosemary?
QuoteIt is my opinion that he's a scoundrel and a liar which is evidenced in his calumny and slander. I intend proving this. And I have every RIGHT to defend my good name and our excellent work - from that slander - by anyone at all. Anything less and we're back in the dark ages living under a regime of censorship dominated by bigotry and unsubstantiated allegation.
Picowatt is brilliant and he speaks the truth. You make yourself look like a pathetic comic book character when you talk like that.
Everything that is "going down" with respect to you right now is just mini theater of the absurd. You know full well that PW knows his stuff and he probably has 40+ years of experience and yet you feign your bullshit. Just like you are fully aware how morally wrong it is to reveal someone's identity without their consent yet you try to pretend that it doesn't exist.
You are squirming and nobody is being fooled, including yourself.
MileHigh
What lab?
Did you miss watching my latest refutation of another of your absurd claims about your circuit? Is that what you are trying to cover up with your bloviating? You still haven't even discussed the video where I refuted your Function Generator claims as well.
But this one, showing Tar Baby running on ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS ONLY, really should make you think a bit about what you are claiming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0
By the way, you have lied yet again when you claim that I have not done energy tests of Tar Baby. Here's just one of several tests that I've done and published. Don't you remember me showing this picture? Maybe you can get your sycophants to explain to you what a DECREASING ENERGY INTEGRAL means... the sloping wiggly line going DOWN to the right in the scopeshot below. It's better proof of "COP INFINITY" than anything you've ever shown.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 01:23:59 AM
What lab?
You don't seriously expect her to tell you, do you? That's not the kind of information she reveals. She threatens to post people's names and addresses who are critical of her, but she will not tell you what this "expert, well-funded laboratory" is that is going to test her apparatus.
Strange that they should require the actual unit, don't you think? I wonder what magic they think there is in a handful of mosfets that you can order from DigiKey and have in your mailbox in three days. Or perhaps the magic is in those factory-reject RayLite Silver Calcium batteries, since no other batteries will do what hers do. Is she sending the batteries along to the USA laboratory as well? I think she should.
Maybe they already put together their own parts and saw that it doesn't do what Ainslie claims, so that is why they need to see her actual apparatus.
Regardless, I'd like to send them Tar Baby, so they can test it as well, since I have claimed that Tar Baby and NERD perform the same when tested the same. Tar Baby is ready to go, now, batteries included, and I'll even pay for the shipping. Just tell me where to send it.
I'd also like to send them my Ainslie database, consisting of her own words and her own data.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 12:42:38 AM
Rosemary:
You know what would be really disgusting?
A headline that makes the day's news all around the world: "Woman obsessed with free energy machine triggers unbalanced individual resulting in the execution-style murder of a fellow Internet chat forum user."
People sometimes murder and chop people up and post it on the Internet and then mail the body parts to schools and political parties. Did you hear?
MileHigh
I dont agree with Roses threats of identity disclosure of PW, or anyone. But you should know by now that this is an idle threat.
Like, do you know if she even has that info for sure? Does PW give out his identity casually? Bad idea. I havnt really seen that PW has any enemies here. And I dont think Rose is a limb shipper. ;]
This here, for you guys, is to prove that Rose is not being truthful, and or exaggerating claims. Yet your post is an exaggeration also. So should you get a beat down for doing the same?
You make it sound as if it might be a fairly common thing that there are some people that will "sometimes murder and chop people up and post it on the Internet and then mail the body parts to schools and political parties." Like a 1 in 6 billion chance of that particular occurrence??
Yet that story wasnt related to the victim having his identity maliciously posted on the internet.
I know you are trying to be hard on Rose with your convictions. But that is just plain absurd and not factual.
Mags
Mags,
We are talking about the unknown, and nobody knows what could happen. However, I know that at least a few times I have read statements by pulse motor builders that said that they were prepared to barricade themselves in their houses with guns and fight to the death in case the "MIB" were going to do a raid and seize their stuff.
Who knows if a crazy or crazies are lurking on these forums that attract all sorts of unusual characters. Nobody knows. I remember the guy a few years ago that claimed in all seriousness that the moon was shifting in its orbit. I have read many comments by people with extremely unusual political or social views. Rosemary has already claimed that some of us are "MIB agents." Then suppose that she reveals someone's identity and a nutcase snaps because he or she can't stand all of the "suppression" that is going on? I am being deadly serious.
http://www.dailytech.com/Man+Murdered+Over+Online+Dispute/article13071.htm (http://www.dailytech.com/Man+Murdered+Over+Online+Dispute/article13071.htm)
An online forum dispute leads to the brutal murder of 21-year old Matthew Pike
Last Friday evening, Matthew Pyke was found stabbed to death in his Nottingham, England flat. Pyke ran an online forum dedicated to Advance Wars, which police believe might have resulted in his murder.
Pyke, an avid enthusiast of the Advance Wars series, operated WarsCentral (http://warscentral.com/)in conjunction with his 20-year old girlfriend, Joanna Witton. Advance Wars is a simple strategy game with releases on Nintendo's DS and GameBoy Advanced handhelds. WarsCentral offers general tips and information regarding the game and hosts an online forum where fans can network.
It is believed that Pyke was murdered by David Heiss, a fellow Advance Wars player and forum user of WarsCentral. According to police, Heiss, who lives in Germany, became acquaintances online with Pyke through the WarsCentral forum.
It is suspected that David Heiss had an argument with Pyke on WarsCentral, and in his rage Heiss allegedly traveled from Germany to England and murdered Pyke. The nature and full extent of the argument is unknown.
Wednesday night, German officials arrested David Heiss near Frankfurt. He is now being prepared for extradition (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3087933/German-faces-extradition-over-murder-of-games-enthusiast.html)so that he can be tried for his charges in the United Kingdom.
All forum registrations for WarsCentral have now been frozen, and the forum is now only viewable to registered members. A message on the front page posted by a friend who helps run the site offers a small tribute to Matthew Pyke and offers condolences to his girlfriend , who found Pyke dead.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2012, 12:22:02 AM
I very nearly missed this post. Poynty - I'm ONLY discussing this on my forum. You're forcing me back into this disgusting territory to discuss what would otherwise be of interest to a great number of viewers.
if you choose NOT to answer me there - then answer me by email- I'll post your reply.
Regards
Rosie
Rosemary,
I've registered at your forum, but not yet received confirmation, therefore I can't post there. So I will post here in the mean time.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2012, 08:25:03 AM
Rosemary,
I've registered at your forum, but not yet received confirmation, therefore I can't post there. So I will post here in the mean time.
Poynty - I was told that you may need to check your spam. If there's no email there get back to me. We'll sort something out.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
@All,
I have no idea why she is so hostile towards me. I have never slandered her as she claims and my posts are way more respectful to her than her's are to me. I can only assume that facts and truths relating to the operation of her circuit, function generators, and 'scopes truly annoy her. Possibly she is just annoyed because she has not been able to goad me into resorting to the gutter talk that most of her threads devolve into. I don't know why... and I don't really care. I came here to discuss the electronics involved and understand the neg mean pwr measurement. As for the recent topic of this thread, just think of the possible irony if she were to "out" the wrong person. Enough said. So please, everyone chill and let's move on.
I do believe that her feet should be "held to the fire", as they say, over the Q1 issue. I brought this to her attention month's ago, and I believe .99 mentioned at that time that he had brought this up before that. Her argument was, and apparently still is, that we are reading the 'scope incorrectly. .99 annotated a 'scope shot and emailed it to her so that she could confirm with her experts that we were reading the 'scope correctly. Later, she stated she would ask her 'scope calibration guy about it when he performed an upcoming calibration. Apparently she has not followed thru with any of these scenarios.
Instead, she has now started a new forum and posted her papers with no mention or correction of the Q1 issue. In fact, the COP=17 article has also been posted there, even though there was much discussion in the past regarding the duty cycle being incorrect as it relates to that paper's schematic and discussion. I have not personally verified the duty cycle issue, but there is plenty of forum reading available wherein replicator's found the duty cycle to be inverted. I believe it was TK that first discovered this, but apparently other replicator's also verified this issue.
Instead of demonstrating a modicum of integrity and addressing these issues, she has chosen to shake the etch-a-sketch, hit the reset button, and move on. If it is believed that the 'scope captures are being read incorrectly, this is very easy to confirm. Just as I did by contacting LeCroy and asking them if I was reading the 'scope correctly, she has had plenty of time to do this as well.
The facts are that the 'scope capture in FIG3 of the first paper (not the COP=17 article) demonstrates that during the portion of the FG duty cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approx. +12volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on. During this same portion of the FG cycle, however, the CSR trace does not depict the current flow one would expect to see when Q1 is turned on. Possibly Q1 was damaged during these tests, although it is fairly rare for a MOSFET to fail open circuit. Possibly, in the confusion of paralleling MOSFET's, Q1's gate and source lead were reversed, placing all five MOSFET's in parallel and in the common gate configuration. Possibly Q1 was overheating, and as it was believed at that time to be in parallel with the other four MOSFET's, Q1 was innocently disconnected and the four Q2 MOSFETs only used during these tests. Possibly a clip lead or connection to Q1 became loose and disconnected. We cannot know what happened to Q1 at that time, but we do know that the 'scope captures indicate that Q1 was not connected, at the time of the related captures, as is indicated by the first paper's schematic.
As well, Fig 7 in the first paper also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again, the CSR trace depicts that Q1 is not turning on.
What material effect this has on her claims of overunity cannot be known without further tests comparing results with Q1 in and out of circuit. Just as she believes it was serendipitous that the four Q2 MOSFET's were paralleled incorrectly and inadvertantly connected in the common gate configuration, possibly removing Q1 from the circuit will prove as well to be serendipitous.
In any event, I believe most would agree that this issue should be dealt with and not merely swept under the rug.
PW
That's right, HG....er, sorry, Picowatt.
The errors and questionable data in the draft manuscripts would of course cause them to be rejected out of hand by competent scientific editors--- as they have been several times already, in various forms. The "publication" on Rossi's vanity "Journal" site is a joke. This is the site Rossi started in order to "publish" his own papers after they were actually rejected by.... arXiv !!! Certainly the points that picowatt has pointed out call for a repetition of the entire set of experiments before any REAL publication could be considered-- or before any credence at all should be given to the report.
And this present story about a secret "well funded laboratory of experts" in the USA that she is sending off her apparatus to.... is also a joke. I'm all for it, by the way. I've always called for independent testing of the NERD device. Of course, what we expected was for this testing to occur publicly, with questions asked and answered, and hypotheses under test stated beforehand, and all the rest of what normally happens in the scientific world.
There are several outcomes that can be imagined, some more probable than others.
I just want to know one thing: Is she sending along the white pegboard?
QuoteEither way. You're best efforts at all this misinformation - ARE ABOUT TO GO UP IN SMOKE. LOL
Rosie Pose
There's no misinformation here, Grammar Queen Ainslie, except that which you are promulgating. EVERYTHING I SAY can be independently checked and verified. What you say.... changes from one version to another, and mostly consists of your fantasies and lies.
I am totally and completely in favor of having your device tested INDEPENDENTLY by "boffins" although I would prefer a gang of EE graduate students at someplace like the University of Texas at Austin..... but I don't believe that will happen.
We shall see what goes up in smoke and what does not. My prediction is that there will NOT be independent testing performed, because I simply do not believe that you, Ainslie, would allow it to happen, nor would you report the results honestly and fully if it did happen.
You have claimed, for example, that other laboratories have "validated" your earlier claims but you have NEVER produced the slightest shred of evidence, and the people's names that you drop seem never to have heard of you or contradict your interpretation of what they tested and reported.
You've had plenty of opportunities for independent testing, always refused. Suddenly, now, on the eve of when you are supposed to be doing definitive tests of your own, you are instead shipping off your entire perfectly ordinary apparatus... using ordinary mosfets, ordinary clipleads, and an ordinary RV water heater element.... half way around the world for "independent testing". When it would take this laboratory only a day or two to obtain all the parts, on their own, from commercial suppliers on the same continent.
I eagerly await the next chapter in your comedic farce, Ainslie.
Will the apparatus be lost at sea? Hijacked by the Men In Black, who work for the evil TinselKoala worldwide, suppressing Free Energy Technology wherever it seeks to arise? Will the independent laboratory, in the secret undisclosed location somewhere in America, suddenly vanish completely in a puff of zipons when they finally hit on the right duty cycle? Or will they report negatively, having been suborned by TK's minions into falsifying their public report, while privately confirming her claims, like Eddie Tarnow of CSIR is supposed to have done?
Or will they discover that their batteries never run down as well, and begin doing real scientific work to find out how and why this effect happens (with only Ainslie's own apparatus, apparently)?
Stay tuned.... maybe we'll find out.
The manufacturer of the battery will specify an amp hour rating and a C rating load profile, typically C20. So the battery will provide n amps for 20 hours.
I would like to see an initial test where a load equivalent to the manufacturers C rating is applied and the battery tested at that rate until the voltage drops to a pre determined level, that automatically shuts the system off.
Measure the amp draw of the NERD circuit at load in DC only mode, and measure the amp draw at load in oscillation only mode. This will give two amperage measurements, for example 4 amps DC mode, 200 ma oscillation mode.
Run the same load profile test on the battery with a 4 amp load, and also separately with a 200 ma load. This will produce two more control load profile curves.
Run the NERD circuit in the same load profile test in DC mode only, then run the NERD circuit in oscillation mode only, producing two more load profile curves.
Lastly run the NERD circuit in combination mode of DC and oscillation at chosen duty cycle, producing another load profile curve.
Six curves all superimposed on the same graph should tell the story.
Calorimetric testing using TK's oil method would be my choice, allowing you to calculate heat energy at the load during the test, which will also allow you to convert that figure into electrical energy.
Most importantly the three control load profiles (manufacturer, DC only control, and oscillation only control) will allow you a base line from which to make predictions in advance of testing the NERD circuit with it's combined mode duty cycle.
I expect you will see that NERD under performs compared to the control's due to energy being dissipated in the circuit components that is not being measured or otherwise accounted for.
TK:
We could easily make a "Top 10" listing of the issues Rosie either refuses to answer and/or refuses to even acknowledge. Something like Sterling does! ha ha
It's a fair push back considering all the murky water under the bridge.
Threatening to reveal someone's identity is really awful no mater how you look at it.
Shifting gears, I have always been somewhat bemused with the "go to the universities" argument. Like a graduate student would have any interest in being taken away from his or her research towards completing their degree to look at a pinging coil. Or a professor would just drop everything to chase after magic zipons. It's simply not realistic.
I also believe that when people in this realm have actually managed to get some space in a university, eventually the university boots them out the door. I think that happened to Thane.
Keep your feet on the ground and keep shooting for the stars.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 01:46:19 PM
TK:
We could easily make a "Top 10" listing of the issues Rosie either refuses to answer and/or refuses to even acknowledge. Something like Sterling does! ha ha
Yes! That's a good idea. My favorite ones are of course the ridiculous math errors, the differences between what she reported on the day of the experiment and what's reported in the draft manuscripts, and the questions about the Q1's not turning on when it should be. What would your Top Ten "thorns" in Ainslie's panties be ?
Quote
It's a fair push back considering all the murky water under the bridge.
Threatening to reveal someone's identity is really awful no mater how you look at it.
Agreed. Even if it's going to be the wrong identity, it's still a wrong thing to do. Her insults, misrepresentations of other people's words, and lies about what's happening and what's being shown are also awful and I can't think of any other case quite so bad. Like I said, she even surpasses Archer Quinn in the arrogance department, but at least he had the "courtesy" to show his delusions on video while he was insulting his audience.
Quote
Shifting gears, I have always been somewhat bemused with the "go to the universities" argument. Like a graduate student would have any interest in being taken away from his or her research towards completing their degree to look at a pinging coil. Or a professor would just drop everything to chase after magic zipons. It's simply not realistic.
Yes, I suppose you are right. It's really more appropriate for a tenth-grade science fair project. Although I've seen much more sophisticated and excellent work from tenth-graders. Maybe eighth grade? They are usually pre-calculus but have enough basic arithmetic to be able to do battery energy calculations correctly.
Quote
I also believe that when people in this realm have actually managed to get some space in a university, eventually the university boots them out the door. I think that happened to Thane.
And to several others that I can think of. Thane, Neal Graneau at Oxford, Rossi at U of Bologna, and I don't believe that she still has use of the broom closet at CPUT, nor that Professor Khan would be very happy to see her.
Quote
Keep your feet on the ground and keep shooting for the stars.
MileHigh
Yes..... I sure wish the weather would clear up, though.
@evolvingape:
Your suggestion sounds good to me, and for a device that is alleged to produce these effects, the time element is no real consideration, as automatic monitoring and controls are easy (for electronically competent people) to design and implement.
There's one more thing I'd like to see though, for the "DC" mode: I want to see the NERD device operated in straight DC mode (positive gate signal to the Q1 mosfet) using the 72 volt battery supply and the physical build we have been shown and circuit that we are told is correct, for 24 hours.
Oh... I'd also like to see the device dissipate 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours, while making a scope trace like that given in Paper 1, Figure 7.
Or even boil a cupful of water, since the 5.9 megaJoule claim has apparently been stealthily withdrawn.
Why was the 5.9 megaJoule claim removed from the current revision of the manuscript? Was it in error? A typo? A miscalculation?
Or was it removed because it was a blatant, caught-out lie?
TK:
I suppose that any list could be given a positive spin, in the sense that it would highlight the pitfalls that Rosemary would want to avoid in any future testing. She says on her forum that "this time it will be conclusive" which is an implicit acknowledgement of all of the problems she has had so far.
My contenders:
- Anecdotal comments without hard data for battery testing are unacceptable
- Anecdotal comments without hard data for water heating are unacceptable
- All disagreements about the way the circuit runs must be resolved (i.e.; current passing through the function generator)
- Must have power-in and power-out data summary
- Problems with circuit operation must be resolved (PW and the dead MOSFET issue)
- Willingness to perform additional tests after presentation of data
- DSO or scope shots with aliasing/bandwidth issues unacceptable
I am kind of numb about the whole thing these days and I am foggy. I know you have been sharp as a tack with respect to Ainsley issues so you and others probably have much better things to add.
I am just about out of gas with respect to the whole saga. This whole business with having to pound messages into Rosemary at least 100 times before you get even the inkling of acknowledgement or understanding from her is draining. I don't know if she ever even acknowledged that the main current loop in the circuit is flowing right through the function generator. Those pregnant pause moments where you see how big the reality disconnect is with Rosemary are now a dime a dozen.
MileHigh
LOL. I LOVE this comment.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 21, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
There's one more thing I'd like to see though, for the "DC" mode: I want to see the NERD device operated in straight DC mode (positive gate signal to the Q1 mosfet) using the 72 volt battery supply and the physical build we have been shown and circuit that we are told is correct, for 24 hours.
WHY should the 'DC' mode be run through a MOSFET? Surely there'd be no need? This is rich. Our little TK seriously proposes that we run about 7.2 amps through a transistor for 24 hours? I wonder why exactly? To test the transistor tolerance? Or to test whether energy can be transferred from a battery supply source? What a prize idiot.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 21, 2012, 09:53:08 PM
LOL. I LOVE this comment.
WHY should the 'DC' mode be run through a MOSFET? Surely there'd be no need? This is rich. Our little TK seriously proposes that we run about 7.2 amps through a transistor for 24 hours? I wonder why exactly? To test the transistor tolerance? Or to test whether energy can be transferred from a battery supply source? What a prize idiot.
Rosemary
So now you are at last admitting that it cannot be done, when before you claimed that you could do it easily. NOW you have at last told us why one battery was removed for the second part of the demo and why ALL your high heat trials from that point on have only used 48 volts in your battery pack. You forget that unlike YOU, Ainslie, your scope traces do not lie and I have all of them at my fingertips.
You are the prize idiot, Ainslie, if you do not understand just why I am calling for this test: IT IS CALLING YOUR BLUFF. You know that you cannot make the high heat mode with a 72 volt battery pack because it will blow your lone Q1 mosfet, even if you only use 18 percent ON with a long period. Not only that, but also you KNOW that it would deplete your battery.
You KNOW that the only "magic" in your system must be in the oscillations, but you also KNOW that "the full benefit" -- that is, high heat in the load-- can only be had if you use significant Q1 ON times. Then you are in the embarassing position of explaining how a sufficient NEGATIVE power during the oscillations can cancel the POSITIVE power during the ON times. Since this is a mathematical argument you have no hope of following it, but I assure you, it dooms your story altogether. The analysis has already been done pages ago.
You have nothing to test any more, so why don't you leave this "disgusting" thread and go back to your desert island of a forum, where people can make all kinds of errors and false statements with impunity... as long as they don't question YOU too closely.
Have you answered Ahern's question yet? Have you corrected his calculation of your battery capacity? Have you explained the REMOVAL of the 5.9 megaJoule in 1.6 hour claim from your manuscript? NO? You are a despicable liar.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOME ACTUAL TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when. You are even sending your apparatus off to someone you met on the internet !!
You could even be sending it off to Harvey Gramm, for all you really know.
Hello MileHigh
Sorry to hear that you're numb and foggy and out of gas ... these days. If it's any comfort I don't actually detect any difference in this last post of yours - to your usual standard of posting. Possibly you've always suffered from this? This excess fog with its mind numbing properties. It would explain much. The main current loop is not flowing right through the function generator - btw (by the way). And I'm also inclined to think that any reality disconnect is actually your own. It's my take that this is due to the aneathetising effects of that fog. Probably. LOL (laugh out loud)
But take heart. We'll soon have unequivocal proof of a COP infinity measurement. How nice will that be? Good cause to celebrate. :) We all know how anxious you are to get this confirmed. ;) 8) :o
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
MH, et al,
There's another one you can add to your list. The inability to understand that Q2 is turned on when the FG output applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2, with the subsequent bias current flowing thru the FG.
She believes that the FG is actually applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which, as anyone can see from a quick look at the schematic, is nonsense.
However, in FIG3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approx +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. Surely all will agree that this is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on. However, the CSR trace during that same portion of the cycle does not indicate the current flow that would be anticipated if Q1 was indeed being turned on.
The FIG 7 in the same paper, during the same portion of the cycle, also indicates that sufficient gate drive is being applied to the gate of Q1 to turn Q1 on, yet again, the CSR trace shows no appreciable current flow.
So, again, why is Q1 not turning on?
PW
QuoteThe main current loop is not flowing right through the function generator
Hmmmmmmmzzzzzz.....
Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 10:27:39 PM
Hmmmmmmmzzzzzz.....
That fog finally kicked in? MileHigh? Sweet dreams....
Rosie Pose
@All,
Assuming the new lab will be receiving copies of the "papers" or its schematic/waveforms for their upcoming tests, imagine how difficult it will be for them to duplicate the FIG 3/FIG 7 waveforms with a functional Q1 connected as indicated in the schematic.
One would think that prior to sending off the apparatus to such a prestigious laboratory, amendment of the document or waveforms would be in order.
Golly, I would want to at least FAX that FIG 3 to LeCroy with a little annotation pointing to the positive portion of the FG cycle asking what the indicated voltage is, just to verify that everyone else really is reading the 'scope incorrectly.
Think of the ramifications if there actually is sufficient gate drive being applied to the gate of Q1 to turn it on. What possible explanation could there be for Q1 not turning on? "Oops?"
Oh well...
PW
It's just another chapter in the fantasy story.
The device is made from components that you can round up in a day. My local supplier keeps IRFPG50s in stock at 6.95 each. The heating element, or one with the same specs, can be obtained as a 48-volt RV water heater element. Do you seriously think that a lab, interested in Ainslie's tale, would not FIRST build and test their own version out of locally available components?
Then, finding that they could not duplicate the various claims, like the scopeshots that show no current when there should be, or boiling water with no current as claimed, or batteries that don't run down, THEN they might want to see the original apparatus.
Now... consider how reticent Ainslie has been about real testing, needing "academics" by fives or threes, and so on. Never even showing a recent picture of the apparatus, never producing a single person on the "team" to speak up for her, never producing a single document from the other earlier labs that she claims have tested her kludge. But suddenly... out of the blue.... apparently due to the posting of the ERRONEOUS versions of the manuscripts on Rossi's JNP site..... she now is sending the whole thing off to the USA for testing.
What are the chances that this is a real, truly independent and impartial laboratory? What are the chances that Ainslie is even TELLING THE TRUTH AT ALL about this?
What are the chances that she's been totally duped and is sending her thing off to the Men In Black at Suppression Central themselves?
@PW: Yes, it will indeed be ironic if the Ainslie circuit requires a blown mosfet in order to duplicate the claims in the paper.
It's really too bad that this open source project, released into the public domain by Ainslie, is being carried out in such secrecy and with so much misdirection and mendacity. I, on the other hand, only want this new laboratory to have ALL the FACTS in the matter, such as the true capacity of the batteries used, the fact that the water referred to in Figure 7 was not actually boiling at all, the fact that the version of the paper that they must have contains many errors like that wonderful 5.9 megaJoules claim that has now vanished from the most recent edit (without explanation), the fact that Ainslie has lied about and misrepresented the circuit schematic many times, and the fact that many other people have reproduced her circuit AND the data that she claims indicate "COP INFINITY" without finding any trace of overunity performance or perpetual battery charge.... Just the facts, that Ainslie is trying to keep buried and hidden.
Do you think Ainslie will point that laboratory to this thread and my videos, so that they can decide for themselves about Tar Baby and Altoid? Do you think that Ainslie will give them the complete collection of scope shots all in one place, or the collection of her forum and blog posts that I have selected and assembled in a convenient location?
Fresh prose from the Rose:
QuoteThere's certainly much cause to remain hopeful. What's interesting is that the oscillations are self generating. The system seems to find it's preferred frequency and then there's nothing to stop it. You'll recall that the only known conditions to sustain an electric current flow are under very cold conditions. Here we've got a self sustained oscillation with no measurable energy discharged from the supply - and at room temperature. But the questions that have entirely confounded conventional analysis apply to the required path for this current flow. Because there is no path available for a battery discharge through Q2. And Q1 blocks this path by having the negative signal applied to the gate.
Ha ha ha..... The never ending Rosie dog and pony show.
Oh yes Rosemary, you never bothered to put a multimeter on current measurement in series with the battery to see what was going on in your circuit. TK did it and the batteries are clearly discharging with current flowing out of the batteries and into the load. This was all confirmed with the dim bulb test. Poynt's simulations showed that the batteries were discharging.
You are so full of crap. This nonsense with you is never going to end.
Willful ignorance. Willful stupidity. Willful self-deception. Willful propagandizing of something that is clearly not true.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 22, 2012, 07:51:02 AM
Fresh prose from the Rose:
Ha ha ha..... The never ending Rosie dog and pony show.
Oh yes Rosemary, you never bothered to put a multimeter on current measurement in series with the battery to see what was going on in your circuit. TK did it and the batteries are clearly discharging with current flowing out of the batteries and into the load. This was all confirmed with the dim bulb test. Poynt's simulations showed that the batteries were discharging.
You are so full of crap. This nonsense with you is never going to end.
Willful ignorance. Willful stupidity. Willful self-deception. Willful propagandizing of something that is clearly not true.
MH,
Like I said, shake the etch-a-sketch, hit the reset button, and move on. That whole post of hers sounds like something from a year ago. By "conventional analysis" surely she means "her analysis".
Guess she never figured out why TK needed heatsinks on the 555.
All those measurements by TK, all that sim work by .99. Would've thought some of it would have sunk in.
This is "willful ignorance" by definition.
Wait 'till someone with even the slightest ability in electronics questions this on the new forum... history repeats...
As you say "Hmmmmmmmzzzzzzz"
PW
Hello again MilesHigh
My guess is that you're suffering a severe attack of VERTIGO? Can't say that I blame you. It must be ALARMING to see that things are moving on the ground and out of your control.
Roll on next week and the certain DESTRUCTION of all that spin that poor little TK has tried to manage. And then there's picowatt's comments that are going to be down the toilet - notwithstanding that rather ponderous attempt at 'authority to comment'. Then there's our little TK. ALL THAT WORK. :o UP IN SMOKE. :-[ :'( Tough stuff TK. You need to learn the art of circumspection in your comments. That way our experts might possibly have taken your comments on board. It's not as if I didn't warn you. No self respecting expert will EVER acknowledge reading your thread - let alone stand in any danger of believing the nonsense that you've been spinning. Your first mistake was all that CALUMNY. Your second mistake was those AWFUL videos. Your third mistake was dismissing the significance of a negative wattage. Your fourth mistake was the unfortunate choice of thread name. Your fifth mistake was the immoderate attempts to advise all and sundry that I don't have a clue about the circuit. And that's just the first 5. There's at least 6 more - and that's not even including your flaunted disrespect. You're that 'low' that you don't even realise that decent people won't want to associate with you. What idiots you all are. Surely you realised that IF we were published - then that would be the death knell to your 'spin'? You should have made provision. Silly little man that you are.
Rosie Posie
May I add - I think FINALLY - there will be a general re-evaluation as to which of the two of us are a LIAR. It most certainly is NOT me.
- ever rosy.
Rosemary,
Is there a reason you haven't responded to my offer to donate additional funds to Breast Cancer Research:
http://www.overunity.com/12380/paging-rosemarie-ainslies-nerd-team/ (http://www.overunity.com/12380/paging-rosemarie-ainslies-nerd-team/)
It still stands. To recap:
If you publicly make it known that you have no objection to your NERD team self-identifying, I donate. They can choose not to, but the mere fact you publicly say they can self-identify as far as you're concerned means that I donate.
There are additional donations if they actually identify themselves and their qualifications.
And if they debate, without rancour from the skeptic side, why TK's analysis of the DC portion of your own screenshot is not evidence of significant power delivered to the heating element of your circuit, I donate.
You don't pay a penny, and neither do they. I pay, with the simple proviso that you find someone qualified who stands behind the results you claim.
You know my real name, I'm not shy and can easily and publicly be held to account.
Go and read the link, and then give us an answer.
Sean
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 22, 2012, 11:30:54 AM
Rosemary,
Is there a reason you haven't responded to my offer to donate additional funds to Breast Cancer Research:
http://www.overunity.com/12380/paging-rosemarie-ainslies-nerd-team/ (http://www.overunity.com/12380/paging-rosemarie-ainslies-nerd-team/)
YES there's a reason they won't come forward. The mere fact that this thread is UTTERLY ACTIONABLE - FROM BEGINNING TO END. The fact that the players here - those 'contributors' to these disgusting posts - are UTTERLY immoral and UTTERLY immoderate. You guys just don't get it. This forum is becoming a cesspool of really pretentious science with nothing to redeem it by way of good science. You've got TK's videos that are obscure - badly filmed - badly proved - badly argued. The best he can manage is innuendo. Clarity of argument is UTTERLY void. You've got picowatt rambling through obscure arguments that are bad science precisely because they're badly articulated. You've got MileHigh indulging in propoganda that would have embarrassed even the best efforts of Russia during the cold war. You've got TK indulging in invective that properly belongs to the sewer. No-one would want to associate with this thread. They only reason I do is because there would otherwise be NO voice of reason.
In a way you've done us an enormous service. You've all been that DESPERATE to deny the evidence - that its ended up piquing EVERYONE's curiosity. I did warn you. And IF you want to donate to breast cancer - THEN DO SO. Better yet. Donate some decent instruments to our poor members that they can PROVE what you're all DENYING. You're ONLY anxious to prevent this technology from being progressed. It's patently obvious. Had there been even a modicum of sincerity in your reach - then you'd have everyone's sympathy. As it is you've ONLY got their disgust. And I am NOT talking about those that post here. I'm talking about those that READ here.
You've grossly misread the effects of this horrible thread. NO self-respecting person would EVER associate with the likes of you. It's the silent majority that rules. ALWAYS. Not this sad little group of insurgents against scientific evidence. You've NO IDEA how utterly distasteful you all are. You're that steeped in your disgusting agenda to deny this new energy that you've lost the plot.
Rosie Pose.
Ainslie, you are truly a vile and despicable person. Your recent posts show your true lack of character. I have MANY documented instances of your outright lies, your ignorant statements about your circuit, your faulty mishmash concept of power and energy, and your mathematical ignorance and incompetence. I have all these things organized and documented and referenced, mostly by your own words in blog posts and forum posts, and your own data. I can demonstrate to ANYONE, at any time, that you are incompetent, a liar, ignorant, and insulting, uncooperative and arrogant. I can refute many of the claims you've made by direct experiment and demonstration, and I do it in such a manner that ANYONE ELSE can also refute your claims, should they care to do so.
I am eager to see what "your" laboratory will come up with, although I actually doubt that it even exists. I have complete confidence in the results I've posted and I'm quite sure that ANYONE can repeat what I've done and show the same things. They will NOT, however, be able to repeat what you've claimed. A negative mean power... sure, that's easy, and it means nothing except that you are not using standard measurement protocols, as you so often mendaciously claim. Making scope traces like your Figure 3 ..... that's easy too, and some of us know just how it's done.
Your lies are soon to be ONCE AGAIN uncovered, Ainslie, if "your" laboratory is honest. Just as they have always been by anyone who truly tests your circuit. And you continue to be dishonest on your new forum, every time you do NOT correct Ahern's bad math. Of course you cannot correct his math because you don't understand it yourself AND the correct math makes your claims look bad and you yourself look stupid. But anyone who actually knows how to do it will see those posts, punch their calculators, and just shake their heads and move on. If your laboratory calculates battery capacity in the same manner as Ahern has done.... then I suppose you will get just what you pay for. And you will remain the laughingstock that you are.
And as far as my video demos go.... I see that I did not pitch them at a low enough level for you to understand them. However, I will gladly allow you to show any of them to any "academic" you like, and have them comment on them in public, with some substantive criticism of what I'm showing and how I'm showing it. And then we can compare that to YOUR video, which, while well lit, is total nonsense and bullcrap, even including outright lies about the actual circuit used.
Read the thread Rosemary, I've laid out the terms in a very simple and unambiguous way.
They don't need to identify themselves for me to make another donation in the first instance - that's in your hands.
ETA: I have already donated as you'll see in that thread. And I'll donate more, just for evidence you have someone qualified who believes what you're telling us. What are you going to do?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 22, 2012, 11:51:29 AM
Ainslie, you are truly a vile and despicable person. Your recent posts show your true lack of character. I have MANY documented instances of your outright lies, your ignorant statements about your circuit, your faulty mishmash concept of power and energy, and your mathematical ignorance and incompetence.
You have NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. All you can manage is ALLEGATION and INSINUATION. And you're not even aware of the fact that NO-ONE believes you.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 22, 2012, 11:51:29 AMI have all these things organized and documented and referenced, mostly by your own words in blog posts and forum posts, and your own data. I can demonstrate to ANYONE, at any time, that you are incompetent, a liar, ignorant, and insulting, uncooperative and arrogant. I can refute many of the claims you've made by direct experiment and demonstration, and I do it in such a manner that ANYONE ELSE can also refute your claims, should they care to do so.
This is RUBBISH. You have PROVED NOTHING. NOT ONE SINGLE ENERGY MEASUREMENT ANYWHERE EVER. All you do is show that you can replicate a negative wattage and then you SPIN that it MEANS NOTHING. And then you PRETEND to endorse this by utterly irrelevant reference to numerous posts that I've made that can BARELY be read and that are INTENDED TO IMPLY THAT THEY ENDORSE YOUR SPIN. All of it spin and wind. NOTHING of force and effect. Just another technique that is also a rather absurdly redundant attempt at diminishing our claims.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 22, 2012, 11:51:29 AMI am eager to see what "your" laboratory will come up with, although I actually doubt that it even exists. I have complete confidence in the results I've posted and I'm quite sure that ANYONE can repeat what I've done and show the same things. They will NOT, however, be able to repeat what you've claimed. A negative mean power... sure, that's easy, and it means nothing except that you are not using standard measurement protocols, as you so often mendaciously claim. Making scope traces like your Figure 3 ..... that's easy too, and some of us know just how it's done.
NOT ACTUALLY. We are ENTIRELY satisfied that with the application of standard measurement protocols there is unequivocal evidence of a negative wattage. That NUMBER - the importance of which you've been trying SO HARD to diminish is AN ANOMALY. BY ALL RECKONING. It is - all by itself - MORE THAN ENOUGH to re-evaluate MUCH in the standard model. Left to you it would have been brushed under the carpet.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 22, 2012, 11:51:29 AMYour lies are soon to be ONCE AGAIN uncovered, Ainslie, if "your" laboratory is honest. Just as they have always been by anyone who truly tests your circuit. And you continue to be dishonest on your new forum, every time you do NOT correct Ahern's bad math. Of course you cannot correct his math because you don't understand it yourself AND the correct math makes your claims look bad and you yourself look stupid. But anyone who actually knows how to do it will see those posts, punch their calculators, and just shake their heads and move on. If your laboratory calculates battery capacity in the same manner as Ahern has done.... then I suppose you will get just what you pay for. And you will remain the laughingstock that you are.
What exactly do you mean when you say IF the laboratory is HONEST? Are you that steeped in dishonesty that you assume that registered laboratories are likely to LIE - about RESULTS? And there is no PAYMENT involved in this research. You silly little man. The research is to be funded by the laboratory. Are you now trying to imply that they're being paid to LIE? WHAT an absurd - horrible little man you are.
R.
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 22, 2012, 11:53:36 AM
And I'll donate more, just for evidence you have someone qualified who believes what you're telling us. What are you going to do?
I'll continue to avoid looking at your thread.
R
Ainslie will simply insult, bloviate, misrepresent, and attempt to denigrate your efforts. She won't produce anyone, nor will anyone come out in support of her.
There are no collaborators left, not even anonymous posters can find anything supportable in Ainslie's arguments any more. This current fiction of a laboratory of boffins, eagerly awaiting a handful of magic mosfets and clipleads, and a hunk of white pegboard that will keep batteries charged forever while boiling water for tea.... is laughable.
She simply ignores any and all refutations, as if they do not exist. She STILL hasn't responded to the Function Generator current video, except to post page after page of useless comments and insults trying to cover it up every time I've posted it.
Her statement:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And the video that refutes her silly, ignorant and arrogant claim like a red-headed stepchild:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc
But now... I have come to realize that she cannot even understand this video, as simple as it is.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2012, 12:08:33 PM
I'll continue to avoid looking at your thread.
R
Like you are doing now?
I'd hate to be driving on the same freeway as you, Ainslie, with the way you "avoid" things.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2012, 12:08:33 PM
I'll continue to avoid looking at your thread.
R
So are you confirming that you haven't read the thread and so don't know what the terms are?
Do you have something against efforts to cure breast cancer per-se?
One sentence from you that reveals no personal details results in a donation. Why would you refuse it? What conclusions would reasonable people draw about your motives and behaviour?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2012, 12:05:52 PM
You have NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. All you can manage is ALLEGATION and INSINUATION. And you're not even aware of the fact that NO-ONE believes you.
Contrariwise, I have nearly 4 gigabytes of your bloviation and other data that supports every contention I've made, and I'm willing to show it to anybody. In fact I am in the process of posting it all, publicly, on the internet.
Quote
This is RUBBISH. You have PROVED NOTHING. NOT ONE SINGLE ENERGY MEASUREMENT ANYWHERE EVER.
More lies, Ainslie. I've shown more and better energy measurements on both Tar Baby and Altoid, than you have EVER shown. It's too bad that you can't understand what I'm showing. Many other people do.
QuoteAll you do is show that you can replicate a negative wattage and then you SPIN that it MEANS NOTHING. And then you PRETEND to endorse this by utterly irrelevant reference to numerous posts that I've made that can BARELY be read and that are INTENDED TO IMPLY THAT THEY ENDORSE YOUR SPIN.
Not actually, lying Ainslie. The negative wattage does not mean NOTHING and I've never said that it does. It means that your are not doing your measurements ACCORDING TO STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, which have been pointed out to you many times but you REFUSE to use them, claiming FALSELY that you are using "standard protocols" when you are not doing so at all. And my images of your forum posts are PERFECTLY READABLE by anyone with competency with computers--- something you are known to lack. They certainly are NOT intended to imply that they "endorse my spin" you liar. They are intended to preserve your lies, ignorant claims, bad math, and insults and threats for all to see, and to illustrate the immediate points I make, like showing you to be a liar using your own words.
QuoteAll of it spin and wind. NOTHING of force and effect. Just another technique that is also a rather absurdly redundant attempt at diminishing our claims.
Yak Yak yak.
Quote
NOT ACTUALLY. We are ENTIRELY satisfied that with the application of standard measurement protocols there is unequivocal evidence of a negative wattage. That NUMBER - the importance of which you've been trying SO HARD to diminish is AN ANOMALY. BY ALL RECKONING. It is - all by itself - MORE THAN ENOUGH to re-evaluate MUCH in the standard model.
You are a sad, desperate liar. Many people over the years have told you the same thing: you are not measuring properly, and the errors you are making are well understood and easily modeled. What do you think Altoid is, and why does it work? You are simply lying again every time you claim to use "standard measurement protocols". And you don't even know what the Standard Model is, much less have anything that can compete or inform it. Why do you think that a simulator can model your oscillations? You are truly cognitively challenged.
QuoteLeft to you it would have been brushed under the carpet.
As it should be, but it should be corrected first, something that you refuse to do.
Quote
What exactly do you mean when you say IF the laboratory is HONEST? Are you that steeped in dishonesty that you assume that registered laboratories are likely to LIE - about RESULTS? And there is no PAYMENT involved in this research. You silly little man. The research is to be funded by the laboratory. Are you now trying to imply that they're being paid to LIE? WHAT an absurd - horrible little man you are.
R.
I mean that I doubt your story of a laboratory completely, and I know what will be found on testing your apparatus IF it is done honestly. I care nothing about in which direction funds are travelling; all I know is that you have lied before about what you do and it is extremely suspect that you are not revealing the name and contact details of "your" laboratory. What have you got to hide, Ainslie, except the truth? I will gladly show everything I've got to this laboratory... and let's then let THEM decide. Shall we?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2012, 11:48:46 AM
YES there's a reason they won't come forward. The mere fact that this thread is UTTERLY ACTIONABLE - FROM BEGINNING TO END. The fact that the players here - those 'contributors' to these disgusting posts - are UTTERLY immoral and UTTERLY immoderate. You guys just don't get it. This forum is becoming a cesspool of really pretentious science with nothing to redeem it by way of good science. You've got TK's videos that are obscure - badly filmed - badly proved - badly argued. The best he can manage is innuendo. Clarity of argument is UTTERLY void. You've got picowatt rambling through obscure arguments that are bad science precisely because they're badly articulated. You've got MileHigh indulging in propoganda that would have embarrassed even the best efforts of Russia during the cold war. You've got TK indulging in invective that properly belongs to the sewer. No-one would want to associate with this thread. They only reason I do is because there would otherwise be NO voice of reason.
In a way you've done us an enormous service. You've all been that DESPERATE to deny the evidence - that its ended up piquing EVERYONE's curiosity. I did warn you. And IF you want to donate to breast cancer - THEN DO SO. Better yet. Donate some decent instruments to our poor members that they can PROVE what you're all DENYING. You're ONLY anxious to prevent this technology from being progressed. It's patently obvious. Had there been even a modicum of sincerity in your reach - then you'd have everyone's sympathy. As it is you've ONLY got their disgust. And I am NOT talking about those that post here. I'm talking about those that READ here.
You've grossly misread the effects of this horrible thread. NO self-respecting person would EVER associate with the likes of you. It's the silent majority that rules. ALWAYS. Not this sad little group of insurgents against scientific evidence. You've NO IDEA how utterly distasteful you all are. You're that steeped in your disgusting agenda to deny this new energy that you've lost the plot.
Rosie Pose.
Preserved for posterity, and the Ainslie personality database.
Again, I invite anybody who is reading here to provide SUBSTANTIVE criticism of my videos, refutations of my claims, illustrations of my "bad science".
Nobody is stopping them, Ainslie. Even Wilby can't do anything more than reveal personal information and carp on tiny points of language usage.... he's never refuted, or even attempted to refute, a single point I've made in a single one of my videos.
Go ahead.... tell me SPECIFICALLY any one single instance of a "badly proved" or "badly argued" video that I've made, and how it is so. I'd like to be able to improve my presentation, or answer any questions about what I've shown or why I've shown it.
FOR EXAMPLE... take that last video I posted just above. What about it does NOT prove that your ridiculous statement about Function Generators is wrong? How does what I show not support my point and demolish your position, that you've clearly stated many times including in the quotation I appended? Give me some real criticism, not complaints about your bad eyesight. What have I shown, and how is it irrelevant to what you've claimed about Function Generators?
And "utterly actionable from beginning to end..." while she then proceeds to libel us all on this thread....
My goodness, Ainslie. You really think you can get away with anything, don't you. There will be a reckoning, perhaps not in this world, but you will be called to account for yourself eventually, that much is promised to us.
DENY THE EVIDENCE? You accuse me of trying to deny evidence?
Not ACTUALLY, Ainslie, you liar. What I am trying to do is to BRING ALL THE EVIDENCE TO LIGHT, in its full glory. That is why I've bothered to gather all your published scopeshots together; that is why I have preserved your blog posts 117 and 118; that is why I am insistent on correct math and corrected calculations and conclusions based on them; that is why I am eager to know the hidden details that you have kept to yourself; that is why I have examined many of the claims you've made and found them to be UNTRUE and I've shown how anyone can check them and refute them; that is why I continue to pursue the truth in this matter. It is YOU who are denying evidence, Ainslie.
FIGURE 3, for example. Altoid's capacitor performance. TAR BABY's negative ENERGY INTEGRAL. YOU ARE DENYING MUCH EVIDENCE that "your" laboratory really should be considering.
Guys - just to put you in the picture,
The fact is that TK et al have managed to spin their spin only because they were the 'self appointed' authorities. They are NOT. I have been waiting all this time to find some kind of disinterested authority to comment on our results. That authority is FINALLY at hand. And fortunately they do not have an agenda. They are only interested in scientific evidence. And they're well able to evaluate that evidence.
TK and his minions are now likely to get increasingly frantic to prevent that evaluation. Thankfully they've blotted their copy books irredeemably - by precisely this kind of thread. And they can do no further damage. They realise this and will likely move heaven and earth to try and continue their harm. But it's all of it inappropriate. We've got the technology in capable hands. IF there's anything in it - then we'll hear about it. If there's nothing in it - then I'll let you know. But I certainly WON'T be reporting on this thread. It's disgusting.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
@All,
"And you're not even aware of the fact that NO-ONE believes you." That's rich. Kinda' like the pot calling the kettle black.
FACT: Q2 is turned on when a negative voltage is applied to its source by the FG. The FG cannot apply a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 as wired per the schematic and as RA claims.
FACT: When Q2 is turned on via the negative voltage applied to its source, the subsequent bias current flows thru the FG.
FACT: During oscillation, AC current current flows thru the FG and thru Coss and Ciss.
FACT: In the first paper's FIG3 and FIG7, Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic as is apparent from the indicated gate drive voltage and absence of current flow thru the CSR
FACT: Inductive and capacitive reactance is REAL. A wire is not always just a wire...
The only "self-appointed" authority around here is RA who denies all these FACTS.
PW
Howdy everyone,
All one has to do is do some research on the credibility of Rosemary and her
"PROOF" of claims on the magical mosfet circuits, here is where to look for "Rosemary" whom uses multiple screen names to avoid internet "SEARCHES".
witsend ( aka Rosemary Ainslie)
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/ ( banned membership )
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/ ( banned membership )
aetherevarising ( aka Rosemary Ainslie )
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php ( quit forum membership )
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php ( banned membership )
dooziedont ( aka Rosemary Ainslie )
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont ( fraudulent video )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html (link)
Quote
I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.
I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html (link)
Quote
And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed - these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.
Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others. They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Ainslie's QUOTE -They are all either public companies or they are
individuals associated with public companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As everyone can see on the
"PROOF" of the accreditors on the
COP>17 magical mosfet device .... there is
NONE !!! Just like the
COP>INFINITY magical mosfet device. :o
As everyone can also see is the
"LOOSE" connection with a COMPANY and a
"INDIVIDUAL" that worked or possibly had worked for a company is excepted by Rosemary as
"PROOF" of a accreditor . :o
You all reading this will never see anything that can or will be excepted as proof of said claim of operation of any magical mosfet circuit created by Rosemary. All the original tested devices don't exist anymore as they were destroyed to protect the "THESIS" and any claim of shipment or testing of the new COP>INFINITY device hasn't and will never happen. The magical Rosemary mosfet devices have all floated away in the foul South African breezes of dishonesty and disceptation. ???
FuzzyTomCat
::)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 22, 2012, 04:55:39 PM
...breezes of dishonesty and disceptation.
FuzzyTomCat
:o 8) :-[ :'(
I collect malapropisms. This one's choice. Thanks Fuzzy.
Rosie Pose
How about starting a collection of FACTS instead?
FACT: Q2 is turned on when a negative voltage is applied to its source by the FG.
FACT: When Q2 is turned on via the negative voltage applied to its source, the subsequent bias current flows thru the FG.
FACT: During the oscillation phase, AC current current flows thru both the FG and thru Coss/Ciss.
FACT: In the first paper's FIG3 and FIG7, Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic as is apparent from the indicated gate drive voltage and absence of current flow thru the CSR
FACT: Inductive and capacitive reactance is REAL. A wire is not always just a wire...
A questionative kitty
Of a rather fuzzy kind
Had the word Discepitation
Plugged into his mind.
The resulting rambillations
He discursabilly shared
Were cognitativexually
and disturbingly impaired.
rosie pose
:-*
Quote from: Rosemary
A questionative kitty
Of a rather fuzzy kind
Had the word Discepitation
Plugged into his mind.
The resulting rambillations
He discursabilly shared
Were cognitativexually
and disturbingly impaired.
rosie pose
:-*
Brilliant!! Ingenious!!
You're doing quite well Rosie in holding your own against
the onslaught.
Very ladylike too! (As always.)
SeaMonkey:
QuoteYou're doing quite well Rosie in holding your own against the onslaught.
The warm waters of cognitive dissonance are so sweet. Poor Rosie has been reduced to a dry husk and she is in a one-woman drama of the theater of the absurd. Like PW said, it's just like shaking an Ettch-a-Sketch. Just do some shaking and the wave hits you, and the barriers are being breached and the sweet warm water flows again.
Just like deja vu all over again.
MileHigh
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 23, 2012, 12:31:59 AM
You're doing quite well Rosie in holding your own against
the onslaught.
;D Thanks SeaMonkey. I'm doing by best. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: MileHigh
Poor Rosie has been reduced to a dry husk and she is in a one-woman drama of the theater of the absurd. Like PW said, it's just like shaking an Ettch-a-Sketch.
Aye, in the minds of some few that may indeed be the case.
But she ain't laid down and hollered "Uncle!" yet.
Her responses are witty; her grammar is correct;
her spellings are error free; her tone is civil and
well bred; and her sense of humor is intact.
As always, time will tell... The best "man" will win
again. Isn't it odd that the Woman is more of a "man"
than those who pursue her?
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 23, 2012, 03:09:31 AM
Aye, in the minds of some few that may indeed be the case.
But she ain't laid down and hollered "Uncle!" yet.
Her responses are witty; her grammar is correct;
her spellings are error free; her tone is civil and
well bred; and her sense of humor is intact.
As always, time will tell... The best "man" will win
again. Isn't it odd that the Woman is more of a "man"
than those who pursue her?
You are funny.
She's made more grammar mistakes than anyone in this thread, she's insulting and incredibly arrogant, her humor is that of a snotty eleven year old spoiled brat, and she lies with almost every post she makes. If you think all that gives her some " honor " or cachet.... well, just remember this:
THE WATER WASN'T ACTUALLY BOILING.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
You are funny.
She's made more grammar mistakes than anyone in this thread, she's insulting and incredibly arrogant, her humor is that of a snotty eleven year old spoiled brat, and she lies with almost every post she makes. If you think all that gives her some " honor " or cachet.... well, just remember this:
THE WATER WASN'T ACTUALLY BOILING.
My dear little TK
If I didn't know better I'd have thought you were in love. All that PASSION
Rosie Pose
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 23, 2012, 12:31:59 AM
Brilliant!! Ingenious!!
You're doing quite well Rosie in holding your own against
the onslaught.
Very ladylike too! (As always.)
On the contrary, Sea Monkey, newbie, Ainslie has not been able to answer any of the important questions concerning the circuit and the specific points mentioned by picowatt. In addition, as I continue to point out, her various different accounts of the same experimental trial are just that: DIFFERENT. For example the "paper" claims that the water was "taken to boil"... but as you yourself can clearly see in the descriptions given in her blog posts 117 and 118 are at variance with that description in the manuscript. Claim after claim of hers has been refuted soundly and yet she simply brushes the refutations under the rug and.... continues on without addressing the issue at all.
Do you have any technical knowledge at all, Sea Monkey? Do you understand what Ainslie means when she says this:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
And do you understand how this video refutes her claim, and has profound implications as to her lack of understanding the operation of her circuit? Do you understand that the bias source MUST supply current in order for the magic oscillations to happen? Do you understand that Ainslie's claims in this regard are false?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc
I'd be happy to hear some technical information, some real criticism with checkable references, or some demonstrations of your own, Sea Monkey. But your pointless cheerleading from the "peanut gallery" is just adding noise, and you aren't even correct in your cheers.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 04:54:02 AM
My dear little TK
If I didn't know better I'd have thought you were in love. All that PASSION
Rosie Pose
I have a passion for the truth, Ainslie, something to which you are a stranger.
Was the water boiling? NO, Ainslie, it was not, therefore you lie in your paper claims.
Are AHERN's battery capacity calculations correct? NO, Ainslie, they are not, and you are lying EVERY MOMENT that you allow them to stay, uncorrected.
"My dear little TK" --- You are a disgusting and ignorant hypocrite, you scrawny wench parrot.
Rosie Ainslie took a MOSFET
Beat it like a ginger child
Watch it howl; record the squealing
Spikey waveforms running wild
Her conclusion, “It’s a Zipon!â€
“Energy from empty space!â€
But poor Rosie is an idiot
Misconstruing every trace
Rosie’s calculations offer
“Power IS energy (per the Wiki)â€
No citation will convince her
But Tar Baby’s awful sticky
Here comes TK, with his chopper
Sliced the data into strips
Lo! the pulsing DC power
Fries her theory, fries her chips
NERDs are spinning in confusion
Tricked by Rosie’s wasted years
Sucked into her grand delusion
Vacuum’s howl between her ears
Hey, Ainslie.... do any of these names mean anything to you?
Dr Garrett
J. Marriott
Eddie Tarnow
Viv Crone
John Wilson
Colin Bower
Eddie Petrie
John Tarnowski
A somebody named Tarnow at CSIR in South Africa .... and another named Tarnowski at ABB in South Carolina.... what are the chances of that? Small world, I guess.
And of course Dr. Garrett....
Quotewho headed up the CSIR wrote me a patronising letter and explained that I was unschooled and naive which is why I persisted with these fantasies. He considered the matter "closed". He then went to Australia to head up their CSIR there. Good riddance - but his attitude was quintessentially what I usually got.
So it appears that all this prior "endorsement" and "vetting" of your box.... is also not quite as you have reported it lately.
This really cracks me up:
QuoteAfter testing, they shipped the "box" to someone in America - on my application - but, for the life of me - I cannot remember to who (sic) - or where.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 05:07:51 AM
I have a passion for the truth, Ainslie, something to which you are a stranger.
Was the water boiling? NO, Ainslie, it was not, therefore you lie in your paper claims.
Are AHERN's battery capacity calculations correct? NO, Ainslie, they are not, and you are lying EVERY MOMENT that you allow them to stay, uncorrected.
Let me say this again, little TK
You are obsessively, disproportionately and inappropriately interested in EVERYTHING to do with our technology and with me. It is WAY beyond reason. I am an old woman who has nursed an insight into the transfer of energy that I've been at some pains to recommend be more thoroughly researched by those who understand these things. A harmless interest - with MUCH potential. You've assumed the right to comment beyond your expertise and with the sole purpose of deflecting the interest that it deserves. You've been effective in silencing me on this - on these forums. But right now I'm no longer 'in reach'. It's hit the wider public and you will no longer be able to monopolise commentary. Quite apart from which - your contributions, thus far, have been SO inappropriate - that you've effectively put yourself outside any kind of respectable 'REFERENCE'. Which makes any past and future efforts of yours both redundant and irrelevant.
Those sad efforts of yours to imply lunacy - or gross stupidity? All that? It no longer holds water. People aren't interested in my character. Or anything about me. Only you are. Don't you get it yet? They're only interested in the potential in that technology. And you have, UNFORTUNATELY for you, FORTUNATELY for me, been highly instrumental in drawing their attention to our work - albeit unintended. The experts are easily able to see through your SPIN - and your POOR ARGUMENT - and your DREADFUL experimental aptitudes. And they want to look at the TECHNOLOGY. ONLY. My involvement in this is ENTIRELY immaterial. If I've lied about any presentations at all - they'll pick it up. Rest easy on this. They're considerably more intelligent than you or I. They're certainly better qualified. And MOST essentially - they're impartial. Which is entirely lacking in your BEST efforts.
You've done no-one any damage at all - other than yourselves. I've warned you about this. Repeatedly. For God's sake. How do you justify these obsessive - RIDICULOUS - hysterical posts of yours? There's a small readership of these forums that comprise those who are 'hunting' for new technologies. And it was INEVITABLE that once we were published they'd come forward with their proposals to test this. You seem to have forgotten this. Or you were that reckless you assumed we'd never get published.
It's out there now. And it has nothing further to do with me. We've open sourced EVERYTHING. And we're only anxious that this technology get progressed. Correctly I don't even need to be told how anyone progresses this. But I hope that the likes of Poynty and Groundloop will engage with this. Eventually. And nor can be we accused of inventing anything. We're simply using well known CEMF to improve energy efficiency. And that this is required is certainly explained in our model - but has NOTHING to do with a discovery. That belongs to our science greats. My mission, where I deserve a prize - is that I didn't fold - when I brought this evidence to the table. Notwithstanding your own and others rather neurotic and entirely excessive best efforts.
LOL. I'm enjoying a rare sense of achievement. It's good to know that reason eventually prevails. And I'm now just waiting to see who is going to progress this that they can get the public attention it deserves. It's round about now that I'll be able to close the chapter on my contributions to this. And then I can concentrate on those things that I enjoy - such as writing and painting and even theoretical physics. But without all that ATTENTION that you keep throwing my way.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 05:36:37 AM
Let me say this again, little TK
You mean, let you bloviate and try ONCE AGAIN to cover up the issues: You are lying about boiling water, you are lying with your battery capacity calculations, you are refusing to deal with the issues of your Figure 3 and Figure 7, you are refusing to deal with the issue of the Function Generator demonstration which refutes your stupid claims, and et cetera.
Quote
You are obsessively, disproportionately and inappropriately interested in EVERYTHING to do with our technology and with me.
You lie again. I don't care one whit about you or your silly kludge which is not technology but a comedy of error. I do care that you are continuing to lie your way across the internet, and I care that you continue to malign and slander me without the slightest ACTUAL refutation or outside reference to support your silly claims.
QuoteIt is WAY beyond reason. I am an old woman who has nursed an insight into the transfer of energy that I've been at some pains to recommend be more thoroughly researched by those who understand these things.
You have no insight, only delusions.
QuoteA harmless interest - with MUCH potential.
No, Ainslie, you are doing incredible harm.
QuoteYou've assumed the right to comment beyond your expertise and with the sole purpose of deflecting the interest that it deserves.
I am not beyond my expertise at all, you ignorant bloviating liar. There is NOT ONE THING in my work that you can refute or challenge with facts or demonstrations of your own. IN FACT, it is you who are clearly over your old grey head because you don't even understand the basics of electronics and cannot even draw a circuit diagram, much less analyze one.
QuoteYou've been effective in silencing me on this - on these forums. But right now I'm no longer 'in reach'. It's hit the wider public and you will no longer be able to monopolise commentary. Quite apart from which - your contributions, thus far, have been SO inappropriate - that you've effectively put yourself outside any kind of respectable 'REFERENCE'. Which makes any past and future efforts of yours both redundant and irrelevant.
You wish that were true. On the contrary, Ainslie, I have a lot of FACTS that are available to anyone who is honestly interested in knowing your full story.... and it's a "doozy" for sure.
Quote
Those sad efforts of yours to imply lunacy - or gross stupidity? All that? It no longer holds water.
You are laughable. I've refuted you over and over, soundly, and all my work stands solidly. You cannot refute a single bit of it with facts, checkable references or demonstrations of your own. I've shown over and over that you are ignorant of your subject and you only continue to confirm the truth of that. And your paranoid delusions and mistaken beliefs about people, their identities and employment illustrate your lunacy with stunning clarity.
QuotePeople aren't interested in my character. Or anything about me. Only you are. Don't you get it yet? They're only interested in the potential in that technology.
Many people realize by now that you are a liar and that your reports cannot be trusted. If I have had some role in causing this awareness, I am gratified. Your disgusting character is evident in every "Best regards" and "Little TK" that you write, you hypocritical scrawny parrot.
QuoteAnd you have, UNFORTUNATELY for you, FORTUNATELY for me, been highly instrumental in drawing their attention to our work - albeit unintended.
I laugh at you. First you denigrate my work then you praise it. I've done your homework for you, gone farther than you ever have done, illustrated the kinds of tests that are ACTUALLY required to examine your claims, and I've produced better evidence than you ever have done of your own claims.... and between .99 and me, we've shown that your BEST EVIDENCE is a result of your bad measurements and lousy experimental practice. I can't even call it "technique".
QuoteThe experts are easily able to see through your SPIN - and your POOR ARGUMENT - and your DREADFUL experimental aptitudes.
You are indeed an idiot. You cannot refute a single experiment of mine nor can you provide a single substantive criticism. You know nothing of the Scientific Method and your draft manuscripts wouldn't pass muster at an eighth grade science fair. I have had my experimental work published in MAJOR peer reviewed journals.... you have been rejected out of hand every time you've submitted any of your lousy, error ridden and uncouth "work". You cannot point to a single instance of "dreadful experimental aptitudes" in my work, or show anything of your own that's better or even close to what I have done in this thread. In addition... there are those University degrees which I have EARNED, and which say clearly right on them that I am a scientist, and I've had my experiments published in REAL journals. So I simply laugh at your "DREADFUL" comments, because I know that you don't have a clue about real science or the process of real peer reviewed publication.
QuoteAnd they want to look at the TECHNOLOGY. ONLY. My involvement in this is ENTIRELY immaterial.
THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGY, you silly old woman. You've got a handful of mosfets on a white pegboard, and some scope traces that you are manifestly and demonstrably misinterpreting. If you weren't involved, you know that your whole story would disappear, as it should do.
QuoteIf I've lied about any presentations at all - they'll pick it up. Rest easy on this. They're considerably more intelligent than you or I. They're certainly better qualified. And MOST essentially - they're impartial. Which is entirely lacking in your BEST efforts.
You have indeed lied, I have proven it many times and can do so again and again. The boiling water, for one thing. The 5.9 megajoule claim which has vanished for some reason... but I have it still. The incredibly ignorant claims based on your stupid math errors which you have not retracted: if your laboratory ignores all of these lies of yours ... well, we'll see, or will we? And you are right, I'm not impartial: I've done the work required to see that you are full of lies and bogus claims and that your reports are inaccurate, and I'm reporting what I have found, and I'm making it so that ANYONE can repeat what I've found without your obscuring and nonsensical "thesis" and your misrepresentations of facts. ANYONE can repeat what I've done and see for themselves about your secret "open source" little "technology".
Quote
You've done no-one any damage at all - other than yourselves. I've warned you about this. Repeatedly. For God's sake. How do you justify these obsessive - RIDICULOUS - hysterical posts of yours?
Ainslie, your posts are ridiculous and hysterical. Also long, bloviating, and with the OBVIOUS PURPOSE of covering up issues... .like your NON BOILING WATER and your FUNCTION GENERATOR FAUX PAS...... which you still ignore and don't understand. Damage? I have blown your little boat out of the water, Ainslie.
QuoteThere's a small readership of these forums that comprise those who are 'hunting' for new technologies. And it was INEVITABLE that once we were published they'd come forward with their proposals to test this. You seem to have forgotten this. Or you were that reckless you assumed we'd never get published.
You have not "gotten published". Rossi's JNP is not a Journal! It's a vanity blog that he started to post his own non-publishable work! You are a joke, your "papers" are jokes, and Rossi's JNP is a laughable joke. And just as always, anyone who actually DOES test your kludge will discover what EVERYBODY that has done so already has discovered: that you are a liar and ignorant about your subject matter. What, do you think that SUDDENLY now, after all these years, the Universe is going to allow some secret laboratory to discover your zipons, when NOBODY ELSE has been able to in all these years? You are pathetic.
Quote
It's out there now. And it has nothing further to do with me. We've open sourced EVERYTHING.
You liar. OPEN SOURCE means no secrets, no misrepresentations, cooperation with your questioners, and a lot of other stuff that you aren't doing. WHAT is the name and location of this mystery laboratory? You won't say, and that makes your OPEN SOURCE claim another LIE, one of many that you constantly are making.
QuoteAnd we're only anxious that this technology get progressed. Correctly I don't even need to be told how anyone progresses this. But I hope that the likes of Poynty and Groundloop will engage with this. Eventually. And nor can be we accused of inventing anything. We're simply using well known CEMF to improve energy efficiency. And that this is required is certainly explained in our model - but has NOTHING to do with a discovery. That belongs to our science greats. My mission, where I deserve a prize - is that I didn't fold - when I brought this evidence to the table. Notwithstanding your own and others rather neurotic and entirely excessive best efforts.
Yak yak yak. You've got no tech, no model, and you are full of yourself. You deserve a prize all right-- as the most damaging hoaxer ever to sully these forums.
Quote
LOL. I'm enjoying a rare sense of achievement. It's good to know that reason eventually prevails. And I'm now just waiting to see who is going to progress this that they can get the public attention it deserves. It's round about now that I'll be able to close the chapter on my contributions to this. And then I can concentrate on those things that I enjoy - such as writing and painting and even theoretical physics. But without all that ATTENTION that you keep throwing my way.
Rosie Pose
You've achieved nothing but more delays. Nobody is stopping you from concentrating on the things you enjoy... but we know what those really are: trolling, insulting, and avoiding issues. You want to avoid attention.... you've had plenty of opportunity to WITHDRAW your false claims and STOP LYING. Then you'll fade back into the veldt where you belong, back in your guesthouse with your walled garden.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 23, 2012, 03:09:31 AM
Aye, in the minds of some few that may indeed be the case.
But she ain't laid down and hollered "Uncle!" yet.
Her responses are witty; her grammar is correct;
her spellings are error free; her tone is civil and
well bred; and her sense of humor is intact.
As always, time will tell... The best "man" will win
again. Isn't it odd that the Woman is more of a "man"
than those who pursue her?
QuoteIt's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.
QuotePresumbaly
QuoteLet me name it's most authoritative accreditor.
QuoteI'm doing by best
JUST ON ONE PAGE ALONE !!
Sea Monkey, are you for real?
Mr Sean - a lurking nasty
Lived in the margins of a thread
Had no brains to use to think with
Nothing moved inside his head.
When he saw that Rosie Ainslie
Could make most things electrify
Said 'If she can do so much with nothing
What the hell, then so can I'.
Whereupon he squealed in anguish
And the space between his ears did smoke
Said 'Oh dear me and goodness gracious,
I'm sorry now I ever spoke.
As I see that thinking isn't easy
God knows I've never tried before
I've done it now. I was so tempted
But it makes my head feel very sore'.
Whereupon he lapsed to mumbling
And that lively moment in his head
Drifted through that spacious vacuum
Then settled down and went to bed.
And those passers by who sadly heard him
Shook their heads and looked away
For they knew that thoughts that stupid
Should really not see light of day.
Rosie Pose
:-*
I've preserved this vile, despicable insulting screed for posterity, to illustrate YET AGAIN what an insipid, twisted sick mind you have, Ainslie, to insult your betters in this filthy manner. Your ignorance and idiocy is unmatched. You cannot compete with the intelligence, erudition, experience and worldliness of the people who criticise you WITH FACTS AND FIGURES so you write your pitiful doggerel insults, like a ten-year-old child scribbling on a rival's school notebook. You are pathetic.
You can't even do the required arithmetic to support your contentions, and yet you have the arrogance to insult baselessly your critics who CAN. You are a piece of work, nothing like you anywhere, impervious to facts and truth. You've been proven wrong DOZENS of times, by everyone who has ever bothered to check into your claims. Go away now, pack up your toys and send them off to oblivion, nasty vile person you.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 10:42:19 AM
Mr Sean - a lurking nasty
Lived in the margins of a thread
Had no brains to use to think with
Nothing moved inside his head.
When he saw that Rosie Ainslie
Could make most things electrify
Said 'If she can do so much with nothing
What the hell, then so can I'.
Whereupon he squealed in anguish
And the space between his ears did smoke
Said 'Oh dear me and goodness gracious,
I'm sorry now I ever spoke.
As I see that thinking isn't easy
God knows I've never tried before
I've done it now. I was so tempted
But it makes my head feel very sore'.
Whereupon he lapsed to mumbling
And that lively moment in his head
Drifted through that spacious vacuum
Then settled down and went to bed.
And those passers by who sadly heard him
Shook their heads and looked away
For they knew that thoughts that stupid
Should really not see light of day.
Rosie Pose
:-*
And I note YET AGAIN that Ainslie is refusing to deal with the Function Generator passing current issue.
EVERY TIME I have posted this video she starts spewing page after page of bloviation and insults, but she NEVER has dealt with the fact that ONCE AGAIN I trounce one of her insane inane arrogant claims with a simple demonstration that anyone can repeat for themselves.
YOU HAVE BEEN REFUTED ON A FUNDAMENTAL POINT OF OPERATION OF YOUR CIRCUIT AND INSTRUMENTS, yet again, Ainslie.
Ainslie claimed:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'. (sic)
And I replied with this video, completely disproving her idiotic and arrogant statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
YOU ARE WRONG, AINSLIE.
@RA
If your science was 1/100th as competent as your doggerel, you'd have saved everyone a lot of wasted time and expense years ago.
You are at the point where even you don't believe what you're claiming, but yanking chains has become your sport. Who cares how many well intentioned erstwhile allies you piss off along the way? Certainly not you.
We need a break!
Some insects called the human race...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk9EBOOAYiU
We are just drones inside a giant torus within a torus within a torus.
Mice are running the whole show.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 23, 2012, 02:20:07 PM
We need a break!
Some insects called the human race...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk9EBOOAYiU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk9EBOOAYiU)
We are just drones inside a giant torus within a torus within a torus.
Mice are running the whole show.
Clever folks those mice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPWnitDyIOw
Ainslie thinks that posting her comedy of errors on Rossi's JNP vanity blog consists of "publication".
Well, her "publication" still contains -- as of right now -- the claim that 5.9 megaJoules were dissipated by her circuit during the 1.6 hour test described along with Figure 7.
So what is it then, AINSLIE? Are you still claiming that you did this 1 kiloWatt power level for 1.6 hours, or have you withdrawn that claim?
WHICH VERSION OF YOUR REPORT ARE WE TO TRUST, Ainslie, the one that you consider to be the "publication" or the one that you've posted and corrected on your new forum?
You've removed a critical claim from the latest edit, but you've not posted that edit to Rossi's blog nor have you published an erratum notice on Rossi's JNP, have you, Little Miss Mosfet, with an explanation of why that claim has been removed. And so the 5.9 megaJoule claim, along with the dangling "battery capacity" sentence remains.
The latest image from the version that is right now up on Rossi's blog, which Ainslie considers the "publication":
The 5.9 megaJoule claim sticks out like a sore thumb.
And isn't it interesting... no matter how many generations of compression, uploading, downloading, whatever.... you can still easily see those baseline indicators on Figure 7 for the math trace and the gate drive trace.
They are always there no matter how much I compress and expand, upload and download .... except for that one incident of strange "compression" where they ... just those two... disappeared from Ainslie's manuscript. And they would have remained missing... deliberately edited out, I still believe ... if someone with a critical eye had not noticed them.
Rosemary:
Just that one single page contains enough errors and irregular and nonsensical usage of technical terms and concepts to discredit you and your proposition completely. In other words, if that was the first page of your "paper" and I was an academic reading it, I would put it down after reading that page and dismiss your entire "paper" as junk.
Yes, it really is that bad. Just like the current flowing through the function generator issue kills your credibility completely. Just the fact that you are attempting to analyze a circuit where the current is actually flowing straight through the function generator kills your credibility completely.
You are promoting junk Rosemary. But that won't stop you! If you get back negative results from the alleged test lab then you will be dismissive of them and disassociate yourself from them. Just like Steorn!
It's crazier than a barrel full of monkeys addicted to crack and in withdrawal!
MileHigh
My dear little TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 06:23:07 AM
I have had my experimental work published in MAJOR peer reviewed journals....
Unfortunately this can ONLY be claimed by referencing those publications. Otherwise we'll all assume - YET AGAIN - that you're fraudulently alleging what you should be proving. Which is very much in keeping with your style. I look forward to the time that we all know your identity TK. Then perhaps we can all learn to admire you with the same fervour that you manage. Unless and until - sadly - we all KNOW you to be a malicious bully and like all bullies - a coward. You're incapable of original thought which also means you'd have nothing to publish. And your statements in this thread prove you to be considerably less than professional. No-one - not even your little gang of 'like minded' could pretend that you know the meaning of the term.
Kindest regards notwithstanding,
Rosie Pose
Dear Sean,
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 23, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
You are at the point where even you don't believe what you're claiming...
Why would I waste time on 'belief'? When we've got PROOF? More than 200 individual tests. More than 360 screen shots. And between 20 000 and 500 000 x 4 samples per screen shot. ALL of them measuring COP INFINITY?
Belief, opinion, conjecture, allegation, insinuation .... ALL THAT? It's only you and TK and his little gang that need such nonsense. It has NOTHING to do with science.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
Hello MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 23, 2012, 07:18:43 PM
Yes, it really is that bad. Just like the current flowing through the function generator issue kills your credibility completely. Just the fact that you are attempting to analyze a circuit where the current is actually flowing straight through the function generator kills your credibility completely.
It's one thing to repeat your point in just about every post you make. It's another thing to repeat the same point in one post. But it's beyond the pale when you repeat the point after each sentence. If you want to hold anyone's attention MileHigh - aim for 'variety'. That way we won't suffer the same mind-numbing afflications that your 'fog' subjects you to.
Rosie Pose
@TK,MH, and all,
This really has become a bit bizarre to say the least.
From what I can gather from her recent posts at her new "forum", the claim of "COP=infinity" only relates to acheiving a negative mean power measurement (congrats TK, you have acheived COP=infinity!!). She is apparently, at this time, making no claim that the battery does not run down or that its capacity is exceeded. However, she seems rather sure that further testing will indeed prove that the battery capacity is exceeded (but apparently does run down). At the same time, however, she continues to claim that the voltage of the batteries she uses has never dropped below their initial fully charged voltage in, I believe she stated, two years or so (I assume she is not counting the battery that caught fire).
What is most bizarre, however, is that she now leads the reader to believe that the operation of the Q2 "quad" and their oscllations are of such a great mystery that no one can explain, that she alludes to their operation as possibly related to room temperature superconductivity. (at least that is how I interpret what she is saying referencing the "very cold" and "room temp", read for yourselves and see if that is what you believe she is saying)
With as much discussion, simulation (.99), empirical measurement (TK), and video evidence (TK) that has taken place regarding Q2 since the March demo, it is impossible to believe that she was unable to, or incapable of, absorbing at least some of the data and information those discussions, simulations, measurements and videos provided.
She continues to write as though a function generator cannot pass, source, or sink current, and uses the fact that the circuit can be operated by a 555 as evidence thereof. The only data we have ever seen relating to a 555 operating the NERD circuit is from the tests TK performed where he did just that. And just as the Q2 bias current passes thru the FG, the Q2 bias current passed thru TK's 555, necessitating heat sinking of the 555 (and a rather unique circuit arrangement and negative voltage source).
.99 has invested countless hours doing simulations relating to analysis of the observed negative mean power measurement. Even if she is unable to fully grasp that analysis, his work and TK's replications/measurements should at least cause her to question exactly what the negative mean power measurement may or may not be indicating.
As well, .99 has performed countless hours of simulation regarding how Q2 is biased on and the subsequent bias current that flows thru the FG and the paths for AC current during oscillation (and again TK has provided empirical measurement of the Q2 bias current that flows thru the FG).
She refuses to accept or understand that the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2 which causes Q2 to be biased on. .99's and TK's work has clearly proven this to be fact, just as one would expect from looking at the schematic. And, again, when Q2 is biased on, the subsequent bias current flows thru the FG.
She refuses to acknowledge that in FIG 3 and FIG 7, Q1 is not functioning properly as per the indicated gate drive and lack of current thru the CSR. Instead, we are told we are reading the 'scope incorrectly, which is odd, as by using the same measurement methods all other traces can be read and are in agreement with the indicated numerical values. Even a phone call to LeCroy verified that we are reading the 'scope correctly.
With all the data that has been provided to her regarding these issues, she refuses to acknowledge these explanations and observations as a more likely explanation than that which she provides. With but only a slight amount of effort and due diligence on her part, all of these explanations and observations could have easily been verified by taking some of this data and discussion to a local EE, Professor, calling LeCroy, etc.
So, the question is why, with all the discussion and data she has been provided, has she merely moved on to a new "forum" and continued to push her papers and circuit as though there are no logical explanations regarding its operation and measurements, and done nothing to correct or verify the errors that have been pointed out to her?
PW
Rosemary:
They are actually two separate and distinct yet related points. That's an example of your "blindness," something that we have seen over and over. Remember your draft letter for physics and engineering professors? Same deal, you killed your credibility instantly from the nonsensical prose in the draft.
All that you can do is deny that current flows through the function generator. Anybody that has taken a course in basic circuit analysis would disagree with you. It's just a complete farce Rosemary that you will not concede that the main current loop when in negative offset mode flows straight through the function generator itself. If you have not officially retracted your Joule calculation showing one kilowatt of power dissipation for 1.6 hours then you look like an idiot. I am pretty sure that you arrived at that number is because you multiplied by the total time of 1.6 hours. That's so awful that you fall flat on your face and make a mockery of everything that you are attempting to accomplish. "Free energy researcher that can't measure or calculate energy properly" is a pathetic joke.
For whatever reason, I decided to give you a sense about the "backdrop" behind your whole deal. It took PW about a week to understand the "backdrop" and many people clearly see this and understand what is going on because of it.
You are unstoppable, but it's a hopeless and fruitless quest you are on. You and Lawrence are modern-day Donna and Don Quoixtes in the realm of "free energy 'research.'"
Note that windmills are a source of free energy.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 08:31:43 PM
My dear little TKUnfortunately this can ONLY be claimed by referencing those publications. Otherwise we'll all assume - YET AGAIN - that you're fraudulently alleging what you should be proving.
You accuse me of some kind of "fraudulent alleging" YET AGAIN? Just where are you claiming fraud on my part? Let's be sure to preserve this for your attorneys, shall we. WHAT IS THE REFERENCE to this fraud of mine you are alleging, you liar? Just like your laboratory, idiot Little Miss Mosfet, just LIKE YOUR UNNAMED LABORATORY and your phony endorsements-- which is very much in keeping with your style. NEVER giving a checkable reference for YOUR CLAIMS OF ENDORSEMENTS at all. You have no grounds to criticise me, you miserable scribbler. You, by claiming prize money based on your bogus claims of overunity and COP INFINITY, are indeed engaging in FRAUD because you are trying to profit monetarily from your lies and errors.
QuoteWhich is very much in keeping with your style. I look forward to the time that we all know your identity TK. Then perhaps we can all learn to admire you with the same fervour that you manage. Unless and until - sadly - we all KNOW you to be a malicious bully and like all bullies - a coward.
Ainslie, every day we hear stories about people who have bad things happen to them because somebody ON THE INTERNET knew their real identity. You have threatened me with physical harm and you are manifestly mentally unstable. Even though you are a world away, I still think you are crazy enough to try to harm me or my property or my family or my employer. I'm no coward-- I have offered TIME AND TIME AGAIN to have my claims tested side by side with yours at any time anywhere. YOU, you coward, have always refused even to consider it, because YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT.
QuoteYou're incapable of original thought which also means you'd have nothing to publish.
My, you are an ignoramus. My research-based publications are indeed original and my line of research actually started some things that are all around you and becoming more prevalent every day. You could never grasp what they are, but I'll tell you this much: they involved sophisticated mathematical models and a lot of real computer programming, you ignorant person who cannot even operate a calculator correctly, as well as YEARS of laboratory experimentation. In addition, Ainslie you educationally challenged ignoramus, I have taught my subjects at the college level and am considered an excellent teacher by my students and my supervisors. You are an ignorant, uneducated, arrogant fool and you are not only insulting me but you are also insulting my teachers, some of whose names even you might recognise. You, on the other hand, think you've learned your physics from "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". I laugh at your bloviation and attempts at dragging me down. You know nothing of academia and your every encounter with truly educated persons results in them laughing at you and discarding your "work" into the garbage where it belongs.
QuoteAnd your statements in this thread prove you to be considerably less than professional. No-one - not even your little gang of 'like minded' could pretend that you know the meaning of the term.
Kindest regards notwithstanding,
Rosie Pose
Lying hypocrite Ainslie. It matters not one whit whether you think I am "professional" or not. What matters is THAT YOU ARE NOT and will never be. And that your junk manuscripts contain unsupported claims, distortions, error after error, and outright LIES, like your 5.9 megaJoule claim and your references to "boiling water" when THE WATER WASN'T ACTUALLY BOILING. Things like that Really Do Matter, Ainslie, lying hypocrite.
Your blinkered view of my professionalism is not at issue here..... what is important is that YOU, Ainslie, are WRONG, pitifully so, and ANYONE who builds and tests what you claim to be your apparatus can and will discover that for themselves.
And so it goes. TK trying to allege he's professional - picowatt pretending to understand anything at all - MileHigh propagandising about anything rather than science - all of them desperate.
Nice to see that level of anxiety. If I didn't know better I'd say they're FRANTIC to deny our choice proof of energy efficiency. Because IF there's no proof as they allege - then WHO WOULD CARE? LOL
Rosie Pose
Picowatt asked,
QuoteSo, the question is why, with all the discussion and data she has been provided, has she merely moved on to a new "forum" and continued to push her papers and circuit as though there are no logical explanations regarding its operation and measurements, and done nothing to correct or verify the errors that have been pointed out to her?
This is the exact same thing that has happened several times before; the unique part of this present instance is that she hasn't gotten herself banned here before moving on, in spite of her best efforts.
You can read almost word-for-word posts, objections, claims and replies, in the old forums that Fuzzy linked a few posts ago. Over and over it's the same. The only differences are Altoid, Tar Baby and the Dim Bulb Tests, and _finally_ somebody actually tried running on suitable capacitors.
Why? What's the answer? It lies deep in Ainslie's psychology. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. For whatever reason, her need to defend her ego is so strong that rational argument cannot penetrate, and whenever events or facts become so obtrusive that it is impossible to ignore them, she ignores them anyway, tries to sweep them under the rug of pages of bloviation and diversion, even resorting to insults and trollish baiting in order to avoid the real discussion of issues -- as we have seen MANY times in this thread alone. Why does a person develop this astounding level of ego defense? It's generally the result of deep hurt or disappointment in life. Perhaps Ainslie lost someone close to her early on and has been in mourning ever since, feeling abandoned yet guilty as survivors often do. These things happen to all of us but not everybody reacts the same way. As a natively bright child, Ainslie no doubt had a lot of difficulty in traditional schools, and she left that system to pursue some kind of alternative "education"... which obviously studiously avoided any kind of math or critical thinking instruction or practice. Her present lack of respect for hard work and education is typical of the under-challenged but bright child who never had to struggle to earn a living.
Due to the tolerance of our host and the discussions we have all had, we've been able to avoid banning Ainslie, but that hasn't prevented her from trying to shore up Yet Another soapbox forum to attract a few innocent sycophants. There's a major problem though.... anybody who is smart enough to build and test her thing is also smart enough to see through it eventually. Even Ashtweth and Aaron eventually saw the light-- that there was only darkness in Ainslie's soul, no COP > unity.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
You accuse me of some kind of "fraudulent alleging" YET AGAIN?
Yes.
Rosie Pose.
Rosemary your refusal to simply concede your mistakes and try to learn so you won't make them again says it all.
There is no desperation on our part. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. On the other side, we can back up what we say with facts, reason, and measurements.
The best case scenario for you would be a report back from the lab that says that you have nothing. It has to say that if they are real. If Sterling hooked you up with somebody in his network then things will be quite interesting. If you get an endorsement from somebody that hasn't a clue what they are doing that would be comical. Remember Sterling's trip to South Africa along with a "technical consultant?" The two of them stared at a box filled with batteries and a motor and a generator and some relays for 60 minutes and were "convinced" that they saw a free energy machine.
Sometimes the realm of free energy is like an old British Black Comedy. "The Man in the White Suit" is a good one.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 09:31:12 PM
And so it goes. TK trying to allege he's professional - picowatt pretending to understand anything at all - MileHigh propagandising about anything rather than science - all of them desperate.
Nice to see that level of anxiety. If I didn't know better I'd say they're FRANTIC to deny our choice proof of energy efficiency. Because IF there's no proof as they allege - then WHO WOULD CARE? LOL
Rosie Pose
FUNCTION GENERATOR CURRENT, Ainslie.
5.9 MEGAJOULES, Ainslie.
Q1, Positive Gate Drive, and Figure 3, AINSLIE.
Ahern's Battery capacity calculations on your forum, AINSLIE.
THE WATER WASN'T ACTUALLY BOILING, Ainslie.
The list goes on and on, but these are just the current issues you are avoiding with your insulting, mendacious posts, AINSLIE.
And so it goes. Never addressing issues raised. Never confirming the explained operation of the circuit. Never posting anything of significance but only continued denigration of those that disagree with her explanation or claimed mystery regarding the circuit's operation.
And for the record, please show me where I have weighed in on whether or not this circuit improves efficiency. I have not.
It should, however, be readily apparent to all readers that more people have a better understanding of the operation of the circuit and use of test equipmet than the "inventor".
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 09:40:53 PM
Yes.
Rosie Pose.
BACK IT UP WITH A REFERENCE, you liar. Show what you are alleging, you liar.
5.9 megaJoules, you fraud. I have reference after reference of your unsupportable claims. You cannot point to a single thing I've said or done that cannot be repeated exactly by anyone. Your claims, on the other hand, are demonstrably fraudulent, and I have demonstrated that over and over again.
THE FUNCTION GENERATOR CURRENT does flow, you ignoramus.
My dear little TK
I've extrapolated those comments that prove your impeccable professional practices - for the general amusement of our members and readers.
. WHAT IS THE REFERENCE to this fraud of mine you are alleging, you liar?
. Just like your laboratory, idiot Little Miss Mosfet,
. just LIKE YOUR UNNAMED LABORATORY and your phony endorsements
. You have no grounds to criticise me, you miserable scribbler.
. You, by claiming prize money based on your bogus claims of overunity and COP INFINITY, are indeed engaging in FRAUD
. you are trying to profit monetarily from your lies and errors.
. You have threatened me with physical harm and you are manifestly mentally unstable.
. I still think you are crazy enough to try to harm me or my property or my family or my employer.
. My, you are an ignoramus
. you ignorant person who cannot even operate a calculator correctly,
. In addition, Ainslie you educationally challenged ignoramus,
. You are an ignorant, uneducated, arrogant fool
. Lying hypocrite Ainslie.
. And that your junk manuscripts contain unsupported claims, distortions, error after error, and outright LIES,
. Ainslie, lying hypocrite.
... in JUST ONE POST. LOL
Guys,
What better proof does anyone need that the man is an arch professional who upholds his oath of professional conduct? :o I've said it before. He's nothing but a silly little man with a HUGE chip on his shoulder. Like all liars he can't remember what it is that he claimed. First he's got students and is employed at an academy of sorts. Then he's got an employer who he's trying to protect. And a family! Strange how someone so protective of his own identity is quite so anxious to trash my own. Notwithstanding all that alleged professionalism. We see the evidence of this here. Preserved for 'posterity' as he puts is.
Regards,
added :o 8) :)
Rosemary
@PW, .99:
Here's another "challenge" similar to the Altoid demonstrator idea.
With a single mosfet we know that we can make the continual oscillation mode without difficulty. And it's clear that a single mosfet could be properly pulsed in a clean square wave with an arbitrary duty cycle, coming from an onboard oscillator like a simple 555. And we know that the 5-mosfet circuit can be operated in the bipolar mode with both oscillations and pulses using an external source or even the main battery itself with a charge pump inverter.
But... is it possible to perform both duties with a single mosfet and the main battery only, using an onboard clock, or even external drive from FG? That is, can one lone mosfet be used to make the oscillations while a gate signal is negative and also make the DC ON when the gate signal is positive, duplicating the performance of the NERD circuit using the bipolar gate drive?
On and On .... Over and Over ....
Rosemary does the same thing ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W42rMjYWlk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W42rMjYWlk)
FTC
8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
@PW, .99:
Here's another "challenge" similar to the Altoid demonstrator idea.
With a single mosfet we know that we can make the continual oscillation mode without difficulty. And it's clear that a single mosfet could be properly pulsed in a clean square wave with an arbitrary duty cycle, coming from an onboard oscillator like a simple 555. And we know that the 5-mosfet circuit can be operated in the bipolar mode with both oscillations and pulses using an external source or even the main battery itself with a charge pump inverter.
But... is it possible to perform both duties with a single mosfet and the main battery only, using an onboard clock, or even external drive from FG? That is, can one lone mosfet be used to make the oscillations while a gate signal is negative and also make the DC ON when the gate signal is positive, duplicating the performance of the NERD circuit using the bipolar gate drive?
I think this little offering is an attempt at pretending he's capable of any kind of thought at all - let alone associated with science. What a JOKE.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 10:03:20 PM
My dear little TK
I've extrapolated those comments that prove your impeccable professional practices - for the general amusement of our members and readers.
. WHAT IS THE REFERENCE to this fraud of mine you are alleging, you liar?
. Just like your laboratory, idiot Little Miss Mosfet,
. just LIKE YOUR UNNAMED LABORATORY and your phony endorsements
. You have no grounds to criticise me, you miserable scribbler.
. You, by claiming prize money based on your bogus claims of overunity and COP INFINITY, are indeed engaging in FRAUD
. you are trying to profit monetarily from your lies and errors.
. You have threatened me with physical harm and you are manifestly mentally unstable.
. I still think you are crazy enough to try to harm me or my property or my family or my employer.
. My, you are an ignoramus
. you ignorant person who cannot even operate a calculator correctly,
. In addition, Ainslie you educationally challenged ignoramus,
. You are an ignorant, uneducated, arrogant fool
. Lying hypocrite Ainslie.
. And that your junk manuscripts contain unsupported claims, distortions, error after error, and outright LIES,
. Ainslie, lying hypocrite.
... in JUST ONE POST. LOL
Guys,
What better proof does anyone need that the man is an arch professional who upholds his oath of professional conduct. I've said it before. He's nothing but a silly little man with a HUGE chip on his shoulder. Like all liars he can't remember what it is that he claimed. First he's got students and is employed at an academy of sorts. Then he's got an employer who he's trying to protect. And a family! Strange how someone so protective of his own identity is quite so anxious to trash my own. Notwithstanding all that alleged professionalism. We see the evident of this here. Preserved for 'posterity' as he puts is.
Regards,
Rosemary
Don't you get it, you lying hypocrite? I can PROVE EVERY THING, every "lying hypocrite" that I call you, Ainslie. You lie over and over, just as you have in that very post, misrepresenting what I've said and what I do. And you show your hypocrisy every time you avoid dealing with an issue about your circuit or your claims, and with every "Dear little TK" and "Regards" you write. Hypocrite. And your ignorance is there for all to see. 5.9 megaJoules ! You are a joke.
Once again, MY professional practices are not at issue. I could be what you allege, I could be a ten year old child or a closet Republican or even a Maori tribeswoman, and you would STILL BE WRONG. I have had to resort to... shall we say... unusual emphasis to counter your outrageous insults... which YOU STARTED, you lying ignorant awful person. But that does not change the facts of the matter: You did not boil anything like a liter of water, you did not dissipate 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours, and you still have not published anything in any scientific journal. You might note that it's been DAYS since anyone has even commented on your "paper" in Rossi's joke blog.
And look again at what I've actually said before you claim that I can't remember. It has been years since I've taught at the University level, and I now have another job, and I have a family and a home, and you are threatening them. What part of those things do YOU not remember? You lie again, you lying hypocrite, when you imply and assert that I have been anything but truthful and consistent. Let's see you give a reference to anything I've said that you can prove is untrue. You cannot do it. I on the other hand have so many things YOU have said that are later shown to be untrue that it's hard to choose. The present one about the 5.9 megaJoules, and the "boiling water" should be sufficient to PROVE that YOU ARE A LIAR, for the present purposes.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 10:13:08 PM
I think this little offering is an attempt at pretending he's capable of any kind of thought at all - let alone associated with science. What a JOKE.
Rosie Pose
No, Ainslie, you idiot bloviating troll. It is another attempt to check on a claim that YOU have made and that I doubt. You have told people that a single mosfet is all that is needed. I doubt this. I don't think you can make both oscillations AND high load heat using a single mosfet in the way that you are claiming, and so I am trying to FIND OUT something that I don't know yet. THIS IS THE NATURE OF SCIENCE: one posits an hypothesis and then tries WITH ALL ONE'S MIGHT to DISPROVE, not prove, it. If I fail to DISPROVE my idea then I know that it might just barely be right. YOU have never tried to DISPROVE your "thesis", only to "prove" it, and you continue to fail miserably.
Now, if you aren't going to deal with the real issues concerning your claims and your error-laden manuscripts, I suggest you go away and try to get some sleep. Or just go away, lie to some other people for a while, we are getting tired of you.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 10:05:05 PM
@PW, .99:
Here's another "challenge" similar to the Altoid demonstrator idea.
With a single mosfet we know that we can make the continual oscillation mode without difficulty. And it's clear that a single mosfet could be properly pulsed in a clean square wave with an arbitrary duty cycle, coming from an onboard oscillator like a simple 555. And we know that the 5-mosfet circuit can be operated in the bipolar mode with both oscillations and pulses using an external source or even the main battery itself with a charge pump inverter.
But... is it possible to perform both duties with a single mosfet and the main battery only, using an onboard clock, or even external drive from FG? That is, can one lone mosfet be used to make the oscillations while a gate signal is negative and also make the DC ON when the gate signal is positive, duplicating the performance of the NERD circuit using the bipolar gate drive?
TK,
Do you want to do this with the common gate NERD type circuit or the .99/TK/Altoid type oscillator?
PW
TK,
Be aware that I believe that her reference to a single MOSFET was with regard to merely making the oscillations as in the .99/TK/Altoid circuit. (As in hoping .99 would post the schematic "over there")
However, yes, it should be possible to make either circuit, with varyng degrees of complexity, turn the oscillating MOSFET(s) fully on for a period of time.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
I have taught my subjects at the college level and am considered an excellent teacher by my students and my supervisors.
You ask for evidence of inconsistency? Little TK? HERE IT IS....
You state that you've 'taught' - in the past tense - then you ALLEGE that you ARE considered 'an excellent teacher' - present tense - by your 'students' and by your 'supervisors'
Are your students STILL your students? Are your supervisors STILL your supervisors? Or did you give up teaching .... yesterday? Did they boot you out mid term and mid month because you lacked professionalism? Or because you simply didn't turn up for work being as busy as you are on this thread? God knows it's a full time occupation. Or is your employer 'The Boss' or even 'Sean'. Who are you protecting? Do those two thread lurkers pay you excessive amounts of money to damage my reputation? Or are you simply trying to show your students - by default - how a professional should NOT behave? Or are you paid nothing for all this work that you apply to this propaganda and spin? You do it for love? Full time? Because you enjoy indulging in malice and slander? Do you have a private income that you can afford to do this full time?
And FINALLY. Do you really think that all this excess points to any residual balance in your own evidently and utterly imbalanced psyche?
Rosie Pose
Do you have an explanation for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be?
Quote from: picowatt on June 23, 2012, 10:36:42 PM
Do you have an explanation for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be?
Yes.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 10:39:26 PM
Yes.
Rosie Pose
Back that answer up, explain it to us all...
Quote from: picowatt on June 23, 2012, 10:42:30 PM
Back that answer up, explain it to us all...
And why exactly, should I bother? Because you demand to know? I don't think I owe you anything - least of all an explanation. I would expect professionalism before I engage with anyone at all. And you - like our little TK - have NONE.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 10:33:50 PM
You ask for evidence of inconsistency? Little TK? HERE IT IS....
You state that you've 'taught' - in the past tense - then you ALLEGE that you ARE considered 'an excellent teacher' - present tense - by your 'students' and by your 'supervisors'
Are your students STILL your students? Are your supervisors STILL your supervisors? Or did you give up teaching .... yesterday? Did they boot you out mid term and mid month because you lacked professionalism? Or because you simply didn't turn up for work being as busy as you are on this thread? God knows it's a full time occupation. Or is your employer 'The Boss' or even 'Sean'. Who are you protecting? Do those two thread lurkers pay you excessive amounts of money to damage my reputation? Or are you simply trying to show your students - by default - how a professional should NOT behave? Or are you're paid nothing for all this work that you apply to this propaganda and spin. You do it for love? Full time? Because you enjoy indulging in malice and slander? Do you have a private income that you can afford to do this full time?
And FINALLY. Do you really think that all this excess points to any residual balance in your own evidently and utterly imbalanced psyche?
Rosie Pose
You were an idiot in 2009 when I worked on your other crazy circuit. That makes you still an idiot today. And yes, Ainslie, I still have students. something you cannot grasp at all, lacking respect for teachers as you do.
Your lying insinuations about why I'm doing something else now aren't even worthy of notice.
And I thought I was supposed to be "well paid". At least that is another of your crazy claims.
I want to know what you mean in this quote where you say I manage to " INSERT a wire that simply was not there". Are you lying about me again, talking about when I exposed Mylow's fraudulent fishingline driven motor? Just what are you alleging here, the lawyers need to know specific details of your claims. This is not the first time you've made a similar idiotic assertion.
QuoteI should add this. I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology. They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance. They are WELL PAID. And they are VERY EFFECTIVE. The also have liberal access to laboratories. And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there. I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name. They are DANGEROUS. And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses. I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case. We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense. The man's a genius. And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.
5.9 megaJoules, Ainslie. Water that wasn't boiling but you said it was. Figure 3.
I am not the issue, and every time you change the subject to ME, I will bring it back to YOU and I will re-list some of your continuing lies. So if that's what you want.... you really are sick.
Quote from: picowatt on June 23, 2012, 10:30:19 PM
TK,
Be aware that I believe that her reference to a single MOSFET was with regard to merely making the oscillations as in the .99/TK/Altoid circuit. (As in hoping .99 would post the schematic "over there")
However, yes, it should be possible to make either circuit, with varyng degrees of complexity, turn the oscillating MOSFET(s) fully on for a period of time.
PW
Yes, I am aware of that. I'm also aware that it's not possible to get the full high heat performance with only oscillations, and Ainslie has also made statements that indicate that she's aware of this too. Don't make me dig them up right now, please; but they are preserved in the RAPosts.zip files that are in the download section of this forum.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 10:48:24 PM
And why exactly, should I bother? Because you demand to know? I don't think I owe you anything - least of all an explanation. I would expect professionalism before I engage with anyone at all. And you - like our little TK - have NONE.
Rosie Pose
GO AWAY then, Little Miss Mosfet, if all you are going to do is insult people. YOU ARE NOT HELPFUL, and you cannot even defend yourself with facts or demonstrations, which makes you completely useless.
And it's like a clock work toy. Every time I post that Function Generator video.... every time. Wind it up, set it down, and she bloviates, and bloviates, and bloviates, until that video is buried under piles and piles of more choice piles of Ainslie's insults and lies. Never once dealing with the FACT that the video destroys one of her fundamental claims utterly and conclusively, she tries to cover it up with irrelevancies, insults, innuendoes, and ignorant insinuations.
I did not truly expect an answer. You have no explanation.
In case any new readers, or a spillover or two from your new forum, are not fully aware of the issue, I will repeat the question in full.
In the first paper (not the COP=17 paper), in FIG3 during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive voltage, the 'scope capture indicates that approximately +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. Surely all will agree that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause it to turn fully on.
However, during that same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace does not indicate any significant current flow as would be expected from Q1 being turned fully on.
The only possible explanations for this would be that Q1 is damaged (although a MOSFET failing open circuit is somewhat rare), or Q1 has become disconnected or is improperly connected. In any event, a functioning Q1 cannot be connected as per the schematic in the first paper and have +12 volts applied to its gate without significant current flow being indicated.
As well, in the FIG7 the gate drive indicates that Q1 should turning on, yet again, the CSR trace indicates it is not.
The only explanations given to date by the author argue that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. It was verified via a phone call with LeCroy that the 'scope is indeed being read correctly. The author has also had plenty of opportunity to confirm this with LeCroy as well (which it was stated was to be done when the 'scope was calibrated).
So, to date, no credible explanation has been provided by the author as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7. It is readily apparent, however, that Q1 should be turning and that the CSR trace indicates that it is not.
Also note that in FIG5, a 'scope capture made the month prior, the indicated gate drive is less than as indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace indicates significant current flow thru Q1.
Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it is clearly indicated that it should be?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 10:48:24 PM
And why exactly, should I bother? Because you demand to know? I don't think I owe you anything - least of all an explanation. I would expect professionalism before I engage with anyone at all. And you - like our little TK - have NONE.
Rosie Pose
You will have to explain yourself sooner or later, Ainslie. And you really should look at what "open source" means in this context. There is a major, very real anomaly to be explained IF what you say is true, and you owe it to your sycophants to explain it. On the other hand, if the mosfet is blown or disconnected, that's a simple and easy to understand, not anomalous and in fact EXPECTED reason for the scopetraces to look like they do. Anybody.... ANYBODY who knows how to read an oscilloscope and who understands the basics of mosfet action can see for themselves that there is SOMETHING to be explained in those traces.... and if you DON'T do it in public, as soon as you know what it is, then once again, you are withholding necessary information about your "open source" project: that is, you are a liar and a hypocrite. But we already knew THAT much about you.
Dear little TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 10:48:34 PM
You were an idiot in 2009 when I worked on your other crazy circuit. That makes you still an idiot today. And yes, Ainslie, I still have students. something you cannot grasp at all, lacking respect for teachers as you do.
I remember your efforts here - well. You never managed to get that oscillation. It was laughable.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 10:48:34 PM
Your lying insinuations about why I'm doing something else now aren't even worthy of notice.
Not actually. They're of riveting interest to everyone reading here. I'll get back to this point. Trust me on this. LOL.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 10:48:34 PMI want to know what you mean in this quote where you say I manage to " INSERT a wire that simply was not there". Are you lying about me again, talking about when I exposed Mylow's fraudulent fishing line driven motor? Just what are you alleging here, the lawyers need to know specific details of your claims. This is not the first time you've made a similar idiotic assertion.
I asserted NOTHING. I repeated the opinion of those who saw that video. It's widely contended that you INSERTED a fishing line into the video in order to denigrate Mylow's work.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 10:48:34 PMI am not the issue,
You most certainly ARE the issue.
Rosie Pose
@PW: The experimental trial that generated the Figure 7 scopeshot is best described in her blog posts 117 and 118, which I have linked to previously. The Fig 7 scopeshot was taken near or at the end of that trial. She has also said various times that that trial had to be stopped because of some kind of thermal runaway behaviour. The trial used a full 60 volt nominal battery pack, indicating 62 volts plus most of the time. Later "high heat" trials, including the one in the video, use 48 volts in the battery pack.
In the scopeshot compendium that I've made, I've preserved the original filenames whenever possible. The "SCRNxxxx" names are auto-assigned by the scope, so the chronological sequence is preserved, mostly.
I've been playing around with a Class-E autoresonating Tesla Coil over the past couple of days, and earlier today I failed a NTE2922 mosfet, eleven dollars each, from overheating it while messing around with coil matching. It failed, drain-source not exactly open but with about 1 megohm between them either polarity, and gate-source conducting at about 300 ohms. Weird. But at least it didn't explode like yesterday's TIP122 Darlington in another circuit... groundloop's H-bridge driven far too HF.... ;D
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 10:55:14 PM
Yes, I am aware of that. I'm also aware that it's not possible to get the full high heat performance with only oscillations, and Ainslie has also made statements that indicate that she's aware of this too. Don't make me dig them up right now, please; but they are preserved in the RAPosts.zip files that are in the download section of this forum.
Not actually. During the 'water to boil' tests we had 'trickle current' at best - coming from the battery. And WAY more energy returned than ever delivered.
If you are going to refer to my work then at least keep to the facts. They're clearly evident in our paper.
Rosie Pose
The following excerpt from an earlier post better provides some multiple choices from which to choose as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7.
Choose away:
"The facts are that the 'scope capture in FIG3 of the first paper (not the COP=17 article) demonstrates that during the portion of the FG duty cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approx. +12volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on. During this same portion of the FG cycle, however, the CSR trace does not depict the current flow one would expect to see when Q1 is turned on. Possibly Q1 was damaged during these tests, although it is fairly rare for a MOSFET to fail open circuit. Possibly, in the confusion of paralleling MOSFET's, Q1's gate and source lead were reversed, placing all five MOSFET's in parallel and in the common gate configuration. Possibly Q1 was overheating, and as it was believed at that time to be in parallel with the other four MOSFET's, Q1 was innocently disconnected and the four Q2 MOSFETs only used during these tests. Possibly a clip lead or connection to Q1 became loose and disconnected. We cannot know what happened to Q1 at that time, but we do know that the 'scope captures indicate that Q1 was not connected, at the time of the related captures, as is indicated by the first paper's schematic.
As well, Fig 7 in the first paper also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again, the CSR trace depicts that Q1 is not turning on."
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 11:24:20 PM
Dear little TK,
I remember your efforts here - well. You never managed to get that oscillation. It was laughable.
What a liar you are! Not only did I repeat your data nearly exactly, including your heat profiles, I also exposed your duty cycle error and I was the FIRST to ACTUALLY boil water with your circuit, as well as charging batteries and capacitors to high voltages. Your memory is failing you, Little Miss Mosfet.
Quote
Not actually. They're of riveting interest to everyone reading here. I'll get back to this point. Trust me on this. LOL.
I asserted NOTHING. I repeated the opinion of those who saw that video. It's widely contended that you INSERTED a fishing line into the video in order to denigrate Mylow's work.
You poor idiot. ASK STERLING, you fool. Mylow's own admission is still preserved on my YT video exposing him. HE ADMITTED THAT I WAS RIGHT. If anyone but you still believes that Mylow wasn't using fishing line, like I showed and like he admitted..... let them speak now, and justify themselves.
Quote
You most certainly ARE the issue.
Rosie Pose
No, you liar. YOU are the issue: YOU are making unsubstantiated, mendacious claims, many of which have been soundly refuted, yet you refuse to admit it. That makes you the issue. ANYONE who does the work will find the same things that I've found.... and NOBODY will find that their batteries do not discharge, as you have mendaciously claimed.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 11:29:30 PM
Not actually. During the 'water to boil' tests we had 'trickle current' at best - coming from the battery. And WAY more energy returned than ever delivered.
If you are going to refer to my work then at least keep to the facts. They're clearly evident in our paper.
Rosie Pose
You are lying again. Your own statements on the day of the trial show just how much of a liar you are now, or then, or both. You never boiled water, you stuck an overheated element into some water and it sizzled a bit while it cooled off. Your claim of the 5.9 megaJoules is simply a lie, and your scopeshot that shows what you believe is evidence for your claim is actually showing a partially failed mosfet from overheating. Those are the facts, Ainslie, and what is clearly evident in your "paper" is that you have no idea what you are talking about, and THAT is why it gets summarily rejected by people who DO know what they are talking about.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 11:28:53 PM
@PW: The experimental trial that generated the Figure 7 scopeshot is best described in her blog posts 117 and 118, which I have linked to previously. The Fig 7 scopeshot was taken near or at the end of that trial. She has also said various times that that trial had to be stopped because of some kind of thermal runaway behaviour. The trial used a full 60 volt nominal battery pack, indicating 62 volts plus most of the time. Later "high heat" trials, including the one in the video, use 48 volts in the battery pack.
In the scopeshot compendium that I've made, I've preserved the original filenames whenever possible. The "SCRNxxxx" names are auto-assigned by the scope, so the chronological sequence is preserved, mostly.
I've been playing around with a Class-E autoresonating Tesla Coil over the past couple of days, and earlier today I failed a NTE2922 mosfet, eleven dollars each, from overheating it while messing around with coil matching. It failed, drain-source not exactly open but with about 1 megohm between them either polarity, and gate-source conducting at about 300 ohms. Weird. But at least it didn't explode like yesterday's TIP122 Darlington in another circuit... groundloop's H-bridge driven far too HF.... ;D
TK,
Yes, it is possible for a MOSFET to fail in an open circuit or mostly open circuit failure mode. You will likely agree, however, that this is more rare than failing in a shorted condition. However, it is quite possible to fuse open a die connect lead/die connection or fracture part of the die itself, so a failed Q1 is always presented as one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG 7.
As to your 2922... ouch!
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 11:24:20 PM
I asserted NOTHING. I repeated the opinion of those who saw that video. It's widely contended that you INSERTED a fishing line into the video in order to denigrate Mylow's work.
Actually, I believe Mylow admitted wrong doing and was ashamed of it. But then kept going for a bit. He had motors all the way over on a couch under a pillow, that we could actually discern along with the direction of the fishing line. Mylow even stepped over the line, while standing on the table making the table vid.
And there were many instances of Mr Hand in the early videos. Then as we protested, he moved on to the fishing lines. As our complaints about Mr Hand put him in a position that he had to keep the motor in full view of the camera, thus no possibility of Mr Hand.
Mylow went on with his deception for quite a while. I was surprised how long he lasted. There was even the MIB story that they took his motor then brought it back and said here is your toy. Drama = distraction. Mylow was a little nutty. ;] And a bad Magician. ;] But he gave it a shot.
Mags
Quote from: picowatt on June 23, 2012, 11:40:23 PM
TK,
Yes, it is possible for a MOSFET to fail in an open circuit or mostly open circuit failure mode. You will likely agree, however, that this is more rare than failing in a shorted condition. However, it is quite possible to fuse open a die connect lead/die connection or fracture part of the die itself, so a failed Q1 is always presented as one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG 7.
As to your 2922... ouch!
PW
Heh... around here, mosfets and other power transistors fail either "open", or "I can't find all the pieces and I worry about the neighbors calling the cops".
But yes, I'll happily concede that shorts are more popular than opens. It's just that when I manage to short a mosfet there is usually a lot of energy behind it and the short very spectacularly becomes an "open" because the damn thing explodes from the power arc inside its little body.
I usually use gate-source protection zeners and I think I might have had 30 v ones in there instead of the more conservative 15 v ones I usually use, but my Class E waveforms were lousy and so it was likely the switching losses that heated up the mosfet so badly. I was giving it less than 30 volts drain-source and only 4 volts gate bias, though. And it's on a good heatsink.
I've got a bit better tuning in Class E now and I can light up a neon bulb from the secondary, with only 5 volts D-S into another NTE mosfet, a 2394. I think that one cost 13 dollars, so I'm taking it easy with it, still matching coils and playing with coupling. Yes, I'm on a good big finned heatsink with white slime and everything, considering adding a fan once the coil is working right and making corona.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 12:26:17 AM
Heh... around here, mosfets and other power transistors fail either "open", or "I can't find all the pieces and I worry about the neighbors calling the cops".
But yes, I'll happily concede that shorts are more popular than opens. It's just that when I manage to short a mosfet there is usually a lot of energy behind it and the short very spectacularly becomes an "open" because the damn thing explodes from the power arc inside its little body.
I usually use gate-source protection zeners and I think I might have had 30 v ones in there instead of the more conservative 15 v ones I usually use, but my Class E waveforms were lousy and so it was likely the switching losses that heated up the mosfet so badly. I was giving it less than 30 volts drain-source and only 4 volts gate bias, though. And it's on a good heatsink.
I've got a bit better tuning in Class E now and I can light up a neon bulb from the secondary, with only 5 volts D-S into another NTE mosfet, a 2394. I think that one cost 13 dollars, so I'm taking it easy with it, still matching coils and playing with coupling. Yes, I'm on a good big finned heatsink with white slime and everything, considering adding a fan once the coil is working right and making corona.
TK,
I dispute nothing you are saying. In the NERD circuit, however, Rload does act to limit current. But, also, some of the waveforms I have seen made prior to the demo do look like they are stressing the heck out of Q1. I will accept any of the possible explanations I have given as to why Q1 is not functioning in FIG 3 and FIG 7. I just won't accept that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.
As for your issues, even with a low impedance gate drive circuit, and depending on your switching frequency, it is still possible to have the gate voltage exceed its max voltage even with the zeners. Just the small inductance in the gate lead, and any interconnect lead length, can ring or overshoot and cause the gate max V to be exceeded. Hence, usually a low value non-inductive resistor in series right at the gate is often used to to work in concert with Ciss to dampen any overshoot or ringing at high frequencies. This is usually difficult to see with a 'scope, as even the small capacitance of the 'scope probe will many times dampen the ringing/overshoot that would otherwise be visible. And remember, high frequency does not always mean fast cycle times. When using square waves, fast rise/fall times equate to high frequency regardless of the cycle rate (rem Fourier).
What freq were you running your coil at?
PW
TK,
And when I do look at high risetime gate drive signals with a 'scope, I tend to overdamp the switching (increasing the gate R, etc) which, although not always the most efficient (a bit more heat to deal with), allows me to sleep a bit better. I always figure it is better to overdamp than underdamp. Of course you don't want to be so slow that in a brdge, for example, one set does not turn off before the opposing set turns on. Hence, plenty of dead time. I really don't like working with high power switchers all that much and do so only when I have to. My roots are in analog.
Where can GL's circuit be found, is it availble online?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 23, 2012, 11:32:14 PM
The following excerpt from an earlier post better provides some multiple choices from which to choose as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7.
Choose away:
"The facts are that the 'scope capture in FIG3 of the first paper (not the COP=17 article) demonstrates that during the portion of the FG duty cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approx. +12volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on. During this same portion of the FG cycle, however, the CSR trace does not depict the current flow one would expect to see when Q1 is turned on. Possibly Q1 was damaged during these tests, although it is fairly rare for a MOSFET to fail open circuit. Possibly, in the confusion of paralleling MOSFET's, Q1's gate and source lead were reversed, placing all five MOSFET's in parallel and in the common gate configuration. Possibly Q1 was overheating, and as it was believed at that time to be in parallel with the other four MOSFET's, Q1 was innocently disconnected and the four Q2 MOSFETs only used during these tests. Possibly a clip lead or connection to Q1 became loose and disconnected. We cannot know what happened to Q1 at that time, but we do know that the 'scope captures indicate that Q1 was not connected, at the time of the related captures, as is indicated by the first paper's schematic.
As well, Fig 7 in the first paper also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again, the CSR trace depicts that Q1 is not turning on."
Guys - picowatt knows perfectly well why Q1 doesn't conduct during this phase of the oscillation. Thankfully this is CERTAINLY a test that is going to be replicated by our EXPERTS. And they've also been sent our function generator. So there can be NO chance of it not being 'repeated'. Roll on the time when I'll be able to show you all the difference between experts and these sad and sorry pretenders to any expertise at all.
The most ridiculous of these so called experts is TK. LOL. A full on university academic with multiple papers published on mathematical models. And yet he has time to bore us to tears with his exemplary lack of professionalism while he engages in these HIGHLY UNPRODUCTIVE forums - obsessing about blown MOSFETs - when he's not indulging in obscene calumny. And that's not taking into account the amount of time he spends experimenting on apparatus in especially dimmed light all the better to hide his rather untidy, utterly confused work. Work that a student would be shy to own to.
God help us all as we're exposed to their rather sick agenda
Regards,
Rosemary
My dear picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:17:13 AM
And when I do look at high risetime gate drive signals with a 'scope, I tend to overdamp the switching (increasing the gate R, etc) which, although not always the most efficient (a bit more heat to deal with), allows me to sleep a bit better. I always figure it is better to overdamp than underdamp. Of course you don't want to be so slow that in a brdge, for example, one set does not turn off before the opposing set turns on. Hence, plenty of dead time. I really don't like working with high power switchers all that much and do so only when I have to. My roots are in analog.
Where can GL's circuit be found, is it availble online?
Spare us all the need to pretend that you ever get out of your armchair to test anything at all. Unless of course you'd care to show us some shots of your apparatus. And some data. :o ::) You fool no-one. 8)
Rosie Pose
I liked it better when you were giving me the silent treatment. Such bliss.
Once again, you do not know what is being discussed, and hence you make all the wrong assumptions.
So, as you say, spare us all.
Care to discuss Q1 in FIG 3 and FIG 7?
Guys, Like I said...
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:40:27 AM
I liked it better when you were giving the silent treatment. Such bliss.
Once again, you do not know what is being discussed, and hence you make all the wrong assumptions.
So, as you say, spare us all.
Care to discuss Q1 in FIG 3 and FIG 7?
He's got NOTHING to show us. No apparatus. NOTHING AT ALL. What sad little pretenders. Just like TK - they're trying to borrow any credibility while withholding any need to prove anything at all. Just wind and spin. And way to much of both.
Regards
Rosemary
Hello Mags,
Quote from: Magluvin on June 23, 2012, 11:44:48 PM
Actually, I believe Mylow admitted wrong doing and was ashamed of it. But then kept going for a bit. He had motors all the way over on a couch under a pillow, that we could actually discern along with the direction of the fishing line. Mylow even stepped over the line, while standing on the table making the table vid.
And there were many instances of Mr Hand in the early videos. Then as we protested, he moved on to the fishing lines. As our complaints about Mr Hand put him in a position that he had to keep the motor in full view of the camera, thus no possibility of Mr Hand.
Mylow went on with his deception for quite a while. I was surprised how long he lasted. There was even the MIB story that they took his motor then brought it back and said here is your toy. Drama = distraction. Mylow was a little nutty. ;] And a bad Magician. ;] But he gave it a shot.
Mags
I'm intrigued with your contributions to this thread. It seems you're needed when TK's credibility is being questioned. Is that your mandate? The role you play? I've always wondered about your part in all this. It's not as if you're replicating. And frankly I resent your earlier statement where you advised TK that he needed to be 'tough' on me? But I must admit you're using a spell check of late and your grammar is much improved. Well done. If I didn't know better I would detect more than one player uses your name. Surely not?
Regards,
Rosie
Do you really believe that you can win a technical argument by constant denigration of the person with the opposing (and dare I say, correct) point of view?
I believe that as you continue such behaviour, you only denigrate yourself. This is most likely apparent to all.
You have presented no technically sound explanations for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7, and choose to bury any discussion regarding that topic with just threats and insults. How on Earth do you believe that supports your case?
Rosemary:
QuoteRoll on the time when I'll be able to show you all the difference between experts and these sad and sorry pretenders to any expertise at all.
You are making a complete ass of yourself and destroying your credibility. Everyone knows what you are saying is not true and even you know it's not true.
Very sad spectacle that you are making of yourself. It's pathetic.
MileHigh
Guys,
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AM
Do you really believe that you can win a technical argument by constant denigration of the person with the opposing (and dare I say, correct) point of view?
I believe that as you continue such behaviour, you only denigrate yourself. This is most likely apparent to all.
You have presented no technically sound explanations for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7, and choose to bury any discussion regarding that topic with just threats and insults. How on Earth do you believe that supports your case?
Yet again picowatt ignores the need to show us his data and experimental evidence and simply repeats the same carp against a point that has been ROUNDLY DEALT with on my own locked thread. It seems that they adhere to some obscure belief that repetition is enough to brainwash us all - and that we're as stupid as they hope we are.
The fact is that they've nothing left to go on about. So they've elected to point to the rather FORLORN excuse that the results are due to FAULTY components. Then they 'deliberate' with ponderous absurdity - about this possibility. Little TK talks about blown FETs and Picowatt pretends that he's looking at his own non-existent apparatus. And so the farce continues.
It would be very easy for picowatt to disprove this. Just take a film of his apparatus and tell us all about it. He won't. He can't. He's got nothing there. Just an empty table in front of his computer.
Regards again,
Rosemary
Guess you did not follow the whole Mylow affair. What Mags said is old news and very factual. You should read up on the whole affair, Mylow caused many replicators to waste a bunch of time and money over a complete fraud.
Guess he should have sent the apparatus off to a laboratory for testing and had it get seized or lost in the mail. Instead he went all the way with the fraud and used the fishing line, that some people good with video analysis/enhancement were able to detect. And as mags said, he tried to pull the MIB card as well.
This is CHOICE. Here, guys, we have a thread GROANING under the weight of denigration and - NOTA BENE...
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AM
Do you really believe that you can win a technical argument by constant denigration of the person with the opposing (and dare I say, correct) point of view?
How's that for IRONY?
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AMI believe that as you continue such behaviour, you only denigrate yourself. This is most likely apparent to all.
And then THIS? 'I believe that as you continue such behaviour, you only denigrate yourself?" LOL. He's FINALLY argued my point.
And as for this....
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AMYou have presented no technically sound explanations for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7, and choose to bury any discussion regarding that topic with just threats and insults. How on Earth do you believe that supports your case?
You can all rest easy. I have explained this. picowatt - the ponderous - is WELL aware of the facts. But he's run out of argument and has nothing else to point to.
As I said. This thread is disgusting.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 03:00:01 AM
Guys,
Yet again picowatt ignores the need to show us his data and experimental evidence and simply repeats the same carp against a point that has been ROUNDLY DEALT with on my own locked thread. It seems that they adhere to some obscure belief that repetition is enough to brainwash us all - and that we're as stupid as they hope we are.
The fact is that they've nothing left to go on about. So they've elected to point to the rather FORLORN excuse that the results are due to FAULTY components. Then the 'deliberate' with ponderous absurdity - about this possibility. Little TK talks about blown FETs and Picowatt pretends that he's looking at his own non-existent apparatus. And so the farce continues.
It would be very easy for picowatt to disprove this. Just take a film of his apparatus and tell us all about it. He won't. He can't. He's got nothing there. Just an empty table in front of his computer.
Regards again,
Rosemary
And once again you demonstrate that you know nothing of what you speak. TK and I were not even discussing your circuit. Maybe try reading a bit slower.
And again, your only argument to date regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 has been that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. Did you bother to show .99's annotated capture to your 'scope calibration guy as you said you were going to do? Of course you did not. If you did, you would also now realize that there is indeed +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG 3 which should turn Q1 on. The CSR trace clearly demonstrates that Q1 is not turning on.
So, again, why is Q1 not turning on when it clearly should be?
The question is constantly repeated because it is never answered and no corrections made.
You are starting to look like Mylow...
:-X Guys, I LOVE this one.
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:11:42 AM
And again, your only argument to date regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 has been that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.
IT IS NOT BEING READ INCORRECTLY. CAN'T BE DONE. NOT POSSIBLE. The setting of the coupling is DC. It should be AC. Either picowatt doesn't understand the implications or he hopes no-one else does. Strange. It was IMMEDIATELY understood by our EXPERTS. God forbid we discover he hasn't a clue about those different couplings and how the zero reference adjusts accordingly. Then we'd be inclined to doubt the very expertise he tries so hard to pretend.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary[/quote]
Dear little TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 23, 2012, 11:35:12 PM
What a liar you are! Not only did I repeat your data nearly exactly, including your heat profiles, I also exposed your duty cycle error and I was the FIRST to ACTUALLY boil water with your circuit, as well as charging batteries and capacitors to high voltages. Your memory is failing you, Little Miss Mosfet.
LOL Not actually. NEVER did you manage that oscillation. It was LAUGHABLE. We all saw you trying. HARD. And CLAIMING that you did. But you were miles off course. So all you subsequently demonstrated was just ridiculously inappropriate. I actually started to feel sorry for you. Not even FTC could replicate it. Not until I spent hours on the line with him trying to explain what was needed. The only one who romped to target with the skill of a homing pigeon was Aaron. Sadly he lost interest within the month. I think he was rather discouraged by your own contributions.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 03:19:57 AM
:-X Guys, I LOVE this one.
IT IS NOT BEING READ INCORRECTLY. CAN'T BE DONE. NOT POSSIBLE. The setting of the coupling is DC. It should be AC. Either picowatt doesn't understand the implications or he hopes no-one else does. Strange. It was IMMEDIATELY understood by our EXPERTS. God forbid we discover he hasn't a clue about those different couplings and how the zero reference adjusts accordingly. Then we'd be inclined to doubt the very expertise he tries so hard to pretend.
Regards as ever,
Rosemary
If you truly believe the above, then why don't you print out a copy of FIG3, point a little arrow at the positive portion of the FG cycle, and fax it to LeCroy with "what is this voltage?".
Sadly, I must inform you that everything you wrote in this post only demonstrates your lack of skill in reading/using a 'scope.
If it were not for the 'scope being DC coupled, I would be unable to state what the actual voltage being applied to the gate of Q1 is. If you knew about AC/DC coupling, this would need no explanaton. Sorry...
There is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG 3. This is fact, confirmed by LeCroy.
So what's up with Q1?
And now it seems that I've erred. LOL. Picowatt NEVER claimed that there's anything wrong with our MOSFET. He's talking about something else. How curious?
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:11:42 AM
And once again you demonstrate that you know nothing of what you speak. TK and I were not even discussing your circuit. Maybe try reading a bit slower.
And again, your only argument to date regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 has been that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. Did you bother to show .99's annotated capture to your 'scope calibration guy as you said you were going to do? Of course you did not. If you did, you would also now realize that there is indeed +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG 3 which should turn Q1 on. The CSR trace clearly demonstrates that Q1 is not turning on.
So, again, why is Q1 not turning on when it clearly should be?
The question is constantly repeated because it is never answered and no corrections made.
You are starting to look like Mylow...
I distinctly recall that one of the options that he rather PONDEROUSLY pretended - was that our Q1 had blown open or blown closed - or something? Perhaps I did, indeed, ENTIRELY misunderstand him. Who knows?
Regards again
Rosemary
And guys - it seems that picowatt is nothing if not repetitive.
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:28:23 AM
Sadly, I must inform you that everything you wrote in this post, only demonstrates your lack of skill in reading/using a 'scope.
What's truly SAD is that I now suspect that picowatt doesn't actually understand what that coupling represents. Perhaps our little TK can explain it to him in the fullness of time.
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:28:23 AMIf it were not for the 'scope being DC coupled, I would be unable to state what the actual voltage being applied to the gate of Q1 is. If you knew about AC/DC coupling, this would need no explanaton. Sorry...
No need for him to apologise. We all know that he's only got a very limited knowledge about really sophisticated instrumentation. The required coupling is applied to each channel. If it's not applied it defaults to DC. But DC is NOT correct when the ACTUAL voltage being measured is AC. Perhaps he'll read this SLOWLY. And then perhaps the penny will drop. One hopes so. He's getting excessively tedious.
Regards,
Rosemary
added. I missed this...
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:28:23 AM
There is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG 3. This is fact, confirmed by LeCroy.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 12 VOLTS MEASURED DC. Now. WHAT DOES THAT MAKE IT IF IT SHOULD BE AC? Then ADD to that the 'off set' bias. And THERE YOU HAVE IT! Hopefully... LOL.
:o 8)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 03:29:51 AM
And now it seems that I've erred. LOL. Picowatt NEVER claimed that there's anything wrong with our MOSFET. He's talking about something else. How curious?
I distinctly recall that one of the options that he rather PONDEROUSLY pretended - was that our Q1 had blown open or blown closed - or something? Perhaps I did, indeed, ENTIRELY misunderstand him. Who knows?
Regards again
Rosemary
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. TK and I were discussing a new coil driver of Groudloop's design that TK is building/working on.
And yes, THERE IS somethng wrong with Q1 in the tests depicted by FIG 3 and FIG 7 in YOUR first paper.
During the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, +12 volts is indicated as gate drive to Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace does not indicate the current flow one would expect if Q1 is turned on.
So, Q1 is either defective or is not connected as per the schematic provided in that paper. There can be no other explanation.
Plain and simple.
ADDED: And yes, you have indeed erred...
Sorry about this guys,
He hasn't got the bigness of soul required to admit an error.
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:39:25 AM
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. TK and I were discussing a new coil driver of Groudloop's design that TK is building/working on.
And yes, THERE IS somethng wrong with Q1 in the tests depicted by FIG 3 and FIG 7 in YOUR first paper.
During the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, +12 volts is indicated as gate drive to Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace does not indicate the current flow one would expect if Q1 is turned on.
So, Q1 is either defective or is not connected as per the schematic provided in that paper. There can be no other explanation.
Plain and simple.
Since he's not going to back down then I will. I"ll spare you my replies - and let him bore you all to tears as he pretends that he's got a leg to stand on. It's why he sits in that armchair. He is not capable of being upright.
Regards again,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 02:51:53 AM
Hello Mags,
I'm intrigued with your contributions to this thread. It seems you're needed when TK's credibility is being questioned. Is that your mandate? The role you play? I've always wondered about your part in all this. It's not as if you're replicating. And frankly I resent your earlier statement where you advised TK that he needed to be 'tough' on me? But I must admit you're using a spell check of late and your grammar is much improved. Well done. If I didn't know better I would detect more than one player uses your name. Surely not?
Regards,
Rosie
Hmm. No Rose, spell check doesnt work here at OU. Not since the new software change. Others have the same issue. There is a thread on it here. I just used my brain. But thanks for the complement. ??? I deserve that I suppose. ::)
All I did was state some facts on Mylow that are fairly well known. By most here. It was a pretty big thing at the time. Many were involved. And it wasnt just a few days.
Would you rather not know? And keep on saying what you think you know? ;) I was there. I was involved with TK on the issue for a bit. And it wasnt always just about Mylow scamming. Tk did experiments on how when a magnet slides down an aluminum plate on a slope, N pole down has a slightly different effect that S pole down. I have a fare memory.
I would like to see the post that I encouraged TK to be "tough" on you. Using that very word. I would be very interested in seeing that. ;) If anything, I have defended you with a vengeance in the past.
If I have had peaceful conversation with TK on his recent circuits and vids, mostly it was questions. Like how did he get both leds to light, when before they were not.
I was interested. Should I have said, " Whats up with those leds lighting up now ya snake in the Texas grass cranky ole bastard wizard you? And he might have answered, "Well ya bloviated crosseyed cat weasel crappin all over my thread, zippon exuding flunky, ......" But it didnt go that way.
This is because I never really hate anyone. But there is a time to be stern and forthright, and there is a time to be peaceful and civil. There is a time to help someone out if in need. And there are times to correct the person being helped.
Think of me how you wish. I have never asked anything of you. Just helped, untill you made it a point that my comments were not needed a while back. But maybe you dont remember that. I do.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 03:43:23 AM
Sorry about this guys,
He hasn't got the bigness of soul required to admit an error. Since he's not going to back down then I will. I"ll spare you my replies - and let him bore you all to tears as he pretends that he's got a leg to stand on. It's why he sits in that armchair. He is not capable of being upright.
Regards again,
Rosemary
Then prove me wrong. Show some spine and Fax away to LeCroy.
Can't wait till you explain this to your new readers, maybe they won't know how to read a 'scope, but then, maybe they will.
Good luck with that AC/DC coupling thing, if you only knew how silly that was.
Here's your post Mags.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 21, 2012, 02:09:11 AM
I dont agree with Roses threats of identity disclosure of PW, or anyone. But you should know by now that this is an idle threat.
Like, do you know if she even has that info for sure? Does PW give out his identity casually? Bad idea. I havnt really seen that PW has any enemies here. And I dont think Rose is a limb shipper. ;]
picowatt has deliberately attempted to diminish our claim through the use of utterly spurious argument and you say I have no CAUSE? How would you like it if 10 years of hard work was then disparaged through the abysmal use of fallacious argument? That I could consider him a friend?
Quote from: Magluvin on June 21, 2012, 02:09:11 AMThis here, for you guys, is to prove that Rose is not being truthful, and or exaggerating claims. Yet your post is an exaggeration also. So should you get a beat down for doing the same?
And here you are endorsing their own contention that we've exaggerated our claims? You say as much. 'This ... is to prove that Rose is not being truthful? ... 'or exaggerating claims'? Exactly WHERE? You've effectively joined their band wagon to claim that we lie. We do NOT lie. We can't. We're dealing with measurement and data. What they're trying to spin is that the data is erroneous. And what you're doing is buying into their spin.
And here it is...
Quote from: Magluvin on June 21, 2012, 02:09:11 AM
I know you are trying to be hard on Rose with your convictions.
'hard on Rose'? WHAT? Hundreds of pages and thousands of allegations that I'm lunatic, stupid, unschooled, old, mendacious, fraudulent, deluded - and you say that they're 'TRYING to be hard'? That's got to be the choicest use of understatement that I've ever been exposed to.
Rosemary
Guys, this is when I seethe with anger...
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:48:16 AM
Good luck with that AC/DC coupling thing, if you only knew how silly that was.
The function generator does not give us a purely DC VOLTAGE. Picowatt knows this. He also knows that the most of you don't. Therefore he's on relatively safe ground when he denies it. He's utterly despicable.
Regards,
Rosemary
How can it be stated that a reading taken from a 'scope capture (and quite easily proven) is a "spurious argument"?
I have always treated you with way more respect than you have shown me. There are pages and pages available to prove that. I, like Mags, hate no one. But, after pages and pages of your insults and threats, I have indeed decided I do not like you very much.
You can't win a technical argument by just constantly insulting the person who presents the facts. Check with LeCroy, verify that +12 volts is being applied to Q1, then decide what you think is wrong with Q1 and what corrections you feel are necessary. The 'scope is being read correctly. LeCroy will confirm this.
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 04:14:13 AM
How can it be stated that a reading taken from a 'scope capture (and quite easily proven) is a "spurious argument"?
I have always treated you with way more respect than you have shown me. There are pages and pages available to prove that. I, like Mags, hate no one. But, after pages and pages of your insults and threats, I have indeed decided I do not like you very much.
You can't win a technical argument by just constantly insulting the person who presents the facts. Check with LeCroy, verify that +12 volts is being applied to Q1, then decide what you think is wrong with Q1 and what corrections you feel are necessary. The 'scope is being read correctly. LeCroy will confirm this.
Show us a video of your apparatus. That's WAY more to the point.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Here's you go Mags.
picowatt has deliberately attempted to diminish our claim through the use of utterly spurious argument and you say I have no CAUSE? How would you like it if 10 years of hard work was then disparaged through the abysmal use of fallacious argument? That I could consider him a friend?
And here you are endorsing their own contention that we've exaggerated our claims? You say as much. 'This ... is to prove that Rose is not being truthful? ... 'or exaggerating claims'? Exactly WHERE? You've effectively joined their band wagon to claim that we lie. We do NOT lie. We can't. We're dealing with measurement and data. What they're trying to spin is that the data is erroneous. And what you're doing is buying into their spin.
And here it is...'hard on Rose'? WHAT? Hundreds of pages and thousands of allegations that I'm lunatic, stupid, unschooled, old, mendacious, fraudulent, deluded - and you say that they're 'TRYING to be hard'? That's got to be the choicest use of understatement that I've ever been exposed to.
Rosemary
Well Rose, here it is....
Pico has a very good point when it comes to that question he has been putting to you for some time now. I even understand what he is talking about but you never ever give a straight answer. Until you clearly clear that up, Im with pico on that. I know you think we are all just meat with eyes when it comes to this stuff. Thats a shame. So I suppose that the only one in the world that has the correct answers is you. Well then that means that you will disagree with everyone. So far, that is what is presented.
And this statement by me...
This here, for you guys, is to prove that Rose is not being truthful, and or exaggerating claims. Yet your post is an exaggeration also. So should you get a beat down for doing the same?
I am only stating the obvious of what I see is going on here. If you conclude that it was an endorsement, then I suggest you read it again, and also the other meat with eyes here can examine it. Please someone show me that I am endorsing as Rose claims here.
Im surprised at you Rose. Are you not better than this?
And I say here....
I know you are trying to be hard on Rose with your convictions.
That is in no way, me telling TK to be "tough " on you. You better get that clear Rose.
That is me explaining again, what I see that is going on here. can you not see that?????
Rose, after that bunch of hay you have bailed on me, now you are showing me something that I have ignored that the others are clearly saying. Is that the way you want things between you and I?
Because for me, that post was an epic fail.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:17:56 AM
Show us a video of your apparatus. That's WAY more to the point.
Rosie Pose
Always with the deflection. There is no anger at all in my post stating your AC coupling argument is silly. Anyone who knows how to read a 'scope would only agree that your argument is exactly that. You will never win with that one.
So, if YOU refuse to FAX FIG3 to LeCroy, and learn something, I suggest anyone reading this thread that may have doubts to go ahead and do so for themselves. Print out FIG3, draw an arrow to the portion of channel three's trace where it is indicating a positive voltage, and just ask what the indicated voltage is for channel three during the positive portion of the cycle. Argument ended. Easy enough. Anyone can do it. No experiments required.
LeCroy's phone and FAX numbers are available with a quick search for the office nearest you. I suggest calling first for a tech support contact to send the FAX to.
What apparatus are you referring to?
As far as that goes, if the tech support guy at LeCroy is not real busy at the time, possibly just email a link to the first paper and have him open it to FIG3. No FAX needed.
Might want to ask the same about FIG 7 while you're at it. The PDF's are nice 'cause they can be zoomed in on.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 24, 2012, 04:26:55 AM
Well Rose, here it is....
Pico has a very good point when it comes to that question he has been putting to you for some time now. I even understand what he is talking about but you never ever give a straight answer. Until you clearly clear that up, Im with pico on that. I know you think we are all just meat with eyes when it comes to this stuff. Thats a shame. So I suppose that the only one in the world that has the correct answers is you. Well then that means that you will disagree with everyone. So far, that is what is presented.
Then more's the pity Magsy if you buy into his nonsense. Every channel on the LeCroy has two optional settings. AC or DC. We're testing the voltage across the battery. We know it can only discharge a DC current. Therefore we set the channel to DC. As we're measuring the DC current as our reference from the energy to and from the battery - then we also set the channel on the shunt to DC. NOW. WHAT to do with the setting at the function generator? Does that put out an AC voltage? Or a DC voltage? What we did was set it to DC by default. It should have been set to AC.
Now. What difference does this make? The voltage shape is what it is. That is always the same. The only DIFFERENCE in the coupling is where the zero reference goes. It drifts upwards for AC and sits approximately midway between the voltage levels. On DC it simply and accurately accounts for the zero crossing.
IF you understood picowatt - then WHAT did you understand? That there's no optional coupling? Or that the coupling makes no difference to the zero crossing point? Both are wrong. And he's relying on both these IMPLICATIONS to convince you that there's 12 volts at the gate. HAD we applied the correct AC coupling - then the voltage reading would NOT have been 12 volts. It would have been nearer 6. He knows this. You clearly DON'T. He's relying on your stupidity. Frankly if I were you I'd feel insulted. The ONLY thing that is correct in that waveform is its shape. This point is one of many that are scheduled for a 10 minute video to show this in full. And when that's been aired I'd expect an apology for picowatt. FINALLY.
Rosemary
Added
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:44:57 AM
Then more's the pity Magsy if you buy into his nonsense. Every channel on the LeCroy has two optional settings. AC or DC. We're testing the voltage across the battery. We know it can only discharge a DC current. Therefore we set the channel to DC. As we're measuring the DC current as our reference from the energy to and from the battery - then we also set the channel on the shunt to DC. NOW. WHAT to do with the setting at the function generator? Does that put out an AC voltage? Or a DC voltage? What we did was set it to DC by default. It should have been set to AC.
Now. What difference does this make? The voltage shape is what it is. That is always the same. The only DIFFERENCE in the coupling is where the zero reference goes. It drifts upwards for AC and sits approximately midway between the voltage levels. On DC it simply and accurately accounts for the zero crossing.
IF you understood picowatt - then WHAT did you understand? That there's no optional coupling? Or that the coupling makes no difference to the zero crossing point? Both are wrong. And he's relying on both these IMPLICATIONS to convince you that there's 12 volts at the gate. HAD we applied the correct AC coupling - then the voltage reading would NOT have been 12 volts. It would have been nearer 6. He knows this. You clearly DON'T. He's relying on your stupidity. Frankly if I were you I'd feel insulted. The ONLY thing that is correct in that waveform is its shape.
Rosemary
Again, you are wrong. Yes, if set to AC coupling, the trace would have drifted until the area of the waveform above and below the zero line were equal. But you have now destroyed all the available absolute and DC voltage data.
On your battery trace, you can read the absolute voltage of both the DC component and the AC of the oscillation riding thereon. If you were to set the battery trace to AC, you would destroy all the DC data and only be able to read the peak to peak of the AC portion of the oscillations on the battery waveform, but you would be unable to read the absolute voltage of any portion of the battery trace. You would, for example, be unable to determine if the AC voltage dropped close to or below zero volts, because you no longer know where zero volts is. In AC coupling the trace will drift until the area above and below the zero line are equal, so you now have no idea where zero truly is.
The same goes for the FG trace. If you set it to AC coupling, you destrroy all DC and absolute voltage. You would only be able to read the peak to peak of the FG output. You would not be able to determine any absolute voltage. (yes you could do RMS measurements etc, but no absolute voltage measurements)
Again, DC coupling is correct, your AC coupling argument is a wash. Just as you should attempt to understand how FG's can sink, source, and pass current, you should learn a bit more about 'scopes.
But, even if the applied gate drive is 6 volts as you say (although +12 is correct), 6 volts should still turn on Q1.
So why is Q1 not turning on?
And guys what really troubles me is this. Picowatt knows that there are really sophisticated readers here. He also knows that those guys KNOW what I've just taken to trouble to explain. Why then does he keep harping on this point? Is he ONLY hoping to confuse the hell out of Magsy and those who really don't know these instruments? And surely? He knows this is all going to be tested under really stringent laboratory conditions. He can't get away with this spin. Yet he persists?
I'm almost inclined to think that he believes it himself. And then the confusion is compounded. Because he then wrote to LeCroy - I beieve - to ask them if that waveform was correct. No expert at LeCroy would even COMMENT without knowing what was being measured. And if any of them were advised that it represented a square voltage measurement from a function generator then they most certainly would NOT have endorsed a DC coupling. So. I think, since he claims to have written to LeCroy he should then publish their answer. Because frankly I don't even believe that he wrote to them. Or if he did he did not apply the question in context.
But what is even more troubling is that he gets away with this spin. Look how ENTIRELY Magsy 'bought in'. He didn't even explain the point. He just CLAIMED that it was INDEED a DC voltage. And we ALL of us know that the signal from the function generator is NOT DC. Is it really that easy to fool the general public? It's scarey.
Regards
Rosemary
added
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:44:57 AM
He knows this. You clearly DON'T. He's relying on your stupidity. Frankly if I were you I'd feel insulted. The ONLY thing that is correct in that waveform is its shape.
Rosemary
Insulted? Yea, Im feeling insulted. Just like everyone here has been saying. Never thought there would come the day Rose. Like Bond says, Never Say Never.
And that wasnt the question I was referring to from Pico. Its the one about the transistor being bad/shorted and the scope showing it.
Im interested in seeing what insults I will be getting next. Im going to get some sleep and wake up and take a vit B, turn on my laptop and see.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 05:06:12 AM
And guys what really troubles me is this. Picowatt knows that there are really sophisticated readers here. He also knows that those guys KNOW what I've just taken to trouble to explain. Why then does he keep harping on this point? Is he ONLY hoping to confuse the hell out of Magsy and those who really don't know these instruments? And surely? He knows this is all going to be tested under really stringent laboratory conditions. He can't get away with this spin. Yet he persists?
I'm almost inclined to think that he believes it himself. And then the confusion is compounded. Because he then wrote to LeCroy - I beieve - to ask them if that waveform was correct. No expert at LeCroy would even COMMENT without knowing what was being measured. And if any of them were advised that it represented a square voltage measurement from a function generator then they most certainly would NOT have endorsed a DC coupling. So. I think, since he claims to have written to LeCroy he should then publish their answer. Because frankly I don't even believe that he wrote to them. Or if he did he did not apply the question in context.
But what is even more troubling is that he gets away with this spin. Look how ENTIRELY Magsy 'bought in'. He didn't even explain the point. He just CLAIMED that it was INDEED a DC voltage. And we ALL of us know that the signal from the function generator is DC. Is it really that easy to fool the general public? It's scarey.
Regards
Rosemary
And those sophisticated readers know you are wrong.
Attack and insult all you wish, it wll not change the facts.
And I claimed to have phoned LeCroy, quit putting your words in my mouth.
I can verbally put together technical questions that tech type people can understand, so I only phoned and spoke with tech support over the matter.
I suggest you FAX.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 24, 2012, 05:10:19 AM
And that wasnt the question I was referring to from Pico. Its the one about the transistor being bad/shorted and the scope showing it.
Mags
The question related to the transistor being bad/shorted as you put it - is the ONLY explanation that picowatt can use because there is no other reason for the current from the battery to be prevented. Why don't you see this? It's because the voltage signal at the gate is not strong enough - not positive enough - that no current flows from the battery supply. What picowatt is relying on is that since the voltage from the signal is strong then it should enable the flow of current from the batttery supply His argument is that since there's no current then the MOSFET must have blown. Either way he's trying to INFER that there's a misrepresentation in our claim. He relies on this.
Rosemary
Why don't YOU show some due diligence and integrity and FAX LeCroy for your self and present their written reply?
If that is what it will take, I am sure someone can find the time to do this for you.
And again, even if the Q1 gate drive were 6 volts as you incorrectly state, why is Q1 not turning on?
Will you also claim that we are not reading the CSR trace correctly?
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 05:19:14 AM
Why don't YOU show some due diligence and integrity and FAX LeCroy for your self and present their written reply?
If that is what it will take, I am sure someone can find the time to do this for you.
And again, even if the Q1 gate drive were 6 volts as you incorrectly state, why is Q1 not turning on?
Will you also claim that we are not reading the CSR trace correctly?
Thank you. I see a glimmer of light. You're acknowledging that your argument is PURE NONSENSE. NOW. Take it one step further. Look at what happens when you apply the OFFSET. If you're not sure then check out TK's videos. Even he knows this He showed it. To us all. THEN. That's what's happened. The offset takes the voltage lower yet. You also SURELY are aware of this? If not then go and learn something.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 05:18:12 AM
The question related to the transistor being bad/shorted as you put it - is the ONLY explanation that picowatt can use because there is no other reason for the current from the battery to be prevented. Why don't you see this? It's because the voltage signal at the gate is not strong enough - not positive enough - that no current flows from the battery supply. What picowatt is relying on is that since the voltage from the signal is strong then it should enable the flow of current from the batttery supply His argument is that since there's no current then the MOSFET must have blown. Either way he's trying to INFER that there's a misrepresentation in our claim. He relies on this.
Rosemary
At least you have confirmed that you do understand the question. The indicated gate drive IS more than sufficient to cause Q1 to turn fully on. Yet the CSR trace does not show the current flow one would anticipate if Q1 were turned on.
So, yes, the question is why is Q1 not turning on? Q1 must either be defeective or not connected as indicated by the schematic (Q1 can't have a DS short or lots of current would flow, so if it failed, it failed open circuit).
The reason people will "buy in" as you say is because the data is staring at all in the face. The 'scope traces do not lie, and all can see from the schematic that if the gate of Q1 were to be made positive, current should flow and be indicated by the CSR trace. The 'sope says +12 volts going to the Q1 gate. Even your supposed 6 volts should turn it on more than sufficiently to show significant current flow. FIG5 only shows around 6 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and look at all that current flow as indicated by the CSR.
My dear picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 05:19:14 AM
Why don't YOU show some due diligence and integrity and FAX LeCroy for your self and present their written reply?
If that is what it will take, I am sure someone can find the time to do this for you.
And again, even if the Q1 gate drive were 6 volts as you incorrectly state, why is Q1 not turning on?
Will you also claim that we are not reading the CSR trace correctly?
Why should I go to the trouble to faxing anyone at all? To convince you? Or to convince the likes of Mags? I think what would be much more appropriate is that - before you rather recklessly and slanderously made claims as to the performance of our apparatus or to the measurements from our instruments - that you acted as a professional and CHECKED OUT THE FACTS for yourself. As it is you've been spinning these confusions and misdirections with no application of moderation or with any professional constraint. And you pretend that you're 'harmless'. You're toxic.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 05:28:59 AM
At least you have confirmed that you do understand the question. The indicated gate drive IS more than sufficient to cause Q1 to turn fully on. Yet the CSR trace does not show the current flow one would anticipate if Q1 were turned on.
So, yes, the question is why is Q1 not turning on? Q1 must either be defeective or not connected as indicated by the schematic (Q1 can't have a DS short or lots of current would flow, so if it failed, it failed open circuit).
The reason people will "buy in" as you say is because the data is staring at all in the face. The 'scope traces do not lie, and all can see from the schematic that if the gate of Q1 were to be made positive, current should flow and be indicated by the CSR trace. The 'sope says +12 volts going to the Q1 gate. Even your supposed 6 volts should turn it on more than sufficiently to show significant current flow. FIG5 only shows around 6 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and look at all that current flow as indicated by the CSR.
IT IS NOT 6 VOLTS you absurd man. It is LESS THAN 6 VOLTS. OBVIOUSLY. Else the current would flow.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 05:23:19 AM
Thank you. I see a glimmer of light. You're acknowledging that your argument is PURE NONSENSE. NOW. Take it one step further. Look at what happens when you apply the OFFSET. If you're not sure then check out TK's videos. Even he knows this He showed it. To us all. THEN. That's what's happened. The offset takes the voltage lower yet. You also SURELY are aware of this? If not then go and learn something.
Rosie Pose
There is +12 volts being indicated as gate drive to Q1. This is FACT. Easily confirmed by anyone wanting to take the time to verify this with LeCroy. There is absolutely no wiggle room, no possible argument. Anyone that can read a 'scope can plainly see this for themselves. No matter how the offset on the FG is set, the 'scope traces will always display the correct voltage, provided that the 'scope channel is is set to DC coupling.
As well, the offset numbers on the LeCroy have nothing to do with this, so don't bother to play that card again.
Q1's gate is being driven with +12 volts and it is not turning on as it should. That is just a plain undeniable fact, readily apparent to all that can read a 'scope and a schematic.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 05:29:41 AM
My dear picowattWhy should I go to the trouble to faxing anyone at all? To convince you? Or to convince the likes of Mags?
Rosie Pose
You are pushing me further and further away Rose. "the likes of Mags" ? Maybe tomorrow, I will show you the "likes of Mags"
Night and the sweetest of dreams.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 05:31:35 AM
IT IS NOT 6 VOLTS you absurd man. It is LESS THAN 6 VOLTS. OBVIOUSLY. Else the current would flow.
R
My best read of FIG5 at lots of zoom shows the gate drive to Q1 as being +5 volts. Is that not less than 6? Yet Q1 is turning on in FIG5 just as it should.
Wow, I totally missed that "why should I fax anyone?" comment.
Gee, I don't know, because as the author of a paper you promote as factual it would be due diligence and demonstrative of integrity on your part?
Just guessing...
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279934/#msg279934 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279934/#msg279934)
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg322199/#msg322199 (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg322199/#msg322199)
As you can see March 31, 2011 Rosemary reported that diagnostics on her device that was used to generate the scopeshots showed that 2 out of 5 MOSFET's had blown. So definately 1 of the 4 MOSFET's in the Q2 - Q5 array had failed, and either a second in the Q2 - Q5 array or the Q1 MOSFET had also failed.
The scopeshot FIG 3 indicates a FAILED MOSFET according to people skilled in reading oscilloscopes. The evidence points to a data set generated from failed components. This would probably be supported by the large number of additional scopeshots Rosemary has on file if they were made available to the open source community. Despite repeated requests for this raw data the request has never been acknowledged, let alone actioned.
To continue to deny that blown MOSFET's were present in the device is an outright lie, as supported by the inventor's own statement linked too above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 23, 2012, 08:54:09 PM
Dear Sean,
Why would I waste time on 'belief'? When we've got PROOF? More than 200 individual tests. More than 360 screen shots. And between 20 000 and 500 000 x 4 samples per screen shot. ALL of them measuring COP INFINITY?
Belief, opinion, conjecture, allegation, insinuation .... ALL THAT? It's only you and TK and his little gang that need such nonsense. It has NOTHING to do with science.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose
The basis of science is replication.
So far all you've offered in your "Open Source" project (a phrase you've consistently bastardized like almost every other) are screenshots and heresay.
Where are your data Rosemary? Where can the data for these tests be downloaded?
Rosemary:
QuoteNOW. WHAT to do with the setting at the function generator? Does that put out an AC voltage? Or a DC voltage? What we did was set it to DC by default. It should have been set to AC.
QuoteHAD we applied the correct AC coupling - then the voltage reading would NOT have been 12 volts. It would have been nearer 6.
I am just highlighting this example of your abysmal heart-sinking sheer stupidity. It's stupidity in this case because you have no excuse, you have been working with oscilloscopes for years.
In your fantasies about your proposition Rosemary you are "serious" and you have a "thesis" and you have an "experiment" with "measurements."
Yet the quotes above clearly show that you are just a clueless, ignorant, and stupid bungling fool without a clue what you are doing. And the reason that you are getting a hard time from me because you don't even understand AC coupling vs. DC coupling for an oscilloscope is precisely because of the pretense that you put forward that you are "serious."
Like I said before, you, and your entire proposition is an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering. You make a mockery of them and expose yourself as an incompetent fool.
You are not fooling anybody and the higher you pretend to position yourself the harder you deserve to be put back in your place. Your place is behind a table at a Grade Six science fair showing your pulsing coil and nowhere else.
And your pretense where you try to pretend experts like PW are stupid is pathetic, especially when you take in the context as outlined above.
It's just a tragicomic farce at this point in time. You are NOT ever going to rub shoulders with electrical engineering PhD's Rosemary - the best you can hope for is a pat on the head from a parent visiting your display that you made with your 12-year-old classmate. That's the level you are at - Grade Six.
You have made a complete fool of yourself and you insult and make a mockery of science and engineering. Well, science and engineering are fighting back.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 05:13:10 AM
I can verbally put together technical questions that tech type people can understand, so I only phoned and spoke with tech support over the matter.
Apparently you can't. Or you'd not have been told that there are 12 volts.
Rosie Pose
Apparently you are the only one who does not see 12 volts.
But the AC coupling thing, that was truly silly.
You should stop before you dig the hole any deeper.
Hello Evolvingape
Quote from: evolvingape on June 24, 2012, 07:55:21 AM
As you can see March 31, 2011 Rosemary reported that diagnostics on her device that was used to generate the scopeshots showed that 2 out of 5 MOSFET's had blown.
Not actually. NOTHING blew at that demonstration - other than certain constraints to our Thermodynamic Laws. And we have at least 30 people to validate this - quite apart from the evidence presented.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 24, 2012, 07:55:21 AMSo definately 1 of the 4 MOSFET's in the Q2 - Q5 array had failed, and either a second in the Q2 - Q5 array or the Q1 MOSFET had also failed.
You wish.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 24, 2012, 07:55:21 AMThe scopeshot FIG 3 indicates a FAILED MOSFET according to people skilled in reading oscilloscopes.
Are you referring to picowatt? As someone 'skilled' in reading oscilloscopes? Unfortunately his skill is only something that he alleges. While the evidence belies this. For starters - he seems to think that setting the channel to AC coupling would somehow influence all the other channels on our scope. He really needs to have a longer conversation with that EXPERT at LeCroy that he also alleges he spoke to.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 24, 2012, 07:55:21 AMThe evidence points to a data set generated from failed components. This would probably be supported by the large number of additional scopeshots Rosemary has on file if they were made available to the open source community. Despite repeated requests for this raw data the request has never been acknowledged, let alone actioned.
My data is freely available to any one in the whole wide world. It is all of it transferable from my flash drive. Send me your flash drive - I'll send you our data. No way can I make the information available otherwise. There's just WAY too much of it to include it all in this or ANY forum.
Quote from: evolvingape on June 24, 2012, 07:55:21 AMTo continue to deny that blown MOSFET's were present in the device is an outright lie, as supported by the inventor's own statement linked too above.
The only LIE is that the MOSFET's were blown. And unlike you we can PROVE that lie. It will be our first video demonstration. That's a promise. VERY easy to show this and frankly I'll enjoy doing so. You'll all be shown up for being somewhat less than competent in all that so called 'analysis' that you flaunt.
Nice to see you put in your bit here Evolving Ape. Otherwise I'd feel deprived of a decent representation of trolls. But I'm still waiting for an EFFECTIVE counter argument on any point at all. It would be a really nice change.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 09:22:37 AM
My data is freely available to any one in the whole wide world. It is all of it transferable from my flash drive. Send me your flash drive - I'll send you our data. No way can I make the information available otherwise. There's just WAY too much of it.
What size flash drive do you need and where do I send it?
ETA: And naturally I'll cover the cost of return postage. Just tell me how and where to send the money.
Most of the time with scoposcopy, the DC component of the observed signal is of interest. This would be especially true when observing the Gate drive of a MOSFET, as they are DC voltage dependent. DC coupling therefore is the coupling method of choice in MOST cases, unless for specific reasons (such as wanting to observe a small AC riding on a large DC), AC coupling is more suitable.
AC / DC Coupling on an Oscilloscope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkq-fvb5-NI
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 24, 2012, 09:26:23 AM
What size flash drive do you need and where do I send it?
ETA: And naturally I'll cover the cost of return postage. Just tell me how and where to send the money.
Email me and I'll tell you more.
Rosie Pose
Well, now we all see -- again -- why Ainslie, the liar, avoids technical discussions like the 'flu. When she does attempt to engage in them she betrays her ignorance, stupidity and arrogance, and fails miserably so must resort to insults and bloviation. She can't cite facts or external references to support her point because there are none and her points are unsupportable. Her reference to the "locked thread", which she apparently thinks we cannot read, is another lie, for she never addressed these issues properly there, either. Those threads are not only still available for reading-- unfortunately for Ainslie not for editing --- but I have also archived them in case they disappear for some reason. They are all part of the big database. The old threads from Energetic Forum are largely sanitized, since Ashtweth and Aaron and the other editors there have purged the posts that make themselves look bad.
To assert that the GATE SIGNAL TRACE on this apparatus should be AC-coupled is sheer idiocy. The only possible reason for that would be to HIDE the operating conditions of the device. IN ADDITION..... to display this gate signal, which cannot go past about +/- 15 volts under the BEST conditions with that FG, at a channel setting of FIFTY VOLTS per division is also either an attempt to hide something about the data or another expression of oscilloscope incompetency.... or both. She again betrays that she doesn't understand the AC/DC coupling functions, what they are used for, what their effects are on trace position and scope math, nor apparently does she understand the difference between AC and DC at all !!
How would Ainslie display, at proper resolution, a DC signal that was, say, a steady and unimportant 300 volts DC, but had an important 0.5 volt p-p time-varying ripple on top of it? (Why am I even asking this question? I might as well try to eat oxtail soup with a knife.)
Ainslie betrays her arrogance when she refuses to consult with LeCroy experts, just as she has refused in the past to consult with Tektronix experts, or even to read information from Agilent/HP about the workings and uses of FG offsets. She will NEVER perform any action that has the potential to prove that she is wrong, even to the point of stopping her ears and covering her eyes and spinning around humming loudly, as she's been doing for the past weeks here.
Ainslie, picowatt is under no obligation to show YOU anything, and your whining about that is ludicrous, since you haven't shown ANYTHING since your demo video that you claim you didn't even post (but we all know you did). YOU are the one making claims of extraordinary performance, so YOU have the burden of proof. If someone like me CHOOSES to refute you, you get no mileage out of demanding that they do anything more or differently. The only legitimate thing for you to do is to SHOW SOMETHING CONCRETE, like credible external references or demonstrations of your own that support your points. BUT YOU CANNOT !! So you fall back on your tried-and-true tactics of the scurrilous insult, the veiled or not-so-veiled threat, and the page after page of irrelevant arrogant bloviation.
And PW has not even reported his practical work or even alluded to it, other than to confirm that he has received his mosfets. HE IS ASKING AINSLIE ABOUT HER WORK on practical grounds, asking important questions about HER DATA and HER CLAIMS that have nothing to do with anything PW is doing on his bench or in his armchair. And, in fact, it's not even necessary to leave one's armchair at all to see for oneself that Ainslie's claims are incoherent and bogus... the only reason to bother to repeat the experiment at all is in a vain attempt to illustrate how to do it _properly_ and to try to convince Ainslie herself, and that is indeed futile and vain.
Poynty? Are you joining this bandwagon? I expected better.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Most of the time with scoposcopy, the DC component of the observed signal is of interest. This would be especially true when observing the Gate drive of a MOSFET, as they are DC voltage dependent. DC coupling therefore is the coupling method of choice in MOST cases, unless for specific reasons (such as wanting to observe a small AC riding on a large DC), AC coupling is more suitable.
AC / DC Coupling on an Oscilloscope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkq-fvb5-NI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkq-fvb5-NI)
That video link tells me that it's 'currently unavailable'. And let me know how a square wave voltage generated at the gate has a DC coupled value. it would be UNIQUE amongst square waves. Golly.
Regards
Rosie
Do you mean through this forum, or to a different address?
If you email me at
seandata (at) seani (dot) justemail (dot) net
you can send the details in the same way. I will respect the privacy of the email address you use and any address information you pass on, irrespective of the content of the email.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 09:35:43 AM
Poynty? Are you joining this bandwagon? I expected better.
That video link tells me that it's 'currently unavailable'. And let me know how a square wave voltage generated at the gate has a DC coupled value. it would be UNIQUE amongst square waves. Golly.
Regards
Rosie
This one really made me grimace.
Dig away, dig away...
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 24, 2012, 09:26:23 AM
What size flash drive do you need and where do I send it?
ETA: And naturally I'll cover the cost of return postage. Just tell me how and where to send the money.
Ainslie, computer incompetent that she is, cannot zip the data into a compressed archive and upload it to this forum's "download" section. Nor can she upload it to any of the many free filesharing sites.
It will be interesting to watch her squirm and bloviate and pretend to try to give you the data while not doing so.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 09:35:43 AM
Poynty? Are you joining this bandwagon? I expected better.
That video link tells me that it's 'currently unavailable'. And let me know how a square wave voltage generated at the gate has a DC coupled value. it would be UNIQUE amongst square waves. Golly.
Regards
Rosie
The video plays fine for me here. It's perfectly available both embedded or directly on YouTube--- to those who know how to use computers.
And the rest of that statement is just nonsense. Especially since nobody can "let Ainslie know" about anything... her mind is already made up. She cannot even allow herself to THINK about things like FGs passing current, or the real use of AC coupling on a scope, because she already KNOWS the "truth" about those things.
@TK
As someone who's spent a good chunk of the weekend tearing out my hair transferring VM's around, I'm content to give the benefit of the doubt.
I want to make it as easy as possible for RA to share the data she has committed to sharing, no strings.
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 05:57:46 AM
Wow, I totally missed that "why should I fax anyone?" comment.
Gee, I don't know, because as the author of a paper you promote as factual it would be due diligence and demonstrative of integrity on your part?
Just guessing...
You'd need to guess. You clearly have no CLUE. If you doubt our presentations then the ONUS is on you to DISPROVE them. And ALLEGING conversations with LeCroy experts won't cut it. Sadly. You'd need to show conclusive proof.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 09:46:40 AM
And the rest of that statement is just nonsense. Especially since nobody can "let Ainslie know" about anything... her mind is already made up. She cannot even allow herself to THINK about things like FGs passing current, or the real use of AC coupling on a scope, because she already KNOWS the "truth" about those things.
Exactly. I certainly do know the FACTS or the 'truth' as you and MileHigh put it.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 09:35:43 AM
Poynty? Are you joining this bandwagon? I expected better.
That video link tells me that it's 'currently unavailable'. And let me know how a square wave voltage generated at the gate has a DC coupled value. it would be UNIQUE amongst square waves. Golly.
Regards
Rosie
Rosemary, I am simply posting a link on useful information and facts on the differences between AC and DC coupling in reference to the use of an oscilloscope.
Sorry the link doesn't work for you. It works for me.
Rose, every wave form has a DC component. The DC component is "0V" when the wave form is exactly symmetrical, such as would be the case with a 50% duty cycle square wave or sine wave, and the OFFSET is also set to "0V".
If the duty cycle and/or the offset is set to anything other than 50% or 0V respectively, the wave form will exhibit a DC component.
With reference to a MOSFET Gate drive, the absolute voltage level is paramount to know. Remember that it is the Gate-to-Source voltage that determines the Drain-to-Source behaviour (ON-characteristic) of the MOSFET. The Gate-to-Source voltage is unipolar (positive for N-channel), which means the Gate drive is actually
pulsed-DC (a DC voltage that is ON and OFF), with some associated duty cycle.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 09:50:44 AM
You'd need to guess. You clearly have no CLUE. If you doubt our presentations then the ONUS is on you to DISPROVE them. And ALLEGING conversations with LeCroy experts won't cut it. Sadly. You'd need to show conclusive proof.
Rosie Pose
It has been three month's since I asked this simple question regarding Q1. You can insult and threaten all you want. It will not change the facts and the data.
Everyone with basic 'scope skills can see what the voltage applied to Q1 is during the positive portion of the cycle and that no expected current is flowing.
First you attempted to tell us we were not factoring in the LeCroy's offset numbers. Now you are sticking with this very silly AC coupling thing. Anyone with basic 'scope skills knows just how silly this is.
There is a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and FIG7, and their associated "close-ups". You arguing this point is like arguing that 1 plus 1 is not two.
Keep digging, it is your hole...
Hello MileHigh,
Quote from: MileHigh on June 24, 2012, 08:26:18 AM
I am just highlighting this example of your abysmal heart-sinking sheer stupidity. It's stupidity in this case because you have no excuse, you have been working with oscilloscopes for years.
In your fantasies about your proposition Rosemary you are "serious" and you have a "thesis" and you have an "experiment" with "measurements."
Yet the quotes above clearly show that you are just a clueless, ignorant, and stupid bungling fool without a clue what you are doing. And the reason that you are getting a hard time from me because you don't even understand AC coupling vs. DC coupling for an oscilloscope is precisely because of the pretense that you put forward that you are "serious."
Like I said before, you, and your entire proposition is an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering. You make a mockery of them and expose yourself as an incompetent fool.
You are not fooling anybody and the higher you pretend to position yourself the harder you deserve to be put back in your place. Your place is behind a table at a Grade Six science fair showing your pulsing coil and nowhere else.
And your pretense where you try to pretend experts like PW are stupid is pathetic, especially when you take in the context as outlined above.
It's just a tragicomic farce at this point in time. You are NOT ever going to rub shoulders with electrical engineering PhD's Rosemary - the best you can hope for is a pat on the head from a parent visiting your display that you made with your 12-year-old classmate. That's the level you are at - Grade Six.
You have made a complete fool of yourself and you insult and make a mockery of science and engineering. Well, science and engineering are fighting back.
I detect a certain censure here MiliHigh? Whatever next? I thought you approved of me. :o :'(
A man with a certain gift for prose
Complained when things got up his nose
Especially as they referred to those
Outrageous claims by Rosie Pose
added?
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 24, 2012, 09:47:00 AM
@TK
As someone who's spent a good chunk of the weekend tearing out my hair transferring VM's around, I'm content to give the benefit of the doubt.
I want to make it as easy as possible for RA to share the data she has committed to sharing, no strings.
I wish you luck. Keep us posted, will you, as to the progress of the negotiations.
Although, you and I both know that if it were MY data you were requesting in this manner.... you'd have it all in a couple of hours, without any possibility of loss or file corruption, and it would take either one of us about five minutes to describe how to do this transfer to any ten-year-old child with a toy laptop.
Just a few clicks and then there appears, as if by magic.... a spreadsheet.
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 24, 2012, 09:36:40 AM
Do you mean through this forum, or to a different address?
If you email me at
seandata (at) seani (dot) justemail (dot) net
you can send the details in the same way. I will respect the privacy of the email address you use and any address information you pass on, irrespective of the content of the email.
No Sean. YOU email me. My email is ainslie@mweb.co.za. I'll then give you an address where you can send your own flash drive. And then I'll upload? is that the term - or in any event - I'll transfer the information from my flash drive to yours. Then I'll ship this back to you.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 10:06:56 AM
No Sean. YOU email me. My email is ainslie@mweb.co.za. I'll then give you an address where you can send your own flash drive. And then I'll upload? is that the term - or in any event - I'll transfer the information from my flash drive to yours. Then I'll ship this back to you.
Rosie Pose
DING!
And... Round 1 goes to Ainslie.
The requester needs to go to extraordinary lengths to obtain a simple file transfer from someone who regularly loses and corrupts data, has her computers hacked into, her photobuckets rifled......
And a process that should only take a few minutes is consigned to snail mail to the antipodes, which will cover up the data for another several WEEKS, assuming that it gets sent at all.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2012, 09:58:16 AM
Rosemary, I am simply posting a link on useful information and facts on the differences between AC and DC coupling in reference to the use of an oscilloscope.
Sorry the link doesn't work for you. It works for me.
I can get no more videos that are uploaded on this forum. AT ALL. EVER. They've all been put out of reach. I guess it's some editorial comment applied by one of my fans here. There are so many of them.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2012, 09:58:16 AMRose, every wave form has a DC component. The DC component is "0V" when the wave form is exactly symmetrical, such as would be the case with a 50% duty cycle square wave or sine wave, and the OFFSET is also set to "0V".
I'm not talking about a pure square wave Poynty Point. I'm talking about the signal - however varied - as applied to those gates. They're AC. NOT DC. And the coupling is only the optional point on the LeCroy to nominate the required zero reference.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 24, 2012, 09:58:16 AMWith reference to a MOSFET Gate drive, the absolute voltage level is paramount to know. Remember that it is the Gate-to-Source voltage that determines the Drain-to-Source behaviour (ON-characteristic) of the MOSFET. The Gate-to-Source voltage is unipolar (positive for N-channel), which means the Gate drive is actually pulsed-DC (a DC voltage that is ON and OFF), with some associated duty cycle.
I don't follow this. Whatever the polarity of the signal at Q1 - it is the opposite at Q2. That's NEVER pure DC.
Regards again
Rosie
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 10:15:22 AM
DING!
And... Round 1 goes to Ainslie.
The requester needs to go to extraordinary lengths to obtain a simple file transfer from someone who regularly loses and corrupts data, has her computers hacked into, her photobuckets rifled......
And a process that should only take a few minutes is consigned to snail mail to the antipodes, which will cover up the data for another several WEEKS, assuming that it gets sent at all.
Not actually Little TK. I'm more than happy to ship it via DHL or our local PostNet. Sean can get back within a few days. He'll need to pick up that tab but he's got lots of money. He won't mind. And I'm not charging him for that data.
Rosie Pose
@RA
I'm not certain why who sends the email first is important - if anything I thought my way kept your email private - but I've sent it in any case.
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 24, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
@RA
I'm not certain why who sends the email first is important - if anything I thought my way kept your email private - but I've sent it in any case.
My dear Sean,
I have APPALLING eyesight. I very seldom read any words and just make out their sense from familiarity with their shape. If I were to try and actually read the details of your email - off that post I'd need to focus in then copy it out - and it's a rigmarole. Far easier to let you send me an email. Then I just hit the reply button. I take it you'll be sending me your email.
Regards again
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 10:22:56 AM
Not actually Little TK. I'm more than happy to ship it via DHL or our local PostNet. Sean can get back within a few days. He'll need to pick up that tab but he's got lots of money. He won't mind. And I'm not charging him for that data.
Rosie Pose
ACTUALLY, Little Miss Mosfet, you bloviating incompetent, he could have it this afternoon FOR COMPLETELY FREE if you honestly were interested in giving it to him. And those videos that I post and that .99 linked ARE NOT UPLOADED TO THIS FORUM.... they are YouTube links, and if you can't view them it is again due only to your ignorance, not some strange plot against you by evil computer hackers.
Every post that argues the AC coupling issue just digs the hole deeper.
The 'scope was set properly to make the required measurements.
Q1 is turned on (or is supposed to) when the FG applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q1. The Q1 D-S current flows thru the CSR.
Q2 is biased on when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2. The Q2 D-S bias current flows thru the FG and then to the CSR or batt- depending on how the FG is connected (i.e., the FG signal common tied to the CSR or the batt-).
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 10:29:53 AM
My dear Sean,
I have APPALLING eyesight. I very seldom read any words and just make out their sense from familiarity with their shape. If I were to try and actually read the details of your email - off that post I'd need to focus in then copy it out - and it's a rigmarole. Far easier to let you send me an email. Then I just hit the reply button. I take it you'll be sending me your email.
Regards again
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, you have appalling computer "skills". ANYONE, and EVERY BROWSER, can blow up ANY TEXT on ANY SCREEN to ANY SIZE you like. You not only have appalling eyesight you are appallingly incompetent. Do you even do your own grocery shopping? I doubt it.
My dear picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 10:32:58 AM
Every post that argues the AC coupling issue just digs the hole deeper.
The 'scope was set properly to make the required measurements.
Q1 is turned on (or is supposed to) when the FG applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q1. The Q1 D-S current flows thru the CSR.
Q2 is biased on when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2. The Q2 D-S bias current flows thru the FG.
How I know that you're an utterly incompetent and rather reckless contributor to this and any thread at all - is because you're claiming something that we are well able to DISPROVE. And we shall do so. I am looking forward to the certain destruction of your gross misrepresentations especially as they relate to your claimed competence to comment on any level at all.
Rosie Pose
@RA
understood.
yes, ive already sent an email to your address
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 10:34:54 AM
Ainslie, you have appalling computer "skills". ANYONE, and EVERY BROWSER, can blow up ANY TEXT on ANY SCREEN to ANY SIZE you like. You not only have appalling eyesight you are appallingly incompetent. Do you even do your own grocery shopping? I doubt it.
Don't try and advise me how to find my way around a computer. Little TK. I do PRECISELY what is required. I suggest that my method of coping with myopia is best settled by me. They're my eyes - after all.
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, you are the incompetent idiot. You don't even read, you just look at shapes. What a fool you are.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 10:39:50 AM
Don't try and advise me how to find my way around a computer. Little TK. I do PRECISELY what is required. I suggest that my method of coping with myopia is best settled by me. They're my eyes - after all.
Rosie Pose
I suggest that you are an incompetent fool, blindered by your own arrogance. Not only that... I PROVE IT. Or rather, I allow you to prove it, over and over again.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 10:37:06 AM
My dear picowatt
How I know that you're an utterly incompetent and rather reckless contributor to this and any thread at all - is because you're claiming something that we are well able to DISPROVE. And we shall do so. I am looking forward to the certain destruction of your gross misrepresentations especially as they relate to your claimed competence to comment on any level at all.
Rosie Pose
There is no way that while using the same DC coupled 'scope settings and identical gate drive waveforms, that a functioning Q1 can be connected as per the schematic and not show significant current flow via the CSR. Can't be done. No one can do it. Not possible. You should be considering how you are going to deal with this very real issue, instead of arguing that it does not exist.
Applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 MUST turn it on unless Q1 is defective or not connected as per your schematic.
So keep up with the insults, your skills at doing so are way better than mine, you are indeed an expert at that.
But, it will not change the facts in evidence.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 10:32:28 AM
ACTUALLY, Little Miss Mosfet, you bloviating incompetent, he could have it this afternoon FOR COMPLETELY FREE if you honestly were interested in giving it to him. And those videos that I post and that .99 linked ARE NOT UPLOADED TO THIS FORUM.... they are YouTube links, and if you can't view them it is again due only to your ignorance, not some strange plot against you by evil computer hackers.
My dear little TK.
Every time I think that you've gone as low as is possible - you surprise me with yet a new bench mark. Amazing. A troll with an infinite lack of common decency and an equally ENORMOUS lack of any conscience at all. It beggars the mind. Both the extent of that lack and the fact these these boundless reaches are measuring nothing. It seems that our little technology is exposing negative properties in the vacuum - all over the place.
Not sure what new 'interference' has taken place. But I'm absolutely NOT able to open any links to any videos at all. Not that I mind. The good news is that I'm spared the task of ever looking at your 'so called' work. LOL. Always small mercies.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 10:45:54 AM
There is no way that while using the same DC coupled 'scope settings and identical gate drive waveforms, that a functioning Q1 can be connected as per the schematic and not show significant current flow via the CSR. Can't be done. No one can do it. Not possible. You should be considering how you are going to deal with this very real issue, instead of arguing that it does not exist.
Applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 MUST turn it on unless Q1 is defective or not connected as per your schematic.
So keep up with the insults, your skills at doing so are way better than mine, you are indeed an expert at that.
But, it will not change the facts in evidence.
It most certainly WILL. I promise you that. On all that I hold holy. We've already got those screenshots downloaded. Now I've got to show you the difference in the chosen coupling.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 10:53:55 AM
It most certainly WILL. I promise you that. On all that I hold holy. We've already got those screenshots downloaded. Now I've got to show you the difference in the chosen coupling.
Rosie Pose
Read my post more slowly, of cousrs the values will "look" different in AC coupling, and as well, they will be totally meaningless. You would know this if you understood AC/DC coupling. Possibly you do know this and plan to show us all some wonderful AC coupled FG waveforms wherein the positive peak of the FG trace has drifted closer to the zero ref. That, of course, would be outright fraud and an attempt to cover-up data. (Which anyone with even modest 'scope skills will see right thru)
The FIG3 screen capture cannot be duplicated with identical 'scope settings (DC coupled!) and an identical FG waveform with a functioning Q1 connected as per your schematic.
This new tack of yours does not change the facts in evidence.
In FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approx. +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. All will surely agree that +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace however, during this same portion of the cycle, indicates no significant current as would be expected if Q1 were turned on.
As well, FIG7 indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again, no significant current flow is indicated by the CSR trace.
Q1 must, therefore, be defective or not connected as per the schematic in the tests those figures represent.
There is no arguing these points. All the data required to support these facts are readily available in your schematic and 'scope captures.
Anyway Guys,
I've completed a marathon of my own since 2.00 am this morning. Right now I intend enjoying a pleasant evening with some pleasant people.
TK - at the risk of lapsing into the vernacular - 'DO YOUR DAMNEDEST'. To picowatt - INTERESTING to see that you're qualifying those reckless claims of yours. Magsy - sorry to see you're so easily DUPED. To Sean - I'll deal with your email either later tonight - or tomorrow. And to our readers - I suspect this has been reasonably entertaining. But just wait for our 'live screening'. That'll keep you RIVETED. And poor little TK will implode with all that pent up malice. I've got a sneaking suspicion that they're all rather anxious to deny our claims.
LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 11:16:09 AM
any Guys,
I've completed a marathon of my own since 2.00 am this morning. Right now I intend enjoying a pleasant evening with some pleasant people.
TK - at the risk of lapsing into the vernacular - 'DO YOUR DAMNEDEST'. To picowatt - INTERESTING to see that you're qualifying those reckless claims of yours. Magsy - sorry to see you're so easily DUPED. And to our readers - I suspect this has been reasonably entertaining. But just wait for our 'live screening'. That'll keep you RIVETED. And poor little TK will implode with all that pent up malice.
LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosie
They are very far from reckless claims. And my only "qualification" is that the 'scope be used properly.
@Picowatt: You asked about Groundloop's H-bridge circuit. There have been several; some years ago he and Gotoluc and I were playing with some of his circuits and effects produced by resonating coil/cap arrangements. The one used in my "resonance effects for everyone" videos on YT is a proper mosfet H-bridge using actual mosfet driver chips and works very well at usable frequencies (tabletop sized 1/4 wave resonators). I don't have that unit available to me right now, it's at the other undisclosed location, unfortunately. The schematic for that one is on an ancient thread here somewhere; perhaps Groundloop is reading and remembers it and will post it; I don't have it in this computer at all.
The H-bridge circuit that blew the Darlington so spectacularly a couple days ago is something different... and I can't really recall who sent it to me. It could have been Groundloop or Gotoluc or another person with whom I was corresponding at that time. I am really sorry, I apologise for not recalling the person who was so kind as to send me the printed circuit board and a pre-programmed PIC for it. This one is optoisolated, driving the Darlingtons directly from the opto outputs, and uses the plc and a crystal oscillator for pulse shape control, and is clocked by an external FG input. I finally got around to building it up. I delayed for so long because the specified Darlingtons are the pricey MJH11022. But now I've just built it to play around with using TIP122s. I also don't have the schematic for this one, but the output side is dead simple: just pulldown resistors and the direct output from the optoisolators driving the Darlington H-Bridge, no caps or inductors, and it tops out at a couple hundred kHz... too slow for small TC use unfortunately.
I wish I could remember who sent this to me, I've learned a lot from it and I'd like to thank them again for sending it along. If it was GL, Thanks! And if it was someone else... please let me know, and forgive me for being so tardy in building up the board. I've moved locations several times since it was sent to me...
And finally, the Class E sstc that I'm tuning uses a single mosfet as an RF amplifier and is more similar to Ainslie's circuit than to anything else -- even in its use of feedback oscillations. Just as when I was working with the COP>17 circuit, I find that it's better and more interesting to switch mosfets PROPERLY and use them to make really INTERESTING effects. I started developing the TinselKoil circuitry and resonator when I got bored with Ainslie's BS the last time.
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 10:45:54 AM
There is no way that while using the same DC coupled 'scope settings and identical gate drive waveforms, that a functioning Q1 can be connected as per the schematic and not show significant current flow via the CSR. Can't be done. No one can do it. Not possible. You should be considering how you are going to deal with this very real issue, instead of arguing that it does not exist.
Applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 MUST turn it on unless Q1 is defective or not connected as per your schematic.
So keep up with the insults, your skills at doing so are way better than mine, you are indeed an expert at that.
But, it will not change the facts in evidence.
I have been suspecting for some time that we are not being told the truth about the actual schematic used for some of the trials. Certainly there have been many versions CLAIMED to be used, and certainly Ainslie has lied about and covered up changes and errors in the schematic used before this. Her continued smugness about mosfet heating and about this current issue might possibly be explained by the use of a different schematic than the one we are being told was used.
Recall that in the "original" version of the manuscripts, there was a subtle but highly significant difference between the two schematics given.
Also you will recall that there was a considerable degree of prevarication around the VIDEO DEMO, which claimed to use one schematic, attempted to use another, and actually used a third one, and then was claimed to use a fourth one. 1: single mosfet diagram shown. 2: 5 in parallel was attempted. 3. The miswiring mistake... but FG connected to common ground. 4. The representation of the experiment with the FG on the transistor side of the CVR instead of common ground.
At this point there is absolutely no telling what Ainslie is hiding and I have long suspected that she is concealing the true schematic used for some of the tests.
TK,
I never was much of a fan regarding Darlingtons, particularly at HF. Many of them tend to be a bit slow turning off.
You have some really cool stuff there!
Have you attempted to look at the gate drive whle the circuit is in operation? Are you showing a consistently clamped gate drive signal?
PW
@PW:
Six volts input to the ClassE driver board, about 1.3 amps, system resonating at around 330 kHz or so (varies according to environment and load, but the feedback loop keeps the thing in resonance). My primary is too closely coupled; I can get the power draw down quite a bit I think by looser coupling. Once it's working properly I'll push the input voltage up to rectified line.....
8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 11:56:23 AM
@PW:
Six volts input to the ClassE driver board, about 1.3 amps, system resonating at around 330 kHz or so (varies according to environment and load, but the feedback loop keeps the thing in resonance). My primary is too closely coupled; I can get the power draw down quite a bit I think by looser coupling. Once it's working properly I'll push the input voltage up to rectified line.....
8)
TK,
I would think you would want a nice clean square wave driving the gate, unless you are attempting to operate in a "linear" mode, which it sounds like you are not. If there is anything close to a sine/triangle at the gate (slow rise/rise fall waveform), I would think MOSFET dissipation would be a bit high, and the overall efficiency low.
I wonder if a driver/comparator between the loop and gate would not be adviseable.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 12:20:12 PM
I wonder if a driver/comparator between the loop and gate would not be adviseable.
PW
It's a good idea, and some autoresonator SSTCs that I've seen just use a cmos inverter or Schmitt trigger chip with simply a short little antenna on one of the gate inputs to pick up the feedback signal, that's then cleaned up and squared off by passing through a couple more stages then passed to the mosfet drivers. A square drive will give the best dI/dt and the best induced voltage in the secondary, and you know I don't want to be in the linear region. But a good ClassE performance will have the mosfet switching at or near zero voltage and so will minimize the losses in the mosfet itself, even if the rise and fall times are a bit longer, I think. So far this one is staying cool, even at 2 amps draw so I think I'm getting close. Removing a turn from the primary and loosening up the coupling a bit might get me right there.
I think the person that designed this circuit has gone on to bigger and better systems like PLL control. I like this one for its bare simplicity. If the ClassE waveform can be gotten precise, then there will still be plenty of voltage for corona effects when I boost the input and the mosfet should survive long runtimes. I'd like to be able to run it with good corona from a battery supply.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 11:24:48 AM
@Picowatt: You asked about Groundloop's H-bridge circuit. There have been several; some years ago he and Gotoluc and I were playing with some of his circuits and effects produced by resonating coil/cap arrangements. The one used in my "resonance effects for everyone" videos on YT is a proper mosfet H-bridge using actual mosfet driver chips and works very well at usable frequencies (tabletop sized 1/4 wave resonators). I don't have that unit available to me right now, it's at the other undisclosed location, unfortunately. The schematic for that one is on an ancient thread here somewhere; perhaps Groundloop is reading and remembers it and will post it; I don't have it in this computer at all.
The H-bridge circuit that blew the Darlington so spectacularly a couple days ago is something different... and I can't really recall who sent it to me. It could have been Groundloop or Gotoluc or another person with whom I was corresponding at that time. I am really sorry, I apologise for not recalling the person who was so kind as to send me the printed circuit board and a pre-programmed PIC for it. This one is optoisolated, driving the Darlingtons directly from the opto outputs, and uses the plc and a crystal oscillator for pulse shape control, and is clocked by an external FG input. I finally got around to building it up. I delayed for so long because the specified Darlingtons are the pricey MJH11022. But now I've just built it to play around with using TIP122s. I also don't have the schematic for this one, but the output side is dead simple: just pulldown resistors and the direct output from the optoisolators driving the Darlington H-Bridge, no caps or inductors, and it tops out at a couple hundred kHz... too slow for small TC use unfortunately.
I wish I could remember who sent this to me, I've learned a lot from it and I'd like to thank them again for sending it along. If it was GL, Thanks! And if it was someone else... please let me know, and forgive me for being so tardy in building up the board. I've moved locations several times since it was sent to me...
And finally, the Class E sstc that I'm tuning uses a single mosfet as an RF amplifier and is more similar to Ainslie's circuit than to anything else -- even in its use of feedback oscillations. Just as when I was working with the COP>17 circuit, I find that it's better and more interesting to switch mosfets PROPERLY and use them to make really INTERESTING effects. I started developing the TinselKoil circuitry and resonator when I got bored with Ainslie's BS the last time.
TK,
Yes, I remember this circuit. I made it back in 2008, I believe. And I did send out some few PCB's and PIC16F84A mcu's
and I did send you one also. I did search my backup and could not find the design files or the mcu firmware anymore.
But I did find a couple of images. I'm sure I did post the design and firmware on this forum back then. If I remember correct,
then the design was an attempt to build a high voltage h-bridge.
GL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 09:22:37 AM
My data is freely available to any one in the whole wide world. It is all of it transferable from my flash drive. Send me your flash drive - I'll send you our data. No way can I make the information available otherwise. There's just WAY too much of it to include it all in this or ANY forum.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary your such a damn liar and whats that brown smelly stuff all over your face ? Do you need some scissors to cut a hole in your knickers so you can see again ??
So now Rosemary explain how does this
"MAGICAL" file of my entire COP>17 device testing and evaluation
"EXIST" ??
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=6B7817C40BB20460!120 ???
Oh Ya ..... look at the
"copyright" note on the file named
"Glens Tests - 001" with a US Copyright Office Registration Number
TXu 1-804-221 ( some of these images might also appear in a Scribd document ) :P
FTC
::)
The ClassE coil has some interesting characteristics. It's got that 5-turn primary, made of 14-ga solid copper house wiring. If I put the scope probe on the drain side terminal of it I see the signal in great detail. If I put the probe on the other terminal I see almost nothing. Also, the phasing of the primary, the secondary and the feedback loop is critical. So that means out of 4 possibilities only one set of combinations will work properly.
@Groundloop:
Yes! That's the one, of course, and I just managed to build it up last week, finally, after moving twice and carefully preserving it and the controller chip. I haven't been able to test it yet at higher voltages because I used the less powerful TIP122, but I've now ordered some of the MJH11022 Darlingtons from that same slow boat that PW must use for his parts. Singapore, I think they are coming from. The one TIP122 I blew was from driving a big aircore solenoid coil; I was trying to levitate some aluminum. (All 4 failed but only the one actually exploded.... darn, it would have been great if they all 4 went at once. Use MORE POWER next time, Igor !!)
Again, I thank you for the gift and apologise for not reporting on its operation before. It works quite well in the frequency range of design and makes a good squarewave, and it really looks cool too.
Could you please mention the software you used to lay out the board, and also tell us where you had them made? Thanks.....
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 01:34:32 PM
@Groundloop:
Yes! That's the one, of course, and I just managed to build it up last week, finally, after moving twice and carefully preserving it and the controller chip. I haven't been able to test it yet at higher voltages because I used the less powerful TIP122, but I've now ordered some of the MJH11022 Darlingtons from that same slow boat that PW must use for his parts. Singapore, I think they are coming from. The one TIP122 I blew was from driving a big aircore solenoid coil; I was trying to levitate some aluminum. (All 4 failed but only the one actually exploded.... darn, it would have been great if they all 4 went at once. Use MORE POWER next time, Igor !!)
Again, I thank you for the gift and apologise for not reporting on its operation before. It works quite well in the frequency range of design and makes a good squarewave, and it really looks cool too.
Could you please mention the software you used to lay out the board, and also tell us where you had them made? Thanks.....
TK,
I use Eagle CAD for my designs. The PCB are made in China (and sometimes Taiwan). Usually it takes 4 days when I order the PCBs.
The Eagle CAD can be downloaded for free (some limitations in the free version compared to bought version) from here:
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/download-eagle/
I use MPLAB for making firmware to PIC micro controllers:
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=1406&dDocName=en019469&part=SW007002
GL.
@FTC:
That's right, in this modern world it is simplicity itself to upload and link to large files, using one of many free or subscription file-sharing sites.
Of course...... it requires a little bit of knowledge, some patience, and most of all..... it requires that one has the files in the first place and is truly willing to share them with other people working on this "open source" project.
TK,
I just found the design files and firmware for the h-bridge.
I also found that it is not recommended to use darlington transistors in the switch.
The switch will work better with HEXFETS instead. When using HEXFETS then
you will need to solder a resistor from gate to source on each transistor.
This can be done on the underside of the PCB. I recommend a 1K to 330R resistor.
GL.
@GL:
Ah, yes. The resistors on the drive side on the board aren't pulldowns like I thought, they are base current limiters. So when mosfets are used instead they will need the gate pulldowns that you mention.
I had noticed that the pinouts would be compatible with mosfets. I'll try it with something like IRFP450 and see what happens.
Thanks !!
--TK
ETA: I'll just put the pulldowns into the transistor pin sockets I make from the blue terminal blocks, along with the transistor pins. This way I can use Darlingtons or Mosfets or whatever, without soldering.
@ all
Rosemary has some heavy weight competition on postings .... her new personal forum has become a pharmacy now selling drugs .... ;D
FTC
::)
ADDED - At least Rosemary is finally getting "NEW" members ......and busy ones also ;)
That is so sad it's funny.
I wonder how long it will take for them to start blaming spambots on the sophisticated hackers of the TKNetworkAnonymous.
It's still going on as I type this ! In the past few minutes it's gone from 1400 new threads started by spambots to 1410 and climbing, and the only "members" logged on are the spambots !!
(Oh.... .99, thanks for correcting Ahern's math. I wonder if it will sink in that even his Manela test probably didn't come close to using up the batteries.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 10:24:43 PM
That is so sad it's funny.
That comment pretty much sums up all of Rosemary's work including the schematics and her "paper" at http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/. As for all the drugs listed in the spam postings on R.A.'s forum, they would go a long way in explaining how such a paper came into existence.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 24, 2012, 10:24:43 PM
That is so sad it's funny.
I wonder how long it will take for them to start blaming spambots on the sophisticated hackers of the TKNetworkAnonymous.
It's still going on as I type this ! In the past few minutes it's gone from 1400 new threads started by spambots to 1410 and climbing, and the only "members" logged on are the spambots !!
@TK
Hummm ....
Well there isn't any rules or
"Terms of Service" (TOS) associated with Rosemary's forum .... but there is a
"WELCOME" for all to post, other than a posting here of a pre-ban membership for yourself and me. It would be my opinion that without a TOS that anything posted would be alright with that administration. Just for example
"G" the administrator and the moderator
"chessnyt" have allowed all those postings there, so it must be alright. ::)
Pretty
"LOOSE" on their posting rules from what it appears. :o
FTC
;)
Well, I'm not happy to see anything defaced, so I hope they get it all sorted quickly. I really want to see what Ahern says about .99's correction to the battery capacity calculation.
But you know... this could give them a good excuse to wipe the forum and start over....
:(
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
...
As I said. This thread is disgusting.
Regards
Rosemary
Aye, it seems to have gone far afield of where it might have
gone. Astray too. Very toxic.
Nonetheless, it is very revealing.
You're holding up well Rosie!
SeaMonkey:
None of this rancor is remotely as disgusting or as toxic as your political views.
And the truth is that Rosie is not holding up well at all. Her proposition is in a complete shambles because she cannot even deal with basic facts like the current flow in her circuit or the MOSFET problem and a myriad of other issues and problems. She is consciously lying when she tries to allege that PW doesn't know what he is talking about and she doesn't understand how and when to use AC or DC coupling on an oscilloscope. She is unable to make power and energy calculations.
So we are not having a bullshit festival here and you yourself are fully aware how miserably Rosie is holding up. In my opinion your comments are just you rooting for the underdog for the sake of doing it without any rhyme or reason. You are just saying it to make yourself feel good.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh
SeaMonkey:
None of this rancor is remotely as disgusting or as toxic as your political views.
Greetings MileHigh! It's always titillating to read your pronouncements.
Frankly, I avoid politics entirely. It is far too corrupted and money driven
to devote any time to that high strangeness.
Quote from: MileHighAnd the truth is that Rosie is not holding up well at all. Her proposition is in a complete shambles because she cannot even deal with basic facts like the current flow in her circuit or the MOSFET problem and a myriad of other issues and problems. She is consciously lying when she tries to allege that PW doesn't know what he is talking about and she doesn't understand how and when to use AC or DC coupling on an oscilloscope. She is unable to make power and energy calculations.
I haven't had the pleasure of meeting Rosie personally so I can't offer
any opinion one way or the other. I am greatly impressed with the manner
in which she communicates though. Her spirit and wit are admirable. I
also get the impression that she has a tender heart and is a good judge
of character. She comes across as a very likable person with excellent
social skills and a wonderful vocabulary. Exemplary.
Quote from: MileHighSo we are not having a bullshit festival here and you yourself are fully aware how miserably Rosie is holding up. In my opinion your comments are just you rooting for the underdog for the sake of doing it without any rhyme or reason. You are just saying it to make yourself feel good.
MileHigh
There are both rhyme and reason but apparently you're not able to
discern. I don't see Rosie as the "underdog" at all. She is clearly
coming from a superior position.
I do have a sudden urge to make myself feel good - thankfully there
is a good supply of cold beer in the 'fridge.
Ta ta. It is truly good to see you again.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2012, 12:35:00 AM
Well, I'm not happy to see anything defaced, so I hope they get it all sorted quickly. I really want to see what Ahern says about .99's correction to the battery capacity calculation.
But you know... this could give them a good excuse to wipe the forum and start over....
:(
Well if this isn't really odd that both chessnyt ( moderator ) and Rosemary ( owner ) showed up hours ago at her forum and didn't
"BAN" or do a thing to those new members AccokyPhync or Skymbopmepjem with their 2000 + ( two thousand ) drug sales postings. :o
The largest and most active web site that tracks these types of postings called http://www.stopforumspam.com/ doesn't list AccokyPhync or Skymbopmepjem in their data base at all. ???
With as many postings that was done on the
"SMF" forum software that was used each posting will have to be all deleted individually which will take a lot of time now maybe a day or two minimum. If the forum software was
"vBulletin" a member group posting delete could be done wiping all the posts off at one time which would only take the time for the server to delete them. ::)
This is possibly being done on
purpose and not for a excuse as you suggest to purge Rosemary's new forum because of all the errors already exposed again and the total lack of interest of the information at her new forum and Rossi's
BLOG site ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ ) where Rosemary has claimed that her posted papers have been vetted and now been blog published not somewhere thats accredited or the largest similar to Scribd. ???
These members named AccokyPhync and Skymbopmepjem must be Rosemary's plants allowed to do what their doing to disrupt and destroy the forum especially now with 2000 + postings. ::)
FTC
???
What a example of being asleep at the wheel and showing their inexperience in managing or owning a forum.
After 82 pages of SPAM it's stopped for the moment but the spammers are going to show up in the masses now.
The first new member "Rleriebak" check him out in a SEARCH at http://www.stopforumspam.com/ ???
There's no Terms of Service at that forum .... and no freedom of speech either for experimentalist just spammers. ::)
FTC
;)
Take a look at these three scope shots. I'm sorry I can't find any higher resolution versions of them. Perhaps Ainslie can post better versions... perhaps not. Then there is a fourth one, discussed further below.
These are taken from her blog post # 84:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/84-10-days-to-go-and-yet-more-surprises.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/84-10-days-to-go-and-yet-more-surprises.html)
All taken on 2011/03/02.
SCRN0253:
Time 07:54
Mean Battery Voltage 73.8 V
Gate HI voltage ~12 V
Gate HI current (from CVR trace) 0 A
Gate HI on times ~ 18 seconds each period
SCRN0254:
Time 08:10
Mean Battery Voltage 73.7 V
Gate HI voltage ~12 V
Gate HI current (from CVR trace) 0 A
Gate HI on times ~ 18 seconds each period
SCRN0255 (oscillations magnified):
Time 08:13
Mean Battery Voltage 73.3 V
Gate LO voltage ~ -5 V
Some points to ponder:
1. The mean battery voltage has dropped by 0.5 volt over the twenty minutes of the trial. Yet Ainslie continues to claim "no measurable change in potential difference" or however she puts it in her prevarications. The battery voltage drops, indicating.... what, now? Normally, a drop in the mean battery voltage over the period of an experiment... especially a large battery.... would indicate, to most researchers, that the BATTERY VOLTAGE IS DROPPING. Duh. Hence the battery is discharging, as shown by the Ainslie data, in contrast to the Ainslie claims. Once again, the data refute her claims.
2. The Full 72 volt nominal battery pack was used, with a long.... long.... on time. High heat was claimed to be produced. By the time the scope shots were recorded, no current is flowing through the Q1 mosfet. This cannot possibly happen IF the circuit is wired as we are told and if the mosfet is functional, since the Gate signal during those 18 second periods is STRAIGHT DC AT + 12 VOLTS. The combination of the high battery voltage and the total circuit resistance of under 14 Ohms during Gate HI periods indicates that something over 5 Amperes SHOULD be flowing through the Q1 mosfet..... which of course would cause it to fail fairly quickly but not immediately, considering its tiny heatsink and inadequate mounting... IF the circuit is what we have been shown and told it is.
The next real data from Ainslie in the blog is the posting of the Video Demo (the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" video) in her blog on March 22, 2011, some three weeks later. Some of the intervening period was spent writing up some of the trials as "experiments".
As we all know by now, for the High Heat demo in the video, BATTERIES WERE REMOVED and only 48 volts was used to demonstrate the long ON time, GATE HI, high heat mode. This brings the mosfet current down to about 3.5 Amps, which would allow it to survive, given that it is allowed to cool off during the gate LO periods.
The forum posts in the locked thread, between March 2 and March 22 are very interesting. These are happening, of course, while people are still believing that 5 mosfets are in strict parallel and there is nothing special about a Q1. The Q1-Q2 wiring error wasn't discovered BY THE PUBLIC -- thanks to .99's careful observations and analysis-- until ALMOST A MONTH AFTER the video was released on March 22.
The posts between those days are very interesting to read. Evolvingape has some extremely well-thought out and well-stated comments in there; Mark Dansie asks about running on Capacitors and everyone agrees this would be a good idea... except YKW..... there is no mention anywhere of why one might remove batteries for the demonstration of High Heat in the video..... except for this post here:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/105/ (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/105/)
QuoteI should add this. We have very high temperatures when we're in that 'booster' mode - and I suspect that we're then getting some kind of wattage reconciliation. But the heat is that extreme and it rises that fast that we've not even managed to do a data dump. Everything then becomes critical and we barely get the time to check that the voltage levels are still compatible with the DSO's. Then, indeed - we're possibly getting something that correlates with our measurements. But then too, we're talking really high wattage values. Well in excess of the 44 watt tolerance that we know we can test - safely. The urgency then is to disconnect. Fast. It's really quick and really hot.
And a bit later this (note the "set fire to sundry components" bit):
QuoteIt is a complete waste of time testing those small wattage values as this does not show depletion on that large stack of batteries. It may make sense to test those higher wattages. But here there's a problem. There is clear evidence that the system is trying to output more energy than is determined by the setting at the gate. It has OFTEN defaulted that the gate setting seems to slip higher and - in moments - we're in a crisis. I have - in the past - set fire to sundry components. Therefore to test this to duration would take time. Whole days and nights of it. And someone would need to be there to monitor that accidental 'rise' in output which - most assuredly - would be hazardous. There simply was not the personnel available on this kind of test basis. It was simply a 'no go' criteria for testing.
And finally, on the 19th, she reports that Tektronix have pulled their scope back, as reported in more detail by FTC (very interesting reading) and that soon the LeCroy must be returned, so she cannot do any more testing.
She is asked for higher resolution versions of some scopeshots and presents these (some of which I didn't include in SCRN.zip yet) in this forum post:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278651/#msg278651 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278651/#msg278651)
Note the dates and times and gate traces and current traces. The top four shots are from March 2, and show a +12 volt gate HI pulse but no current in the CVR. The bottom two are from Feb 22 and DO show current in the CVR during gate HI periods--- but are using much higher frequencies.
Next consider SCRN0243 and SCRN0244 from Feb 24. The 0243 is very interesting.... I've attached it below. Look at the gate signal. Even at the high frequencies used, the FG should not sag like this, and of course no current flow is shown. Is the mosfet partially shorted gate-to-source?
Then there is a day or two of discussion about why .99's sim results cannot duplicate Ainslie's scope traces or what's shown in the video... then she posts SCRN0227 (A meaningless comb) and SCRN0235, both from Feb 22 again, with substantial current flow clearly shown in 0235.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279127/#msg279127 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279127/#msg279127)
Then a bit later she posts SCRN0150, showing only a 48 volt battery pack and STRONG current during gate HI on times.
All this posting is happening BEFORE the "mistake" separating Q1 and Q2 is discovered, but AFTER the video demo.
Ainslie reports replacing two mosfets here, on April 7:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg280715/#msg280715 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg280715/#msg280715)
And it is not until APRIL 19 -- after nearly a month of bloviation on Ainslie's part, and spurious explanations and meaningless scopeshots that .99 finally discovers and explains the VERY SIGNIFICANT difference between what is ACTUALLY SHOWN AND USED, and what Ainslie has been leading people to believe.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094)
The ramifications have still not sunk in completely. But I encourage readers to go back and read the posts from the posting of the video on March 22 through the discovery by .99 of the wiring "mistake".
"Well, this is terribly embarrassing...." --- the understatement of the century.
Bottom line --- blown mosfets due to high heat, prevarication and mendacity on Ainslie's part, and her OWN DATA refute her claims of "no measurable loss of battery potential" over and over again.
My replacement NOS Motorola transistors for the F43 just arrived from Singapore, so I'll be off line for the afternoon while installing and testing.
:)
I am happy to announce that the Mighty Interstate F43 High-Voltage Function Generator is fully repaired and checks out 100 percent on the bench, after replacing all 4 of its final output transistors. Better than 100 percent, actually, since it seems to have a bit more "oomph" now than before. It's burning in now, back in its accustomed position next to its partner the HP180a oscilloscope.
@pw: I did use the 60 volt MPSU05 which was all the Singapore vendor had in stock. I'll put the 80 volt MPSU06s in when I get them, but for now all is copacetic.
I am pleased with this vendor. The order went along without a hitch, if a bit slow, since it came via registered mail from Singapore. Order was painless, I got the right parts for cheaper than anywhere else, they have a huge stock and selection, they ship registered mail, no minimum quantity, 10 dollar minimum order, the package came with all kinds of official looking quality assurance stamps on it.... a happy experience overall. I endorse this vendor and will be using them again, immediately.
http://www.utsource.net/
TK:
Didn't I predict that it would be the output transistors? What the hey?!
Was it due to that NERD negative oscillation mode? Damn! Damn! Damn! (In a Charlton Heston kind of way.)
Okay back to kicking some NERD butt!
MileHigh
TK,
Congrats on getting the F43 back together, and working!
I'm a little nervous about the '05. We'd like to think a 60 volt specified part can handle at least that and a bit more, so hopefully you'll be OK. You might not want to get too carried away with "wierd" stuff applied at the output while operating the F43 at close to its rail to rail output swing till you get the other parts. But again, congrats, glad to see she's up and running!
That previous post of yours regarding the "drama" is really something. After reading a few of the pages you linked to, about all I can do is shake my head.
It seems like arguing with people that may actually know a few things is SOP. Don't answer questions, just argue that the person asking the question isn't qualified to ask the question.
That "wierd" waveform you posted looks like the gate drive is cap coupled. Possibly Rgen was cooked open. Possibly a clip lead or 'scope probe wasn't making contact. Who knows? After reading your links, I am not sure we can look at any waveforms and know, with complete confidence, what the schematic is for a given capture.
If we only look at what's in the papers, FIG 5 is the only capture that looks as it should if the schematic in the first paper is referenced, and that was from 2-11 I believe.
It seems this whole affair has quite the history...
PW
TK,
I would still consider adding the diodes we discussed to the F43. They may already be in there somewhere, but without the schematic, who knows. Adding a pair will hurt nothing and maybe save the outputs someday. Give it some consideration.
PW
@pw: thanks for your advice re the F43: I'll be taking it, don't worry. I'm going to wait until a schematic arrives before I put diode inside, but if I use it on an operating Tesla coil again I'll use external protections. And the 80 volt transistors will go in as soon as they arrive. Meanwhile it's fine for the Ainslie/Tar Baby stuff and for tuning non-operating coil sets. I have an interesting new wireless power transmission project that I'm working on right now, using irfz44n mosfets in a high-power RF oscillator that will have very good transmission efficiency in the near field. And I've picked up a handful of irfp450s for the groundloop H-bridge and the ClassE sstc.
As far as the NERD circuit and the schematics...
Well. Ainslie has even admitted (? or claimed ?) that she knew about the Q1-Q2 separation before .99 pointed it out, and withheld the information for some reason or another. If this is true.... that she knew that the 5 were not in strict parallel before April 19 when .99 posted the real schematic description of what was in the video.....and carried on all that discussion during the month between the demo and the discovery.... well.
If she DID know and withheld the info, that's one thing.
And if she DIDN'T know and didn't find out until .99 showed her... yet claimed she DID know... that's another thing.
They both involve lying and incompetency, though.
Either way, though, when the gate signal goes +12 volts, or even much over 4 volts positive, the mosfet(s) getting that will either turn on and conduct current... or they are blown or missing or miswired.
TK,
So you were able to locate a schematic for the F43? I looked quite a bit, couldn't even find a not for free one for you!
PW
TK:
Indeed, protection diodes attached to each supply rail would be a very good idea. Perhaps two or even three in parallel since you have the "kooky" negative oscillation mode to deal with.
Like a giant CMOS circuit.
And to think that the whole team wasn't even aware.
Confession time: How many multimeters have you blown because you weren't thinking and you went from measuring current to measuring voltage? I have probably blown about three. It was all so long ago I can't remember any details. I suppose with a good multimeter you just blow a fuse. But I have officially killed a few multimeters way back when.
Then there is another goof that makes you jump. Sometimes when you are doing your mad scientist projects you use ribbon cable. You run power and signals through the ribbon cable. You short out the power and you know that's not going to phase your power supply. In less than a second two conductors in your ribbon cable are smokin' and you see a quick red glow and then poof! and it's all over. You are left with a ribbon cable with two scorch marks running down it and burnt insulation.
Are these universal truths? ;D
MileHigh
Well, I've never blown a multimeter (fuses, sure) but I did blow out a HP precision counter one day doing a Mikhailov antigravity electron experiment by twitching the HV control knob the wrong way on one trial... that was a many thousands of dollars goof, but fortunately it was a surplus instrument and nobody cared. And I've blown a thousand dollars worth of mosfets easily, over the years. Did both my expensive NTEs last night, 24 dollars out the window. So screw them, the IRFP450 is better and a lot cheaper.
I also don't use ribbon cable much so I've not experienced that failure mode either.
And the F43's problem happened when I was using the Tar Baby circuit to drive a Tesla Coil.... ordinary "NERD" oscillations don't bother it at all. It was a silly thing to do without paying attention-- I wasn't even monitoring waveforms, just giving it the bipolar pulse juice and sweeping frequencies. What's still puzzling to me is how I could have gotten all that power through the system in spite of the 10A fuse I always use at the battery, which didn't blow. Anyhow, the circuit bounced off the wall of the TC primary's field collapse, power got reflected back to the mosfets, they shorted with a power arc. If Rosemary had only been right about current not going thru FGs ! But she's wrong and the F43 failed by shorting one of the output transistor pairs. It had nothing whatever to do with NERD oscillations or "normal" operation of the NERD circuit or the F43. Any instrument will break if you throw it off a high enough cliff.
I've put a IRFP450 mosfet in the ClassE sstc and it works best, so far. I can get a good Class E waveform, with a cool mosfet, using a 24 volt battery supply and light up NE2s so bright they hurt the eyes, and I can make little smoking RF tattoos on my fingers. Corona is not far away!!
Quote from: picowatt on June 25, 2012, 07:21:40 PM
TK,
So you were able to locate a schematic for the F43? I looked quite a bit, couldn't even find a not for free one for you!
PW
I found a couple of places that have the manual and I'm hoping there's a schematic in there, must call to find out for sure. Another place says they have the schematic set for the "40" series, which includes another couple of variants besides the F43. Interstate must have used the same board for different functionalities, because there's a great section on my board that's unpopulated.
I haven't actually ordered one yet, but it's in the to-do stack, working its way to the top.
Dear Sean,
Sorry to renege on my previous undertaking - but I've been advised not to contact you by email nor to send you that data.
Regards
Rosemary
My dear SeaMonkey,
Thank you. It's a rare thing for me to find approval on these forums. Much appreciated. The more so as one needs to be rather courageous to confront the zealous excess of these posters here.
It encouraged me to look to your own postings. Am blown away by your competence in the art.
With the very kindest of regards,
Rosie
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2012, 10:20:29 PM
And the F43's problem happened when I was using the Tar Baby circuit to drive a Tesla Coil.... ordinary "NERD" oscillations don't bother it at all. It was a silly thing to do without paying attention-- I wasn't even monitoring waveforms, just giving it the bipolar pulse juice and sweeping frequencies. What's still puzzling to me is how I could have gotten all that power through the system in spite of the 10A fuse I always use at the battery, which didn't blow. Anyhow, the circuit bounced off the wall of the TC primary's field collapse, power got reflected back to the mosfets, they shorted with a power arc. If Rosemary had only been right about current not going thru FGs ! But she's wrong and the F43 failed by shorting one of the output transistor pairs. It had nothing whatever to do with NERD oscillations or "normal" operation of the NERD circuit or the F43. Any instrument will break if you throw it off a high enough cliff.
LOL. What a load of nonsense. All of it. But I've highlighted the most glaring. 8) :o
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2012, 10:20:29 PMI've put a IRFP450 mosfet in the ClassE sstc and it works best, so far. I can get a good Class E waveform, with a cool mosfet, using a 24 volt battery supply and light up NE2s so bright they hurt the eyes, and I can make little smoking RF tattoos on my fingers. Corona is not far away!!
You're confusing those tattoos with ingrained dirt. You REALLY need to wash your hands little TK. And your mouth - while you're at it.
Rosie Pose
And SeaMonkey - I feel a little shy about this but we would be honoured if you'd join our own little forum. Much in need of that guidance that I see you are well able to give.
Here's the link - if you ever have the time or the interest - which I sincerely hope you do.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/
Kindest regards again,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
Dear Sean,
Sorry to renege on my previous undertaking - but I've been advised not to contact you by email nor to send you that data.
Regards
Rosemary
Ding Ding!! And the winner is..... Little Miss Mosfet, who refuses ONCE AGAIN to share the raw original data from her "open source" project.
"Sorry" is right.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2012, 11:09:03 PM
LOL. What a load of nonsense. All of it. But I've highlighted the most glaring. 8) :o
You're confusing those tattoos with ingrained dirt. You REALLY need to wash your hands little TK. And your mouth - while you're at it.
Rosie Pose
What is the matter with you, you bloviating idiot? You are talking trash about stuff you do not understand in the least. YOU really need to stop telling all those lies, you incompetent nincompoop (with clean hands perhaps, that have never known real work ..... but with a dirty lying insulting heart.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
What is the matter with you, you bloviating idiot? You are talking trash about stuff you do not understand in the least. YOU really need to stop telling all those lies, you incompetent nincompoop (with clean hands perhaps, that have never known real work ..... but with a dirty lying insulting heart.)
LOL little TK. I do my own housework - my own laundry - my own cooking - my gardening (not so much now that it's winter). Which means that I DO work - albeit assisted here and there. And I still manage to find the time to wash my hands.
Now. Tell us all more about those students that you have. And show us some of those papers that you've published in well establish reviewed journals - which are devoted to mathematical modeling. :o And then explain to us all how it is that notwithstanding the wide applause that these efforts have deserved - the time required to discuss and promote all this - you are yet stuck on a little thread of a little forum in the back and beyond of this vast ethernet - writing under an assumed name? Then explain how your basement laboratory or garage - which you use as a laboratory - is cluttered with second hand junk - from floor to ceiling - that you barely have room for yourself and your camera - let alone a small light bulb here and there to light up that mess. Then let us know who are those multiple advisers of yours that stand in the wings of all these absurd efforts - clapping their hands in delight at the scale of your GER ...?
Then - as I suggested - go to the bathroom and put some antiseptic into a glass and RINSE OUT YOUR MOUTH.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 01:00:14 AM
LOL little TK. I do my own housework - my own laundry - my own cooking - my gardening (not so much now that it's winter). Which means that I DO work - albeit assisted here and there. And I still manage to find the time to wash my hands.
Now. Tell us all more about those students that you have. And show us some of those papers that you've published in well establish reviewed journals - which are devoted to mathematical modeling. :o And then explain to us all how it is that notwithstanding the wide applause that these efforts have deserved - the time required to discuss and promote all this - you are yet stuck on a little thread of a little forum in the back and beyond of this vast ethernet - writing under an assumed name? Then explain how your basement laboratory or garage - which you use as a laboratory - is cluttered with second hand junk - from floor to ceiling - that you barely have room for yourself and your camera - let alone a small light bulb here and there to light up that mess. Then let us know who are those multiple advisers of yours that stand in the wings of all these absurd efforts - clapping their hands in delight at the scale of your GER ...?
Then - as I suggested - go to the bathroom and put some antiseptic into a glass and RINSE OUT YOUR MOUTH.
Rosie Pose
No.
You are a liar and an arrogant ignorant fool. You misrepresent me and lie about my work, as you are doing right now on your pitiful fantasy forum. You continue to lie and withhold information about your circuit and your experiments, as your own data prove beyond any further doubt.
And you continue to post here about things that you do not understand and are none of your business anyway, continuing to make a complete fool of yourself and revealing your true, nasty corrupt soul as you do it.
You will continue on, Ainslie, Little Miss Mosfet liar. This thread is open to anyone and isn't censored, and ALL my data is available instantly to anyone who asks for it, and ALL my work is easily repeatable and NO FANCY ETCH_A_SKETCH oscilloscopes are needed to show that you are full of yourself and nothing else. You've got nothing, even less than you had before, because your credibility is gone. All it took was bringing together in one place, where it could be inspected critically, all your available DATA, separated from your bloviating and lies. YOUR OWN DATA DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS. And your own words show what a liar and arrogant fool you are, and ANYONE can repeat what I've done, or do their own testing, and determine that for themselves.
The Class E autoresonator sstc with a new IRFP450 mosfet.
I'm inching up to full power as I get the tuning better and better, but at about 50 W input it's already packing a little kick, with enough RF energy in the near field to light up those NE2s so bright it hurts to look at them with one wire, and even with no wires hooked up they glow pretty well, and the little cauterizing RF burns are getting painful. (This is how I know I'm on the right track. Now I'll start drawing arcs to bits of metal rather than my fingers.)
It's been running stably in this mode for over an hour now without overheating the mosfet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsr7TFVzUl4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsr7TFVzUl4)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 01:24:29 AM
You are a liar and an arrogant ignorant fool. You misrepresent me and lie about my work, as you are doing right now on your pitiful fantasy forum. You continue to lie and withhold information about your circuit and your experiments, as your own data prove beyond any further doubt.
And you continue to post here about things that you do not understand and are none of your business anyway, continuing to make a complete fool of yourself and revealing your true, nasty corrupt soul as you do it.
You will continue on, Ainslie, Little Miss Mosfet liar. This thread is open to anyone and isn't censored, and ALL my data is available instantly to anyone who asks for it, and ALL my work is easily repeatable and NO FANCY ETCH_A_SKETCH oscilloscopes are needed to show that you are full of yourself and nothing else. You've got nothing, even less than you had before, because your credibility is gone. All it took was bringing together in one place, where it could be inspected critically, all your available DATA, separated from your bloviating and lies. YOUR OWN DATA DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS. And your own words show what a liar and arrogant fool you are, and ANYONE can repeat what I've done, or do their own testing, and determine that for themselves.
Your thread isn't censured? Really? What's happened to Wilby then? Is he still a member even? I'd like to know and would be gratified to find that he's still allowed comment - IF that's the case.
Meanwhile TK - when it comes to sheer malice - you have managed a level that would be the envy of Lucifer himself. And WHEN you've disproved anything at all related to our work - then DO let me know. Thus far I've seen NOTHING other than ALLEGATION, INNUENDO and INFERENCE. Just speak out - like a man - albeit somewhat under qualified as you are. And give some RESULTS against your battery draw down tests against the measured wattage output from those batteries. That would be a WELCOME change. We're all heartily sick of this highly politicised propaganda that you all rely on.
Rosie Pose
And you've avoided answering these questions. Why is that? I've reposted them as a reminder.
Rosie Pose
Now. Tell us all more about those students that you have. And show us some of those papers that you've published in well establish reviewed journals - which are devoted to mathematical modeling. :o And then explain to us all how it is that notwithstanding the wide applause that these efforts have deserved - the time required to discuss and promote all this - you are yet stuck on a little thread of a little forum in the back and beyond of this vast ethernet - writing under an assumed name? Then explain how your basement laboratory or garage - which you use as a laboratory - is cluttered with second hand junk - from floor to ceiling - that you barely have room for yourself and your camera - let alone a small light bulb here and there to light up that mess. Then let us know who are those multiple advisers of yours that stand in the wings of all these absurd efforts - clapping their hands in delight at the scale of your GER ...?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 01:34:27 AM
Your thread isn't censured? Really? What's happened to Wilby then? Is he still a member even? I'd like to know and would be gratified to find that he's still allowed comment - IF that's the case.
Meanwhile TK - when it comes to sheer malice - you have managed a level that would be the envy of Lucifer himself. And WHEN you've disproved anything at all related to our work - then DO let me know. Thus far I've seen NOTHING other than ALLEGATION, INNUENDO and INFERENCE. Just speak out - like a man - albeit somewhat under qualified as you are. And give some RESULTS against your battery draw down tests against the measured wattage output from those batteries. That would be a WELCOME change. We're all heartily sick of this highly politicised propaganda that you all rely on.
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, this thread is full of disproofs of your tinkering and claims, and most of them are coming from YOUR OWN DATA AND WORDS.
5.9 megaJoules. You are a joke, and it's your own bad attitude that makes me so angry about you and your lies. As I have said many times, had you simply corrected your ridiculous math and acknowledged your errors and retracted the ridiculous claims made based on them, I would not have gotten involved with your current nonsense. YOU brought my "malice" or rather wrath upon yourself by your overweening arrogance and boundless ignorance.
There is no "WE" for you, Ainslie, you are operating in a vacuum, both mental and informational. YOU CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE ASSERTION I HAVE MADE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR APPARATUS with references or demonstrations. Yet, ANYONE can verify for themselves what I have been saying about you and your circuit and your claims.
As to what happened to windy windblown Wilby.... why don't you ask him yourself? As far as I'm concerned he can wash his mouth out with Windex and sail his jib off into the sunset.
Now, go away, Little Miss Mosfet, this thread doesn't concern you any more, since you have shown yourself to be uncooperative, covering up data, and lying about your schematic and your performance claims. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN APPARATUS any more.
And while you're at it - also explain how it is that someone of such 'HIGH' academic stature as you're ALLEGING - simply forgets to factor in impedance when using a high frequency. Then explain how you expect a recharge cycle to benefit a non-rechargeable battery. Then explain how a professed professional - and now an ALLEGED professorial - professional - confines his most articulate comment to slander and invective. Then explain how it is that you spend so much TIME on this circuit if it's of no interest.
Lots to explain there TK.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 01:38:58 AM
And you've avoided answering these questions. Why is that? I've reposted them as a reminder.
Rosie Pose
Now. Tell us all more about those students that you have. And show us some of those papers that you've published in well establish reviewed journals - which are devoted to mathematical modeling. :o And then explain to us all how it is that notwithstanding the wide applause that these efforts have deserved - the time required to discuss and promote all this - you are yet stuck on a little thread of a little forum in the back and beyond of this vast ethernet - writing under an assumed name? Then explain how your basement laboratory or garage - which you use as a laboratory - is cluttered with second hand junk - from floor to ceiling - that you barely have room for yourself and your camera - let alone a small light bulb here and there to light up that mess. Then let us know who are those multiple advisers of yours that stand in the wings of all these absurd efforts - clapping their hands in delight at the scale of your GER ...?
Post away, I don't have to tell you jack cheese about me or my students or my supervisors. The issue here, remember, lying Ainslie, is that YOU ARE LYING ABOUT YOUR WORK, withholding data, and making false claims. Who and what you think I am is no concern of yours.... my work is repeatable by anyone who cares to do it. YOURS.... well, the data is, but of course the CLAIMS are bogus and anyone who looks will find that out.... whether or not I have one student, many, or none.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 01:48:30 AM
Ainslie, this thread is full of disproofs of your tinkering and claims, and most of them are coming from YOUR OWN DATA AND WORDS.
NOT ACTUALLY. This thread is FULL of your CLAIMS to have disproved. Since those CLAIMS are unproved and utterly unsubstantiated - then in FACT you've proved NOTHING.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 01:48:30 AM
5.9 megaJoules. You are a joke, and it's your own bad attitude that makes me so angry about you and your lies. As I have said many times, had you simply corrected your ridiculous math and acknowledged your errors and retracted the ridiculous claims made based on them, I would not have gotten involved with your current nonsense. YOU brought my "malice" or rather wrath upon yourself by your overweening arrogance and boundless ignorance.
WHAT A JOKE. Not only has this been retracted - it's been done so publicly. BUT - should you acknowledge this then you'd lose 100% of the excuse required to FABRICATE all that absurd MORAL INDIGNATION. Coming from the base of an ALLEGED academic - it's as laughable an allegation as that ASSUMED accreditation. You seem to forget that we're not all as stupid as you hope.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 01:48:30 AMNow, go away, Little Miss Mosfet, this thread doesn't concern you any more, since you have shown yourself to be uncooperative, covering up data, and lying about your schematic and your performance claims. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN APPARATUS any more.
THIS IS RICH. Hot off the press. When exactly was it you claimed that NOTHING ON YOUR THREAD IS CENSURED? That you WELCOMED CRITICAL INPUT? Don't tell me that you were simply striking a ridiculous posture and that you meant NONE OF IT?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 01:49:47 AM
And while you're at it - also explain how it is that someone of such 'HIGH' academic stature as you're ALLEGING - simply forgets to factor in impedance when using a high frequency. Then explain how you expect a recharge cycle to benefit a non-rechargeable battery. Then explain how a professed professional - and now an ALLEGED professorial - professional - confines his most articulate comment to slander and invective. Then explain how it is that you spend so much TIME on this circuit if it's of no interest.
Lots to explain there TK.
Rosie Pose
You are lying again. Anyone who downloads my spreadsheet can see for themselves that I "forgot" no such thing. And there is NO RECHARGE CYCLE in your apparatus nor in Tar Baby or Altoid. IF THERE WAS, it would be evident in the behaviour using CAPACITORS which are the ultimate rechargeable batteries USING ION CHEMISTRY in the electrolyte, you ignoramus.
I spend time on this circuit because you are lying about it, it's that simple. IT's MY HOBBY, Little Miss Mosfet, and I can walk away from it at any moment unscathed. IT'S YOUR LIFE, though, and you are desperately trying to retain it, even though anyone can see it's a load of nonsense.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 01:49:47 AM
And while you're at it - also explain how it is that someone of such 'HIGH' academic stature as you're ALLEGING - simply forgets to factor in impedance when using a high frequency. Then explain how you expect a recharge cycle to benefit a non-rechargeable battery. Then explain how a professed professional - and now an ALLEGED professorial - professional - confines his most articulate comment to slander and invective. Then explain how it is that you spend so much TIME on this circuit if it's of no interest.
Lots to explain there TK.
Rosie Pose
Most all batteries are rechargeable. Its just how to do so is not commonly known.
Alkaline can be charged but only if not allowed to get hot as the casing wont hold the pressure of internal expansion. So giving them a rest then charging off and on till full works.
But if no abnormal heat is created in the battery, most all can be charged.
So that reasoning doesnt work here Rose.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 01:55:57 AM
NOT ACTUALLY. This thread is FULL of your CLAIMS to have disproved. Since those CLAIMS are unproved and utterly unsubstantiated - then in FACT you've proved NOTHING.
WHAT A JOKE. Not only has this been retracted - it's been done so publicly. BUT - should you acknowledge this then you'd loose 100% of the excuse required to FABRICATE all that absurd MORAL INDIGNATION. Coming from the base of an ALLEGED academic - it's as laughable an allegation as that ASSUMED accreditation. You seem to forget that we're not all as stupid as you hope.
THIS IS RICH. Hot off the press. When exactly was it you claimed that NOTHING ON YOUR THREAD IS CENSURED? That you WELCOMED CRITICAL INPUT? Don't tell me that you were simply striking a ridiculous posture and that you meant NONE OF IT?
Rosie Pose
Editing it out without comment is not a retraction, Ainslie, you continuing chronic liar. You need to state what it was and WHY you retracted it, for it to count as a "retraction." And there are still plenty of places where it can be found. Like for example RIGHT NOW IN THE OFFICIAL 'PUBLICATION' on Rossi's JNP. What a concerted liar you are.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 01:51:36 AM
Post away, I don't have to tell you jack cheese about me or my students or my supervisors. The issue here, remember, lying Ainslie, is that YOU ARE LYING ABOUT YOUR WORK, withholding data, and making false claims. Who and what you think I am is no concern of yours.... my work is repeatable by anyone who cares to do it. YOURS.... well, the data is, but of course the CLAIMS are bogus and anyone who looks will find that out.... whether or not I have one student, many, or none.
No little TK. Not actually. It is you who are misrepresenting and it is my opinion that this so called 'hobby' of yours is also rather well funded. I look forward to the proof that will be abundant - and then I think your little thread here will go down in INFAMY - as PRECISELY the prejudice that prevented earlier proof of all this energy efficiency. Just think about TK. You'll be famous and YET no-one will know your name. LOL
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Magluvin on June 26, 2012, 01:59:47 AM
Most all batteries are rechargeable. Its just how to do so is not commonly known.
Alkaline can be charged but only if not allowed to get hot as the casing wont hold the pressure of internal expansion. So giving them a rest then charging off and on till full works.
But if no abnormal heat is created in the battery, most all can be charged.
So that reasoning doesnt work here Rose.
Mags
My dear Mags,
It does not take undue skill nor is it unduly expensive to apply a rechargeble battery to a test. And without that rechargeable battery one can HARDLY expect a recharge benefit. And IF one is testing whether a recharge cycle actually RECHARGES - it would be advisable to FIRST apply a rechargeable battery. It's really quite simple.
Rosie
Ainslie, your input would be welcomed if you would answer the questions asked of you, give constructive criticisms about things where you demonstrate competence, shared your data or POSTED YOUR OWN TEST RESULTS. But you do none of those things. Look at the first post in this thread.
You continue to lie, misrepresent, insult, avoid dealing with issues, and all the rest. You aren't even qualified to comment on the other things that PW and MileHigh and I are discussing in this thread, yet you insult and bloviate about them anyway. You are, as MH says, the very epitome of an internet troll.
Now.... if you cannot provide constructive criticism about something you know about, then yes.... you are to be censured, although not censored. Have you wondered why you haven't been banned, in spite of your best conscious efforts? It's because there's a conspiracy to NOT ban you.
;D
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 02:04:36 AM
My dear Mags,
It does not take undue skill nor is it unduly expensive to apply a rechargeble battery to a test. And without that rechargeable battery one can HARDLY expect a recharge benefit. And IF one is testing whether a recharge cycle actually RECHARGES - it would be advisable to FIRST apply a rechargeable battery. It's really quite simple.
Rosie
Ainslie, what do you think those six, 5 amphour sealed LEAD ACID BATTERIES are that I've been using for Tar Baby to make the negative mean power product and the negative energy integral and the Dim Bulb tests and the spreadsheet integrations? Chopped liver? You are truly flailing about like a fish out of water.
All batteries are rechargeable, anyway!!
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 02:01:09 AM
No little TK. Not actually. It is you who are misrepresenting and it is my opinion that this so called 'hobby' of yours is also rather well funded. I look forward to the proof that will be abundant - and then I think your little thread here will go down in INFAMY - as PRECISELY the prejudice that prevented earlier proof of all this energy efficiency. Just think about TK. You'll be famous and YET no-one will know your name. LOL
Rosie Pose
Let's see.... I am in a garage or basement with a bunch of junk equipment and no room in one post, and I'm rather well funded in my "hobby" in quotes in another post. Like all liars, you cannot be consistent.
I'm already famous among people who do know my name, so I don't care what you think about me at all. You, on the other hand, will be truly famous, as you will be immortalized as a case study in my next book.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 02:09:14 AM
Ainslie, what do you think those six, 5 amphour sealed LEAD ACID BATTERIES are that I've been using for Tar Baby to make the negative mean power product and the negative energy integral and the Dim Bulb tests and the spreadsheet integrations? Chopped liver? You are truly flailing about like a fish out of water.
All batteries are rechargeable, anyway!!
I'm here referring to your replication of POYNTY's circuit variant - as you WELL KNOW. The one that you furthered varied to apply capacitors to because you were anxious to advance the decay of that oscillation.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Magluvin on June 26, 2012, 01:59:47 AM
Most all batteries are rechargeable. Its just how to do so is not commonly known.
Alkaline can be charged but only if not allowed to get hot as the casing wont hold the pressure of internal expansion. So giving them a rest then charging off and on till full works.
But if no abnormal heat is created in the battery, most all can be charged.
So that reasoning doesnt work here Rose.
Mags
It's quite a stretch to call what Ainslie does, "reasoning".
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 02:13:31 AM
I'm here referring to your replication of POYNTY's circuit variant - as you WELL KNOW. The one that you furthered varied to apply capacitors to because you were anxious to advance the decay of that oscillation.
Rosie Pose
So? I am referring to Tar Baby, where CAPACITORS WERE ALSO USED, along with batteries, all fully RECHARGEABLE.
"The one that you furthered varied to apply capacitors to because you were anxious to advance the decay of that oscillation."
Can we have that in English, please?
And in the first place, the circuit to which you refer isn't a "replication of poynty's circuit"... it is the FIRST instantiation of MY modification to a design that I SUGGESTED to .99 in the first place, using the mosfet that I SUGGESTED and the basic size and layout that I SUGGESTED and that he then simulated and designed. I can turn it on and demonstrate what you call NEGATIVE POWER using the same "standard protocols" that you use, anywhere, anytime, on anyone's oscilloscope, and I DON'T EVEN NEED A BATTERY TO DO IT.
Will we be seeing a retraction/correction of the first and second paper as refers to FIG 3 and FIG 7 and the fact that Q1 is either not functioning or not connected as indicated by the published schematic?
Nope, they are all rechargeable.
It is also good to know what batteries you are using. Otherwise how can one know its ratings in order to make any claimes as to the state of its charge in order to prove a claim of cop> ? ;)
One cant. :o
Not without full runs to bring the battery down and recharging then run again. :)
But then again, if one cant read the writing on the scope, back to square none. ;)
Lithium 2032 button cell. A throw away at 3 bucks. Well, I got one in my solar led flashlight. Charges over and over. Alkaline AA in a cheapo nicad charger, charge on 15min, off 15 min till charged. Remotes last months on them. charge after charge.
Some get better results with alkaline batteries than nimh with their pulse motors.
So, the alkalines are taking on recharge, and no exploding. Even though the package says it may. Been there done that. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 01:34:27 AM
Thus far I've seen NOTHING (snip)
Rosie Pose
That's because you CAN'T see anything, evidently. You don't even read the words, you just look at shapes, and you claim that you don't watch my videos at all. No wonder you are always so wrong about what people say or what's been demonstrated or explained.
You don't watch or understand my video proofs, yet you somehow feel qualified to comment on them.
Or you simply brush them under the carpet of your bloviation, like you've done to the Function Generator PASSING CURRENT FROM "GROUND TO PROBE" video, which directly refutes a major, critical claim of yours.
Actually, there should be a 50ohm resistor shown on the circuit, across the connections where the sig gen is connected. Just so the circuit is better understood and more accurate. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 26, 2012, 02:44:44 AM
Actually, there should be a 50ohm resistor shown on the circuit, across the connections where the sig gen is connected. Just so the circuit is better understood and more accurate. ;]
Mags
Mags,
A 50 ohm "in series" with the indicated signal source output would be more accurate. But, as the FG model is specified (or was it?), it would be implied. Because the 50 ohm is critical with regard to setting Q2 bias current, it's output impedance should have been mentioned while discussing the Q2 bias current that flows thru the FG. It would have been quite useful for replicators to know what the bias current was for each of the tests.
But then, it would as well have been nice if Q1 was functioning or connected as per the schematic.
I believe there is a Wiki on recharging alkaline primary batteries.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 26, 2012, 02:57:32 AM
Mags,
A 50 ohm "in series" with the indicated signal source output would be more accurate. But, as the FG model is specified (or was it?), it would be implied. But as the 50 ohm is critical with regard to setting Q2 bias current, it's output impedance should have been mentioned while discussing the Q2 bias current that flows thru the FG. It would have been quite useful for replicators to know what the bias current was for each of the tests.
But then, it would as well have been nice if Q1 was functioning or connected as per the schematic.
I believe there is a Wiki on recharging alkaline primary batteries.
PW
Hey Pico
Well, if the resistor is in series with the gen, then the gen has not 50 from sig lead to gnd. It is just an accurate way to show the circuit. In a way, the resistor should be taken into account when the circuit is designed, if the signal gen is to be a part of the circuit.
All we see is signal gen. With the resistor shown as part of the circuit, as it is part of the circuit, the interpretation of what is really going on is a bit easier to comprehend.
lol off to sleep with me.
Mags
Or like this. Its the same thing. ;]
Mags
Mags,
The 50R should be in series with the FG + lead. There is no Q2 bias current limiting as you have it.
PW
Quote from: Magluvin on June 26, 2012, 03:28:43 AM
Hey Pico
Well, if the resistor is in series with the gen, then the gen has not 50 from sig lead to gnd.
If the 50 Ohm resistor is in series with the positive terminal (as is the case), then "looking back towards" the FG from the FG + and - leads, one "sees" 50 Ohms resistance.
What you've drawn is 50 Ohms in
parallel with the output, and that is not correct. If you looked back towards the FG in your case (and there was no other resistor installed in the FG), then you would "see" some very low impedance, perhaps on the order of a few Ohms.
Ok. I thought that alll the talk of this meant that there was a current path through the 50 ohm res in the sig gen.
If internally, the 50 ohm res is just simply in series with the signal, then the current path is available, when?
So here, I imagined that the res path was available at all times in the circuit. If it is only available to the circuit part time, is the problem that when the path is available, the source voltage over powers signal voltage? Or is available when the sig phase is off?
Sorry bout that. I guess not seeing it visually, I took what was being said as I did somehow. ;] As you can see.
Mags
I am working on a FG anatomy diagram. Will post it shortly.
The current path through the 50 Ohm is there at all times.
@All,
I see that .99's and TK's single Q2 oscillators are being endorsed as being "overunity", as she refers to it.
If only TK would use a rechargeable battery...
I wonder if .99 is using "rechargeable" batteries in his sim?
Possibly, when/if .99 posts his "overunity" oscillator over there he can show (again) how current flows thru Q2.
She continues to believe that Q2 somehow "floats", and I do not believe she is referring to the positive portion of the FG cycle wherein Q2 is turned off. In spite of all manner of discussion and evidence to the contrary, she believes there is no path for current to flow thru Q2 during the negative voltage portion of the FG cycle.
As well, it seems she is just going to bury her head in the sand regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 and ignore the whole issue.
It goes on and and on and on...
PW
@RA
I haven't received any reply to the email I sent to you address yet. I understand you may be too busy at the moment to copy the data, but can you confirm you've had the email, and also give me some idea how large the flash drive will need to be?
Basic FG anatomy showing where the 50 Ohm output resistor actually resides.
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 26, 2012, 09:58:35 AM
@RA
I haven't received any reply to the email I sent to you address yet. I understand you may be too busy at the moment to copy the data, but can you confirm you've had the email, and also give me some idea how large the flash drive will need to be?
Sean,
Look a few posts back, she now states that sending you the files is not going to happen, as she was "advised". I guess TK was right.
(She also wrote a new poem for you "over there". )
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 26, 2012, 10:01:32 AM
Basic FG anatomy showing where the 50 Ohm output resistor actually resides.
.99,
Nicely descriptive drawing.
I would presume that most FG amplifier's have a higher damping factor than you give credit in this drawing and believe you could further reduce the value of Rint. As is, however, it is very accurate with regard to the point being discussed.
Possibly at some point you will have to add Q2 to this drawing to show the DC path for Q2 when the FG out is a negative voltage!
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 25, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
Dear Sean,
Sorry to renege on my previous undertaking - but I've been advised not to contact you by email nor to send you that data.
Regards
Rosemary
Oops, missed this (thanks @PW)
Can I ask what advice you were given?
In any case, for the benefit of other people where you aren't restricted by enmity or any legal consideration, what size flash drive should they plan on buying?
And how many people have a copy of this data so far?
Dear Sean
Quote from: picowatt on June 26, 2012, 10:05:22 AM
Sean,
(She also wrote a new poem for you "over there". )
PW
My own is a standard 2 G byte number - and nowhere near filled. But I may only send this info to registered laboratories or to public companies who are looking to research this. Any preclusion related to emails is simply because you're associated with sundry Hate Blogs that are being investigated.
Meanwhile - just on an entirely extraneous matter - and to prove that there's no excessive animosity related to this - may I publish your own doggerel on my forum?
Regards,
Rosemary
edited
I added the address lest picowatt assume I'm answering him. God forbid.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 10:29:54 AM
My own is a standard 2 G byte number - and nowhere near filled. But I may only send this info to registered laboratories or to public companies who are looking to research this. Any preclusion related to emails is simply because you're associated with sundry Hate Blogs that are being investigated.
Meanwhile - just on an entirely extraneous matter - and to prove that there's no excessive animosity related to this - may I publish your own doggerel on my forum?
Regards,
Rosemary
Who are you "talking" to?
Quote from: picowatt on June 26, 2012, 10:32:34 AM
Who are you "talking" to?
Fair question. I edited my post.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 10:29:54 AM
My own is a standard 2 G byte number - and nowhere near filled. But I may only send this info to registered laboratories or to public companies who are looking to research this. Any preclusion related to emails is simply because you're associated with sundry Hate Blogs that are being investigated.
Meanwhile - just on an entirely extraneous matter - and to prove that there's no excessive animosity related to this - may I publish your own doggerel on my forum?
Regards,
Rosemary
Just to be clear then, there *are* restrictions on who sees the data? That's a different claim to the one you make up-thread.
The only restriction I prefer (but would probably make no effort to enforce or complain about) is that if someone choses to attribute a quote to me, it's accurate. Other than that I'm indifferent.
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 26, 2012, 10:39:54 AM
Just to be clear then, there *are* restrictions on who sees the data? That's a different claim to the one you make up-thread.
Indeed. I was out of line. Apparently there are all kinds of dangers that can result from misrepresentations. Therefore I can't send anything without some kind of 'agreement' associated with this.
Quote from: mrsean2k on June 26, 2012, 10:39:54 AMThe only restriction I prefer (but would probably make no effort to enforce or complain about) is that if someone choses to attribute a quote to me, it's accurate. Other than that I'm indifferent.
I'll take that as a 'yes'. Thanks.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 26, 2012, 10:34:41 AM
Fair question. I edited my post.
R
You may post this "over there":
In FIG3 of the first paper, during the portion of the function generator (FG) cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approximately +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. All will surely agree that this voltage applied to the gate of Q1 should turn Q1 fully on. However, during the same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace does not indicate the current flow that would be expected if Q1 were turned fully on.
As well, FIG7 also indicates that during the same portion of the cycle sufficient gate drive is again being applied to Q1 to turn it on, and again no subsequent current flow is being indicated by the CSR trace.
This can only mean that Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic.
Curiously, in FIG5, less gate drive is being applied to Q1 than is indicated in FIG3 and FIG7, yet the CSR trace indicates current flow as one would expect.
Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJqPxpWD5w
Many people have asked Ainslie for the data for this open source project that pretends to have "journal papers" (for which RAW DATA IS ALWAYS MADE AVAILABLE to whomever asks for it, in the real world of journal publications), even Stefan our good host. She always has said she would provide it, and she never has.
When someone continually says she will do things and it continually turns out NOT TO BE TRUE.... then that person is a LIAR, by definition, plain and simple. And of course she lies in every other way as well: by making claims that are not supportable by data, by "disappearing" some of those ridiculous claims instead of publicly retracting them, by allowing multiple uncorrected versions of her manuscript to continue to be posted, by not acknowledging the work of others, by making false mathematical calculations and conclusions, by misrepresenting the words and the work of others, by making ridiculous paranoid accusations and threats, and so on.
Now it's to "registered laboratories" whatever that means.
What I think it really means is that she has no clue about the data, probably cannot even open spreadsheet files (or she would have been misrepresenting mine) and perhaps even that the data is lost.
Certainly it means that the data is unavailable for critical inspection, now or ever.
IN STARK CONTRAST to Fuzzy's data, for example.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 02:45:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJqPxpWD5w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJqPxpWD5w)
Many people have asked Ainslie for the data for this open source project that pretends to have "journal papers" (for which RAW DATA IS ALWAYS MADE AVAILABLE to whomever asks for it, in the real world of journal publications), even Stefan our good host. She always has said she would provide it, and she never has.
When someone continually says she will do things and it continually turns out NOT TO BE TRUE.... then that person is a LIAR, by definition, plain and simple. And of course she lies in every other way as well: by making claims that are not supportable by data, by "disappearing" some of those ridiculous claims instead of publicly retracting them, by allowing multiple uncorrected versions of her manuscript to continue to be posted, by not acknowledging the work of others, by making false mathematical calculations and conclusions, by misrepresenting the words and the work of others, by making ridiculous paranoid accusations and threats, and so on.
Now it's to "registered laboratories" whatever that means.
What I think it really means is that she has no clue about the data, probably cannot even open spreadsheet files (or she would have been misrepresenting mine) and perhaps even that the data is lost.
Certainly it means that the data is unavailable for critical inspection, now or ever.
IN STARK CONTRAST to Fuzzy's data, for example.
Hey TK,
Most members and guests don't realize how long "ALL" of my data's been in "ONE" place and 100% available for "ANYONE" to see and download .....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/94127-post522.html 05-05-2010, 09:47 AM
Quote
There is a link in this thread to all my images and data ..... POST 297
I've been Quite busy lately with many other projects and because of the bandwidth usage where my off site photo storage was it got to the maximum monthly use any more and I would have to pay for image and photo access for everyone, so now all my Tests are in a zip files each complete with "Original" photos, images and data dump sheets w/ test keys & temperature data, and at this time I can only offer my Windows Live "SkyDrive" public file, that has all the information available. Plus some interesting "public" folders available on other subjects and projects.
Mosfet Heater Folder
The best I can do
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/88993-post297.html 03-17-2010, 05:50 PM
Quote
Device testing Data and Image files were posted all in one spot a month ago .....
Fuzzy
EDIT - Also other available Mosfet Heater Circuit 'links'
Mosfet Heating Circuits - Energetic Forum
Mosfet Heater - Windows "Live" SkyDrive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure if anyone looks will see a "complete" file on the Quantum COP>17 replication attempt I did including photos and device schematics of the process of doing the required modifications to even make the circuit work. One of the argued mandatory requirements by Rosemary was the need of a load inductor "FLY BACK" diode which my modified replication didn't have or anyone else's that did a COP>17 device replication attempt.
My attempt is all there "IN ONE PLACE" https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120 for over "TWO YEARS" now ...... ::)
Whats Rosemary got to hide ? Where is her complete file on the testing and evaluation she did on this claimed COP>INFINITY device of hers ?? ???
FTC
;)
That's a good question, Fuzzy. I've always held your work up as a good example, but as you know, Ainslie's way is the only way, with her.
Myself, I think that the data is probably gone. We are not talking about the most sophisticated computer user in South Africa, and she's reported several times that her computers have been hacked (lol) and have been out for "repair". What confidence can we have that a 2 gig thumbdrive has survived with its data intact? By now it's probably been overwritten with doggerel and cartoons.
BTW, I used a flyback diode, even compared several different ones, used them to charge caps to high voltage, even charged an external battery using the flyback diode to siphon off the ringing pulse from Ainslie's COP>17 circuit when I was working with it. Lots of fun there. I'm surprised there's no diode in the present mishmash, as it was supposed to be (at one time) critical... or wasn't critical... depending on which day you asked Ainslie about it.
No, we aren't going to be seeing any of Ainslie's spreadsheet data. We probably wouldn't even have the scopeshots, if she had her choice, now that she begins to understand what REAL data they contain, besides just numbers in boxes.
By the way, I've found and added about a dozen or more new finds to the Ainslie scopeshot compendium. I'll be zipping it up and posting it to the Downloads section later this afternoon, so stay tuned.
And.... talking about tuning....
The ClassE SSTC is getting better and better. I added a bit of inductance to the board, made a new looser primary, and ran a good RF ground to a pipe outside. The result is much better Class E tuning performance and a lot better voltage output and magnification ratio.
The scopeshot below shows the top trace, Drain side of the primary coil, at 200 volts/division. The lower trace shows the field pickup from the secondary, just using the metal foil sheet there behind the coil, no physical connection. It's at 20 v/div. The meters show the input power from the filtered DC power supply. I can draw 3/8 inch silent blue arcs, very hot, to a metal object held in my hand, and the neons are painfully bright.
And the mosfet is staying quite cool, even with upwards of 3 amps at times, since the switching of the mosfet is happening at nearly the right time.
f0 = 662.5 kHz
Ha-ha !
I have achieved ClassE breakout, at about 27 volts input. At 33 volts and about 3 amps, there is a nice constant hissing blue corona, and I can draw whitehot 1/2 inch power arcs. The secondary is heating up, so I have to be careful... it's held together with hot glue!
The ClassE waveform seems fairly stable; I can vary the input voltage quite a bit before I have to retune the gate bias pot to maintain the nice clean drain spikes and the fair sinusoidal secondary field. If there's too much gate bias it gets very noisy and the mosfet heats fast, although the voltage output can still be high. If the bias is too low the oscillations increase in frequency and the resonance is lost.
This is as high as my "brute force" DC filtered supply will safely go. Next I'll try it with 36 volt battery pack, then 48 volts. Have to move it a bit further away from the bench first, though. My goal is nice spectacular corona, on batteries alone, for total portability. But even if I have to give it line voltage, rectified and filtered, that will still be OK... as long as the mosfet survives, that is.
I'm still trying to find the optimum price/durability ratio for the mosfet used here. The original design used 17n80, I've seen spectacular results from a slightly larger ClassE coil using IRF720, which is a TO-220 little powerhouse, I've used the IRF830a in this one and it works OK, even the IRFPG50s from Tar Baby work, sort of, but their Rdss is too high for good results. Obviously the transistor needs high drain-source voltage rating, low on-state resistance, fast response rates, and high current capacity. The IRFP450 is working well so far, I've only popped two while tuning (one with a nice explosion and power arc) and now that ClassE performance seems here to stay, they should last longer, unless the voltage swings too high as I increase the input power.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 26, 2012, 10:01:32 AM
Basic FG anatomy showing where the 50 Ohm output resistor actually resides.
Ok, I see now. Thanks. So when the gen is not in control of the amp(1ohm) or just not powered up, we have 51ohms from output to ground? Or if the gen is set for dc on pulse, or just ac with offset, and the gen sig goes to zero V, we have our 51ohm path again.
But that is not the issue. It is the fact that the path exists in the circuit where it is placed. And that changes the circuit quite a bit from the original idea, if one believes that the signal gen is place, is only injecting a signal and not affecting the circuit in any other way.
So those big dense bursts in the waveform are only when the gen is in a state of phase that causes the oscillation to happen. And the flat spots are when the gen is in the opposite phase that doesnt allow the oscillation to happen.
So that is why you guys can get the oscillation without the gen. You just supply the circuit with a permanent oscillation turn on, and just skip the off time.
So the gen is just turning the oscillation on and of for intervals, as the oscilation effect is much higher in freq than the gen is putting out.
So, no real need for the gen. ;]
I think I got it, to some degree. :o Thanks ;)
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 06:45:40 PM
Ha-ha !
I have achieved ClassE breakout, at about 27 volts input. At 33 volts and about 3 amps, there is a nice constant hissing blue corona, and I can draw whitehot 1/2 inch power arcs. The secondary is heating up, so I have to be careful... it's held together with hot glue!
The ClassE waveform seems fairly stable; I can vary the input voltage quite a bit before I have to retune the gate bias pot to maintain the nice clean drain spikes and the fair sinusoidal secondary field. If there's too much gate bias it gets very noisy and the mosfet heats fast, although the voltage output can still be high. If the bias is too low the oscillations increase in frequency and the resonance is lost.
This is as high as my "brute force" DC filtered supply will safely go. Next I'll try it with 36 volt battery pack, then 48 volts. Have to move it a bit further away from the bench first, though. My goal is nice spectacular corona, on batteries alone, for total portability. But even if I have to give it line voltage, rectified and filtered, that will still be OK... as long as the mosfet survives, that is.
I'm still trying to find the optimum price/durability ratio for the mosfet used here. The original design used 17n80, I've seen spectacular results from a slightly larger ClassE coil using IRF720, which is a TO-220 little powerhouse, I've used the IRF830a in this one and it works OK, even the IRFPG50s from Tar Baby work, sort of, but their Rdss is too high for good results. Obviously the transistor needs high drain-source voltage rating, low on-state resistance, fast response rates, and high current capacity. The IRFP450 is working well so far, I've only popped two while tuning (one with a nice explosion and power arc) and now that ClassE performance seems here to stay, they should last longer, unless the voltage swings too high as I increase the input power.
TK,
Nice coil you have here.
Have you considered putting a gate driver in front of the MOSFET? That circuit looks like it would switch the MOSFET fairly slow, hence more dissipation. I would suspect that very little heat sink would be needed with your current setup if the MOSFET were being switched on and off in less than 50 nanoseconds, and there are plenty of 2-4 amp gate drivers out there that can easily switch 2nF in less than 50ns.
When it comes to MOSFET switching speed, it is all about how much current you have available to charge/discharge the gate C. Higher voltage and/or low RDSon types will typically have more C to charge/discharge. With class E, even though you are aimimg to switch at maxV/minI and minV/maxI, you still want to switch as fast as possible to reduce losses in the MOSFET.
PW
@Mags:
Yep, you've got it. The oscillations only happen when the FG is sending a negative voltage out its "positive" probe lead, what we are calling Gate LO. Take a look at the circuit schematic, and imagine the FG as a "negative" battery. That is, simply imagine it as a battery, applying its positive pole to the gates of Q2 and the negative pole to the gate of Q1. Now trace the current flow. Notice how the FG's "battery" is in series with the main battery. The voltage measured from the main battery positive to the FG's (or other bias source) negative is the sum of the two voltages provided.
Now... you may wonder about the ClassE coil I've been working with. Why have I been working with it, why am I talking about it here?
I've cut out the irrelevant components and noted the bias supply section in the following schematic. Notice anything interesting about the circuit? For example... why does it oscillate?
Now, as I'm showing with this ClassE sstc, when mosfet(s) are switched _properly_ for the purpose desired, and parasitic oscillations avoided and only the desired feedback oscillations are actually USED for something.... very spectacular results can be obtained. This ClassE sstc is _probably_ much more "overunity" already, than any of Ainslie's miserable little knockups IF it is measured in the same way, by undersampled spreadsheet integration and improperly filtered probes. I am melting copper wire, radiating power in the RF, lighting up high-voltage neon bulbs, burning flesh, making half-inch continuous power arcs... all with a single mosfet carrying under 50 Watts of input power.
And it's using nearly the identical circuit as the single mosfet NERD circuit, with a bit of deliberate "stray wiring" for oscillations and a lot of added capacitance for power. And of course... it's doing something with the field from the primary inductive load: it's using Faraday's Laws of INDUCTION and the phenomenon of voltage rise through standing wave resonance to produce a voltage amplification far in excess of what turns ratio alone would predict. Turns ratio is about 70, input voltage 30, transformer effect voltage 2100 volts, actual voltage reached by vrswr in excess of 6 kV, judging by corona and arc effects.
@PW: Yes, you are right and I agree with you totally, and I've got a more sophisticated design with a mosfet half-bridge, driven by gate driver chips and triggered by RF pickup in a CMOS inverter, that will likely blow the socks off this one, with true SGTC style long lightning bolts from the top capacity.
This coil is actually being used for a different purpose, which you might be seeing now. it's never going to make those long lightning bolt sparks, but when I have it working at full power with the straight, unconditioned gate pulses, however slow they are, it will be proving a point that I've been trying to drive home for years now, I think. And it will make a good audio-modulated demonstrator as well.
Don't worry... there are more and better SSTCs in my future. I have a nine-pound spool of that #27 magnet wire and I only used 1/4 pound for this coil, and I've been constructing a coil winder in my spare time. When I go to the trouble of using mosfet drivers and I expect the thing to run for a while, making lightning bolts, I'll use a full H-bridge and a PLL circuit, probably, with driver chips, of course. I have a few Intersil H-bridge driver chips right here, in fact, now that I think of it, HIP4080AIP. Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten those were in there. I got them as _free samples_ from Intersil about ten years ago.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 07:40:21 PM
@PW: Yes, you are right and I agree with you totally, and I've got a more sophisticated design with a mosfet half-bridge, driven by gate driver chips and triggered by RF pickup in a CMOS inverter, that will likely blow the socks off this one, with true SGTC style long lightning bolts from the top capacity.
This coil is actually being used for a different purpose, which you might be seeing now. it's never going to make those long lightning bolt sparks, but when I have it working at full power with the straight, unconditioned gate pulses, however slow they are, it will be proving a point that I've been trying to drive home for years now, I think. And it will make a good audio-modulated demonstrator as well.
Don't worry... there are more and better SSTCs in my future. I have a nine-pound spool of that #27 magnet wire and I only used 1/4 pound for this coil, and I've been constructing a coil winder in my spare time. When I go to the trouble of using mosfet drivers and I expect the thing to run for a while, making lightning bolts, I'll use a full H-bridge and a PLL circuit, probably, with driver chips, of course. I have a few Intersil H-bridge driver chips right here, in fact, now that I think of it, HIP4080AIP. Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten those were in there. I got them as _free samples_ from Intersil about ten years ago.
TK,
You do seem to have a "thing" for SSTC's.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 07:25:24 PM
@Mags:
Yep, you've got it.
I've cut out the irrelevant components and noted the bias supply section in the following schematic. Notice anything interesting about the circuit? For example... why does it oscillate?
Thanks.
The transistor is triggered by the feedback looking loop, and in sync with the oscillations of the secondary?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 26, 2012, 07:52:06 PM
Thanks.
The transistor is triggered by the feedback looking loop, and in sync with the oscillations of the secondary?
Mags
Yes, sure... but...
I was hoping you would say, "For the same basic reason the NERD circuit oscillates."
Quote from: picowatt on June 26, 2012, 07:43:34 PM
TK,
You do seem to have a "thing" for SSTC's.
PW
What else am I going to do with all that magnet wire? ;)
(I have a 2 kW rotary SGTC that is just too big and noisy to run in a house, so yes, I am trying to find the optimum small tabletop designs for demonstrations and general mayhem. I also have a smaller 75 W SGTC that I use for some elementary demonstrations, I'll dig it out one of these days and show it off. SGTCs are dangerous, though, because of the HV in the primary circuit. That's why I like the SSTCs, you can get spectacular results with just a few hundred volts in the primary.)
26 volts DC input at just over 2 amps: Steady corona discharge from the NE2 wire.
The coil will light up a compact fluorescent bulb brightly at 18 inches away, wirelessly, running on 30 volts input.
Hi Guys,
Just a quick word. There is no way under God's sun that we or anyone can generate any version of the required oscillation without the use of a feedback diode of some sort. Our very early versions of this switch used nothing more than a relay with a diode across the switch. Our best results were when we simply accessed the internal body diode of the transistors used. And neither I nor any of our collaborators have stipulated that ONLY the IRFPG50 is required.
It is this kind of SPIN that utterly disqualifies TK from presuming to comment on any of our work AT ALL. He is FRAUDULENTLY misrepresenting this and this FRAUD is compounded in his CLAIMED 'compendium' as representative of that work. We entirely disassociate ourselves from it. I have also now stopped any further notification of posts in this thread. Hopefully - in due course I'll stop looking in here let alone comment here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And for those of you who want to evaluate this technology outside of this 'self appointed' commentary by TK - with all its spin and nonsense - then here's the address. You'll be able to enjoy a forum that is not groaning under calumny - misrepresentation and slander - as well as EDITORIAL BIAS. LOL.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 02:23:08 AM
Hi Guys,
Just a quick word. There is no way under God's sun that we or anyone can generate any version of the required oscillation without the use of a feedback diode of some sort. Our very early versions of this switch used nothing more than a relay with a diode across the switch. Our best results were when we simply accessed the internal body diode of the transistors used. And neither I nor any of our collaborators have stipulated that ONLY the IRFPG50 is required.
It is this kind of SPIN that utterly disqualifies TK from presuming to comment on any of our work AT ALL. He is FRAUDULENTLY misrepresenting this and this FRAUD is compounded in his CLAIMED 'compendium' as representative of that work. We entirely disassociate ourselves from it. I have also now stopped any further notification of posts in this thread. Hopefully - in due course I'll stop looking in here let alone comment here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And for those of you who want to evaluate this technology outside of this 'self appointed' commentary by TK - with all its spin and nonsense - then here's the address. You'll be able to enjoy a forum that is not groaning under calumny - misrepresentation and slander - as well as EDITORIAL BIAS. LOL.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/ (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/)
Now you are getting yourself in real trouble, Ainslie. Accusing me of FRAUD or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION of anything is not only a BALDFACED LIE but it is also, as you so like to say, ACTIONABLE.
Perhaps you'd like to look up a legal definition of FRAUD, and also SLANDER AND LIBEL.
For your great information, Ainslie you lying arrogant ignorant hypocrite, the majority of my Ainslie Database contains YOUR OWN WORDS AND DATA. There is no way that simply quoting and reproducing YOUR FORUM POSTS AND DATA constitutes any kind of "fraud"... what it does is to illustrate the FRAUD YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PERPETRATE by your attempts to claim monetary prizes for your unsupported claims.
IN FACT, Ainslie, you are STILL making many fraudulent claims in YOUR ONLY "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION". The one you LIED ABOUT RETRACTING.
HERE IS THE PROOF, yet again, IMAGE TAKEN JUST NOW, of AINSLIE's FRAUDULENT CLAIM with which she has sought to obtain at least THREE monetary prizes.
Now, Ainslie, you choose to accuse me of FRAUD without a single shred of evidence or references of any kind. BE QUITE SURE to show these posts to your imaginary lawyers. Perhaps they can educate you, although since you know everything already, that is unlikely.
HERE IS THE PROOF.
Hopefully, in due course, Ainslie will dry up and blow away, since her lying claims have crumbled into dust already.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 02:23:08 AM
Hi Guys,
Just a quick word. There is no way under God's sun that we or anyone can generate any version of the required oscillation without the use of a feedback diode of some sort.
And of course when somebody DOES make the "required oscillations" with a mosfet or other transistor that does NOT have the body diode or any other diode... Ainslie will simply say "those aren't the required oscillations".
Ainslie, your magic oscillations are simple feedback oscillations, just as they are in my Class E sstc. The mosfet's internal body diode is unimportant except to protect the mosfet and the zeners are just there for voltage regulation. NO DIODES ARE NEEDED to make your "required oscillations", not even the internal body diode of the mosfet. Any transistor can do essentially the same thing, INCLUDING making your magical meaningless mismeasured "negative mean power".
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 02:23:08 AM
And neither I nor any of our collaborators have stipulated that ONLY the IRFPG50 is required.
It is this kind of SPIN that utterly disqualifies TK from presuming to comment on any of our work AT ALL.
Um.... let's see... I have been profoundly criticised by you and your sock puppets in the past for NOT using the IRFPG50... remember how astonished you were when I reproduced your results using IRF830a, a dollar and a half mosfet? Remember Wilby harping on me for YEARS for using a 2sk1548 instead of a PG50 for a few days in my work on your earlier circuit?
And just who is it that is using a single 2n7000 transistor RIGHT NOW to make your negative mean power product and a negative energy integral FOR ANYONE ON DEMAND USING NO BATTERY AT ALL?
You are accusing me of "spinning" something that you are desperately trying to spin in your favor, when everyone knows that you have insisted that the mosfet used have the same high voltage and internal diode and other features of the IRFPG50. You have never shown the use of any other mosfet, I HAVE. You have never compared the performance of different mosfets in your circuit. I HAVE. So spin on this, you arrogant ignorant spinning liar.
On the contrary, I am more qualified to comment on your work than YOU are. So are Picowatt, .99, MileHigh, FuzzyTomCat, humbugger, and even Stefan Hartmann. You, on the other hand, don't understand your "work" or your circuit at all.
You don't even know how to do the calculations! You don't even know how to clean up your own messes, like all the different versions of your manuscripts that contain conflicting schematics, false claims and outright lies, like "bringing water to boil" when you did no such thing, and your 5.9 megaJoules joke.
And you've tried to suppress your own data. Shame on you, you lying hypocrite.
A couple of corona flowers, from ClassE at about 120 Watts input (35 V, 3.5 A).
Interestingly, the component that heats up the most is the secondary resonator ! It runs at around 150 degrees F during prolonged corona displays at 120W input. And it's relatively large, and is hanging in the ambient air circulation. The mosfet doesn't heat much if it's kept in that good Class E switching mode; the fan is there because there is that other mode where there is a lot of noise and in that mode there is a lot of heat in the mosfet.
So... if you include the heating of the secondary coil, the RF power in the near and far fields, and the 10+ kV corona display..... well, let's just say it's a _lot_ of apparent power out, for not much real power in.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2012, 08:41:15 PM
Yes, sure... but...
I was hoping you would say, "For the same basic reason the NERD circuit oscillates."
I was going through my drive looking for something and I found this pic.
Had this been presented here before? Cross coupled LC oscillator
Mags
Again, Hi Guys
Just a quick word. There is no way under God's sun that we or anyone can generate any version of the required oscillation without the use of a feedback diode of some sort. Our very early versions of this switch used nothing more than a relay with a diode across the switch. Our best results were when we simply accessed the internal body diode of the transistors used. And neither I nor any of our collaborators have stipulated that ONLY the IRFPG50 is required.
It is this kind of SPIN that utterly disqualifies TK from presuming to comment on any of our work AT ALL. He is FRAUDULENTLY misrepresenting this and this FRAUD is compounded in his CLAIMED 'compendium' as representative of that work. We entirely disassociate ourselves from it. I have also now stopped any further notification of posts in this thread. Hopefully - in due course I'll stop looking in here let alone comment here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
:)
QuoteAnd neither I nor any of our collaborators have stipulated that ONLY the IRFPG50 is required.
I would not be surprised Rosie Posie if TK posts a screen cap of a posting by you where you insist that the circuit will ONLY work with the IRFPG50.
What then? Will you come back and retract your statement?
Quote from: MileHigh on June 27, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
I would not be surprised Rosie Posie if TK posts a screen cap of a posting by you where you insist that the circuit will ONLY work with the IRFPG50.
What then? Will you come back and retract your statement?
Nor would I be surprised if TK 'quotes' me in any context at all. TK's talents of fabrication are BOTTOMLESS AND PITIFUL
Rosie Pose
Quotefabrication
There is a good chance that the screen cap will come with a link to a posting in a locked thread. That would spell your DOOM and.... What then?
LOL
Quote from: MileHigh on June 27, 2012, 10:47:14 PM
There is a good chance that the screen cap will come with a link to a posting in a locked thread. That would spell your DOOM and.... What then?
Not entirely sure MilesOfPureSpeculation. Presumably it would spell DOOM? LOL (which stands for laugh out loud - by the way... or BTW)
8) :o ;D
What, are you now repeating your lying mendacious posts word-for-word YET AGAIN? That is a bannable offense at some forums, Ainslie, but we are conspiring against banning YOU. YOU can take your medicine here, or you can ban yourself, but you aren't going to get away with posting the same old crap over and over.... because I will make the SAME REPLIES I DID BEFORE, you ignorant lying troll.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 10:24:22 PM
Again, Hi Guys
Just a quick word. There is no way under God's sun that we or anyone can generate any version of the required oscillation without the use of a feedback diode of some sort. Our very early versions of this switch used nothing more than a relay with a diode across the switch. Our best results were when we simply accessed the internal body diode of the transistors used. And neither I nor any of our collaborators have stipulated that ONLY the IRFPG50 is required.
It is this kind of SPIN that utterly disqualifies TK from presuming to comment on any of our work AT ALL. He is FRAUDULENTLY misrepresenting this and this FRAUD is compounded in his CLAIMED 'compendium' as representative of that work. We entirely disassociate ourselves from it. I have also now stopped any further notification of posts in this thread. Hopefully - in due course I'll stop looking in here let alone comment here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
:)
Now you are getting yourself in real trouble, Ainslie. Accusing me of FRAUD or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION of anything is not only a BALDFACED LIE but it is also, as you so like to say, ACTIONABLE.
Perhaps you'd like to look up a legal definition of FRAUD, and also SLANDER AND LIBEL.
For your great information, Ainslie you lying arrogant ignorant hypocrite, the majority of my Ainslie Database contains YOUR OWN WORDS AND DATA. There is no way that simply quoting and reproducing YOUR FORUM POSTS AND DATA constitutes any kind of "fraud"... what it does is to illustrate the FRAUD YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PERPETRATE by your attempts to claim monetary prizes for your unsupported claims.
IN FACT, Ainslie, you are STILL making many fraudulent claims in YOUR ONLY "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION". The one you LIED ABOUT RETRACTING.
HERE IS THE PROOF, yet again, IMAGE TAKEN JUST NOW, of AINSLIE's FRAUDULENT CLAIM with which she has sought to obtain at least THREE monetary prizes.
Now you are getting yourself in real trouble, Ainslie. Accusing me of FRAUD or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION of anything is not only a BALDFACED LIE but it is also, as you so like to say, ACTIONABLE.
Perhaps you'd like to look up a legal definition of FRAUD, and also SLANDER AND LIBEL.
For your great information, Ainslie you lying arrogant ignorant hypocrite, the majority of my Ainslie Database contains YOUR OWN WORDS AND DATA. There is no way that simply quoting and reproducing YOUR FORUM POSTS AND DATA constitutes any kind of "fraud"... what it does is to illustrate the FRAUD YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PERPETRATE by your attempts to claim monetary prizes for your unsupported claims.
IN FACT, Ainslie, you are STILL making many fraudulent claims in YOUR ONLY "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION". The one you LIED ABOUT RETRACTING.
HERE IS THE PROOF, yet again, IMAGE TAKEN JUST NOW, of AINSLIE's FRAUDULENT CLAIM with which she has sought to obtain at least THREE monetary prizes.
Now, Ainslie, you choose to accuse me of FRAUD without a single shred of evidence or references of any kind. BE QUITE SURE to show these posts to your imaginary lawyers. Perhaps they can educate you, although since you know everything already, that is unlikely.
HERE IS THE PROOF.
Hopefully, in due course, Ainslie will dry up and blow away, since her lying claims have crumbled into dust already.
Now, Ainslie, you choose to accuse me of FRAUD without a single shred of evidence or references of any kind. BE QUITE SURE to show these posts to your imaginary lawyers. Perhaps they can educate you, although since you know everything already, that is unlikely.
HERE IS THE PROOF.
Hopefully, in due course, Ainslie will dry up and blow away, since her lying claims have crumbled into dust already.
Notice the FRAUDULENT CLAIM of dissipating 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours. Note also the FRADULENT CLAIM that "water was brought to boil" in that experiment. This screenshot is from the Rossi Journal of Nuclear Physics blog where Ainslie claims to have a "publication". It is there TODAY RIGHT NOW and has not been retracted as Ainslie has mendaciously claimed.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2012, 10:52:52 PM
Now you are getting yourself in real trouble, Ainslie. Accusing me of FRAUD or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION of anything is not only a BALDFACED LIE but it is also, as you so like to say, ACTIONABLE.
LOL. To paraphrase you - on this matter little TK..... BRING IT ON.
Rosie Pose
You repeat your mendacious post word for word... fine, two can play that game, Ainslie, thread polluter, bloviator, troll you. I repeat my replies.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 02:23:08 AM
And neither I nor any of our collaborators have stipulated that ONLY the IRFPG50 is required.
It is this kind of SPIN that utterly disqualifies TK from presuming to comment on any of our work AT ALL.
Um.... let's see... I have been profoundly criticised by you and your sock puppets in the past for NOT using the IRFPG50... remember how astonished you were when I reproduced your results using IRF830a, a dollar and a half mosfet? Remember Wilby harping on me for YEARS for using a 2sk1548 instead of a PG50 for a few days in my work on your earlier circuit?
And just who is it that is using a single 2n7000 transistor RIGHT NOW to make your negative mean power product and a negative energy integral FOR ANYONE ON DEMAND USING NO BATTERY AT ALL?
You are accusing me of "spinning" something that you are desperately trying to spin in your favor, when everyone knows that you have insisted that the mosfet used have the same high voltage and internal diode and other features of the IRFPG50. You have never shown the use of any other mosfet, I HAVE. You have never compared the performance of different mosfets in your circuit. I HAVE. So spin on this, you arrogant ignorant spinning liar.
On the contrary, I am more qualified to comment on your work than YOU are. So are Picowatt, .99, MileHigh, FuzzyTomCat, humbugger, and even Stefan Hartmann. You, on the other hand, don't understand your "work" or your circuit at all.
You don't even know how to do the calculations! You don't even know how to clean up your own messes, like all the different versions of your manuscripts that contain conflicting schematics, false claims and outright lies, like "bringing water to boil" when you did no such thing, and your 5.9 megaJoules joke.
And you've tried to suppress your own data. Shame on you, you lying hypocrite.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 10:57:00 PM
LOL. To paraphrase you - on this matter little TK..... BRING IT ON.
Rosie Pose
You are sick. When you have paid your private investigators and your lawyers to send me an expensive letter with no teeth, THEN I'll reply to them with all of my data, which they will be obligated to read. It's your serve, Ainslie, and you are way behind, because I have all this evidence, including the physical threats you've made, preserved IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 02:23:08 AM
Hi Guys,
Just a quick word. There is no way under God's sun that we or anyone can generate any version of the required oscillation without the use of a feedback diode of some sort.
And of course when somebody DOES make the "required oscillations" with a mosfet or other transistor that does NOT have the body diode or any other diode... Ainslie will simply say "those aren't the required oscillations". You lying hypocrite handwaver with no testable hypotheses, you'll never acknowledge any of the mounds of data that prove you wrong, over and over.
Ainslie, your magic oscillations are simple feedback oscillations, just as they are in my Class E sstc. The mosfet's internal body diode is unimportant except to protect the mosfet and the zeners are just there for voltage regulation. NO DIODES ARE NEEDED to make your "required oscillations", not even the internal body diode of the mosfet. Any transistor can do essentially the same thing, INCLUDING making your magical meaningless mismeasured "negative mean power".
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
You are sick. When you have paid your private investigators and your lawyers to send me an expensive letter with no teeth, THEN I'll reply to them with all of my data, which they will be obligated to read. It's your serve, Ainslie, and you are way behind, because I have all this evidence, including the physical threats you've made, preserved IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
So you say - Little TK. Over and over. Your claims are FATUOUS. Your posts are RIDICULOUS. Your representations are DUBIOUS. Your experimental aptitudes - HOPELESS. Your allegations are ODIOUS. Your insinuations - MENDACIOUS. And so it goes.
I'd add to this list but I'm already bored.
Rosie Pose
And Guys,
Just a gentle reminder. Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory. Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement. And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access.
That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.
What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance. The significance is this. EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy. And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Dear readers,
In the first paper (not the COP=17 paper), in FIG3 during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive voltage, the 'scope capture indicates that approximately +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. Surely all will agree that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause it to turn fully on.
However, during that same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace does not indicate any significant current flow as would be expected from Q1 being turned fully on.
This can only mean that Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic. Q1 cannot be a functioning device connected as per the schematic and have +12 volts applied to its gate without significant current flow being indicated.
As well, in the FIG7 the gate drive indicates that Q1 should turning on, yet again, the CSR trace indicates it is not.
The only explanations given to date by the author argue that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. It was verified via a phone call with LeCroy that the 'scope is indeed being read correctly. The author has also had plenty of opportunity to confirm this with LeCroy as well. Instead the author has shown no interest in performing due diligence and confirming the indicated +12 volts with LeCroy (or anyone else), but merely prefers to stand by by the false assertion that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. Recently it was argued that the 'scope channel for the FG should have been set to AC coupling, which is a ludicrous argument, as all familiar with the use of a 'scope will agree.
Therefore, to date, no credible explanation has been provided by the author as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7. It is readily apparent, however, that Q1 should be turning and that the CSR trace indicates that it is not.
Also note that in FIG5, a 'scope capture made the month prior, the indicated gate drive is less than as indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace indicates significant current flow thru Q1.
So again the question must be asked, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it is clearly indicated that it should be?
PW
She's a brick wall!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
Dark sarcasm and DOOM! 8)
Quote from: MileHigh on June 28, 2012, 12:09:28 AM
She's a brick wall!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
Dark sarcasm and DOOM! 8)
All in all...
And Guys, girls, readers
Picowatt is equally anxious to misinform you and relies on the misrepresentation of the voltage across the transistor - to carry his rather thin argument. I'm entirely satisfied that those of you who are familiar with a LeCroy are well able to understand the significance of the coupling.
Again, I would caution you all. Sadly he's admitted understanding this significance. And. Notwithstanding. He's assuming that you are all that STUPID that you yourselves - do NOT understand it. And equally sadly - he has nothing else go complain about. And like our little TK he can only manage to regurgitate the same rather sick nonsense over and over. He is doing his best to misinform you all. Make allowances for the repetitive nature of those presentations. He's either excessively compromised by his own lack of intellect or he's relying on your own. Probably the latter. And there is nothing else that he can find to cast the doubt that he's trying to promote.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
QuoteI'm entirely satisfied that those of you who are familiar with a LeCroy are well able to understand the significance of the coupling.
Absolutely!
Quote from: MileHigh on June 28, 2012, 12:32:12 AM
Absolutely!
Thanks for the endorsement MileHigh.
Rosie Posie
:-*
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 12:17:34 AM
And Guys, girls, readers
Picowatt is equally anxious to misinform you and relies on the misrepresentation of the voltage across the transistor - to carry his rather thin argument. I'm entirely satisfied that those of you who are familiar with a LeCroy are well able to understand the significance of the coupling.
Again, I would caution you all. Sadly he's admitted understanding this significance. And. Notwithstanding. He's assuming that you are all that STUPID that you yourselves - do NOT understand it. Sadly - he has nothing else go complain about. And like our little TK he can only manage to regurgitate the same rather sick nonsense over and over. He is doing his best to misinform you all. Make allowances for the repetitive nature of those presentations. He's either excessively compromised by his own lack of intellect or he's relying on your own. Probably the latter. And there is nothing else that he can find to cast the doubt that he's trying to promote.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Your AC coupling argument is totally rdiculous at best. You merely demonstrate to everyone how limited your skills are with regard to using an oscilloscope.
You only destroy your credibility further with every post that argues that +12 volts is not being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG 3. This question regarding Q1 was asked several months ago and to date no reasonable explanation has been provided by you, merely arguments over the indicated Q1 gate drive level.
So, when you finally realize how ridiculous your AC coupling argument is, and that +12 volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, maybe you will get around to answering my question:
Why is Q1 not turnng on in FIG3 and FIG7 during the positive portion of the FG cycle wherein sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn Q1 fully on? No current flow is indicated by the CSR trace in those figures as would be expected if Q1 were being turned on.
ADDED: And for the record, I am not trying to "promote" anything, I HAVE been trying to get an answer for 3 months or so however.
Quote from: picowatt on June 28, 2012, 12:08:13 AM
Dear readers,
In the first paper (not the COP=17 paper), in FIG3 during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive voltage, the 'scope capture indicates that approximately +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. Surely all will agree that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause it to turn fully on.
However, during that same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace does not indicate any significant current flow as would be expected from Q1 being turned fully on.
This can only mean that Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic. Q1 cannot be a functioning device connected as per the schematic and have +12 volts applied to its gate without significant current flow being indicated.
As well, in the FIG7 the gate drive indicates that Q1 should turning on, yet again, the CSR trace indicates it is not.
The only explanations given to date by the author argue that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. It was verified via a phone call with LeCroy that the 'scope is indeed being read correctly. The author has also had plenty of opportunity to confirm this with LeCroy as well. Instead the author has shown no interest in performing due diligence and confirming the indicated +12 volts with LeCroy (or anyone else), but merely prefers to stand by by the false assertion that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. Recently it was argued that the 'scope channel for the FG should have been set to AC coupling, which is a ludicrous argument, as all familiar with the use of a 'scope will agree.
Therefore, to date, no credible explanation has been provided by the author as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7. It is readily apparent, however, that Q1 should be turning and that the CSR trace indicates that it is not.
Also note that in FIG5, a 'scope capture made the month prior, the indicated gate drive is less than as indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace indicates significant current flow thru Q1.
So again the question must be asked, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it is clearly indicated that it should be?
PW
Bumped for clarity
There you have it guys. Repetition. It's all they rely on. Sadly. So. If you've read the one post then - in effect you've read them all. Which makes this thread rather thin in substance but truly FAT in every other sense. LOL. I'll sit back and see YET MORE of this. And then I may even add a little repetition of my own. It's not as if it's likely to degrade this thread. It can't get any worse.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
added
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 12:40:34 AM
There you have it guys. Repetition. It's all they rely on. Sadly.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Actually, looking over it all, Pico is spot on. Sorry, but his explanation fits the picture.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 12:40:34 AM
There you have it guys. Repetition. It's all they rely on. Sadly.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
There you have it "guys", as usual, she never answers the question...
LOL. Jolly good Mags. So long as we've got your own learned expertise to give us the required commentary. We'd never know what to think otherwise.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
Actually, looking over it all, Pico is spot on. Sorry, but his explanation fits the picture.
Mags
Take care of yourself there Mags. You're contributions are invaluable to the high standards here.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: picowatt on June 28, 2012, 12:48:10 AM
There you have it "guys", as usual, she never answers the question...
And continued insults.. And continued... on and on and on...
I guess thats all there is.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 12:52:43 AM
And continued insults.. And continued... on and on and on...
I guess thats all there is.
Mags
Indeed. As ever you're SPOT ON. That's really all there is here. Not exactly riveting stuff. But amusing, nonetheless.
Rosie Pose
;D :-*
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
LOL. Jolly good Mags. So long as we've got your own learned expertise to give us the required commentary. We'd never know what to think otherwise.
Take care of yourself there Mags. You're contributions are invaluable to the high standards here.
Rosie Pose
Jolly good indeed. Your argument regarding needing to factor in the LeCroy's offset numbers was a ridiculous argument, and now your AC coupling argument is even moreso ridiculous. You simply know very little about using a 'scope. Your AC coupling argument only confirms that.
+12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3 during the positive portion of the FG cycle, so again, why is Q1 not turning on?
PW
Actually Rose, It is you I was speaking of. All you have left is to insult. Picos explanation is very clear. He has been explaining it for months. And your answers are not clear at all. Nor do they exist.
Just insults. Sad I thought you were better than that. I was wrong. What they have been saying is all true.
I thought you were gunna beat them with facts and proofs. But all you have is insults. No answers. No clear explanations. Those are not the actions of a winner.
Mags
Actually Magsy I had a shrewd idea what you were intending to convey. LOL.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 01:05:54 AM
Actually Rose, It is you I was speaking of. All you have left is to insult. Picos explanation is very clear. He has been explaining it for months. And your answers are not clear at all. Nor do they exist.
Just insults. Sad I thought you were better than that. I was wrong. What they have been saying is all true.
I thought you were gunna beat them with facts and proofs. But all you have is insults. No answers. No clear explanations. Those are not the actions of a winner.
Mags
I am not intending to 'win' anything at all. This is NOT a competition. LOL
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 01:10:46 AM
Actually Magsy I had a shrewd idea what you were intending to convey. LOL.
I am not intending to 'win' anything at all. This is NOT a competition. LOL
Rosie Pose
I can see that. There is nothing left to contend. Its all over.
Mags
lol. Magsy you sound like MileHigh. 'Everything's over'. :o :'(
Take heart. Indeed everything is just beginning. Thankfully not through the rather absurd efforts of our members who contribute so dilligently to this thread. Commentary hereafter will be much BROADER and infinitely more dependable - than the sad efforts of these pretenders to the 'right to comment'. Then we'll get some science back onto this subject. And as ever, we've got a reasonably safe address to advance all this. Left to little TK and picowatt - then there would be those of you who would be forever DUPED. God forbid. And God knows they are well able to persuade the weak minded.
Rosie Pose
The only way it could be just beginning, is if you have a new circuit. All you have so far is a circuit that interupts the battery to the load at very high frequency, paused once in a while to the beat of the signal generator.
I have waited and waited for you to prove anything real here. But that day never comes.
And I am now putting my money on, that it never will. A sure thing. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
lol. Magsy you sound like MileHigh. 'Everything's over'. :o :'(
Take heart. Indeed everything is just beginning. Thankfully not through the rather absurd efforts of our members who contribute so dilligently to this thread. Commentary hereafter will be much BROADER and infinitely more dependable - than the sad efforts of these pretenders to the 'right to comment'. Then we'll get some science back onto this subject. And as ever, we've got a reasonably safe address to advance all this. Left to little TK and picowatt - then there would be those of you who would be forever DUPED. God forbid. And God knows they are well able to persuade the weak minded.
Rosie Pose
I have never weighed in one way or another regarding the efficiency of your circuit. TK and .99 have presented more credible evidence regarding that than I have seen from you. I do not, however, believe that a neg mean pwr measurement as measured, and as sole evidence, indicates a "COP=infinity". I also believe that your definition and use of the term "COP=infinity" is both innaccurate and misleading.
I do, however, know how to use a 'scope, a FG, and MOSFET's. In FIG 3 and FIG7 of your first paper, there is sufficient gate drive being indicated to turn Q1 fully on. But the CSR trace does not indicate the expected current flow.
So, again, why is Q1 not turning on? When you answer this question properly, I am sure you will immediately make the necessary corrections to your papers, won't you?
Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 01:34:04 AM
I have waited and waited for you to prove anything real here. But that day never comes.
And I am now puttingmy money on, that it never will. A sure thing. ;)
Mags
How much Magsy? I'll wager here - gladly.
Rosie Pose
I wonder what the wager would be?
That a function generator can't pass, sink, or source current?
That a 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG levels properly?
That +12 volts is not being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3?
That an indicated negative mean power measurement means a circuit is COP=infinity?
That your batteries never run down?
That you have discovered a new phenomenon akin to room temperature superconductivity?
Just what is it you are claiming? I don't think anyone really knows any more...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
How much Magsy? I'll wager here - gladly.
Rosie Pose
Wager on "what " exactly? lol As of late, and seeing you turn on me over something you misread(clearly) , and yet when clearly pointed out to you that it "isnt" as you say you interpreted it, you ignore and continue on, as if you are never in error.
It wasnt only you and I that could read all that stuff.
So no. I cant trust you to be involved in a wager with you.
And what if I say $5000. What then? You want my email address? Then I can be worried that you would post it around the internet? Or just threats of it?
Your description of your circuit, its components, the equipment used, has many holes in it. Not just 1 or 3 or 10!!!! I see this now. Its all there to see.
Mags
TK said:
Quote5.9 megaJoules. You are a joke, and it's your own bad attitude that makes me so angry about you and your lies. As I have said many times, had you simply corrected your ridiculous math and acknowledged your errors and retracted the ridiculous claims made based on them, I would not have gotten involved with your current nonsense. YOU brought my "malice" or rather wrath upon yourself by your overweening arrogance and boundless ignorance.
And Ainslie said:
QuoteWHAT A JOKE. Not only has this been retracted - it's been done so publicly. BUT - should you acknowledge this then you'd lose 100% of the excuse required to FABRICATE all that absurd MORAL INDIGNATION. Coming from the base of an ALLEGED academic - it's as laughable an allegation as that ASSUMED accreditation. You seem to forget that we're not all as stupid as you hope.
Yes, you are even more stupid than you look, actually, Ainslie, liar. All you did was edit out the offending sentence or two from your forum post. YOU DID NOT RETRACT ANYTHING. In the "official" "publication" of your "paper" in Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" blog forum, YOUR FALSE CLAIM STILL PERSISTS. But it appears that nobody cares about your claims, because it's been many days since anyone has mentioned it in the comments. They are intelligent enough to see, after the first reading, that it's a bunch of illconceived garbage.
You have not retracted anything, you liar. A retraction consists of more than just "vanishing" the lie. YOU MUST EXPLAIN why you retracted that CRITICAL CLAIM from your bogus manuscript.
Ah... but why do we bother. Ainslie doesn't read words, she just looks at shapes, and she cannot OR WILL NOT properly display the images I continue to post that prove that she's a liar and a fool. She's like a senile little girl who has just been told there is no Santa Claus and who refuses to believe it. Even when Christmas comes, she'll still be there at the hearth, waiting for a fat jolly bearded man to come sliding down the tube and carry her away from all this plain old zipon-free reality.
Today's screenshot of the continuing lies in the "official publication":
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2012, 06:41:32 AM
Um.... let's see... I have been profoundly criticised by you and your sock puppets in the past for NOT using the IRFPG50... remember how astonished you were when I reproduced your results using IRF830a, a dollar and a half mosfet? Remember Wilby harping on me for YEARS for using a 2sk1548 instead of a PG50 for a few days in my work on your earlier circuit?
And just who is it that is using a single 2n7000 transistor RIGHT NOW to make your negative mean power product and a negative energy integral FOR ANYONE ON DEMAND USING NO BATTERY AT ALL?
You are accusing me of "spinning" something that you are desperately trying to spin in your favor, when everyone knows that you have insisted that the mosfet used have the same high voltage and internal diode and other features of the IRFPG50. You have never shown the use of any other mosfet, I HAVE. You have never compared the performance of different mosfets in your circuit. I HAVE. So spin on this, you arrogant ignorant spinning liar.
On the contrary, I am more qualified to comment on your work than YOU are. So are Picowatt, .99, MileHigh, FuzzyTomCat, humbugger, and even Stefan Hartmann. You, on the other hand, don't understand your "work" or your circuit at all.
You don't even know how to do the calculations! You don't even know how to clean up your own messes, like all the different versions of your manuscripts that contain conflicting schematics, false claims and outright lies, like "bringing water to boil" when you did no such thing, and your 5.9 megaJoules joke.
And you've tried to suppress your own data. Shame on you, you lying hypocrite.
Again TK your spot on regarding the International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET that has been specified in every magical schematic in existence created by Rosemary and the NERD RAT's she has "NEVER" given any other mosfet as a substitution for it .... because it's the magical one.
She's even went into another thread with her expertise on the magical IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET arguing with Poynt99 ..... Ghazanfar Ali Generator - Utlilizing trapped energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311761/#msg311761 (http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311761/#msg311761) Reply #55 on: February 05, 2012, 11:36:41 PM
Quote from: poynt99 on February 05, 2012, 09:03:52 PM
Some MOSFETs are "avalanche rated" meaning they can tolerate a certain degree of avalanching in the body diode (the IRFPG50 is an example).
Regards,
.99
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 02:36:41 AM
No. No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING. Golly. Whatever next? Avalanching is the undesirable product of paralleled transistors. And that applies to them all.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's pretty obvious with the attachment image of the International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET and what the manufacture states about it's avalanche rating. ???
Ive noticed lately that following Rosemary's postings now are like looking at a gross slime trail from a large snail or slug and shes getting more desperate even loosing the child like talent of a lie on a lie about a lie from a lie to create another lie to cover a lie. Then there's no discussion at Rossi's BLOG site or her looser forum about her magical mosfet device with foreign language spam postings. Now Rosemary's hiding and refusing to publish all her data of oscilloscope screen shots and accompanying data dumps for each screen shot to support her claim(s) it's down to a few of Rosemary's cherry picked ones she chose to make her ongoing fraud look more credible if that's even possible now.
FTC
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2012, 06:41:32 AM
Remember Wilby harping on me for YEARS for using a 2sk1548 instead of a PG50 for a few days in my work on your earlier circuit?
LMFAO ::) talk about spin... ::) actually it was a couple months not "a few days". you're a liar, and the record demonstrates.
furthermore you troll, i haven't been harping on you for YEARS for using a 2sk1548... i have been harping on you for the mea culpa you owe me over your asinine claim that there would be no performance difference between the two mosfets (2sk1598 and irfpg50). that, and you know, correcting your asinine daffynition of 'replication'... ::)
so spin on that, you arrogant ignorant spinning liar.
QuoteNo. No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING.
She actually said that... amazing.
I don't think she's ever read a component data sheet in her life. It's got Graphs ! And Acronyms like Rdss ! Therefore by definition they are impossible for Ainslie to understand.
And we already know how she feels about the "spin" that manufacturers put on their products. She simply ignores manufacturer's data. As she has demonstrated many times, she knows more about Function Generators than Agilent, she knows more about oscilloscopes than LeCroy or Tektronix, she knows more about power measurement than Vishay and Wikipedia and Wolfram Alpha combined.... and clearly, she knows more about mosfets than International Rectifier. Imagine, all those lies and spin in the data sheets for all those mosfets that they _claim_ are repetitive avalanche rated, when Ainslie, autodidact genius that she is, clearly tells us otherwise. Golly! LOL.
When I first started testing my ClassE driver board, I used a PG50 because that was the only high power mosfet I had within easy reach. But with Rdss of 2.0 ohms..... it's just too lossy to work well, especially with the low current capability. Since the circuit is designed to capture and store the inductive backspike from the turnoff of the pulse in its capacitance and use that energy in the next pulse, it is very efficient in that regard, but if one is pumping each spike through a 2 ohm resistor that is really wasteful. It's a laugh that Ainslie doesn't even grasp that the mosfet still has significant resistance even when fully ON.... unless of course it is shorted. She has stated several times that the resistance is "zero" when ON, as if two Ohms were negligible. Really, an Ohm is a huge amount of resistance, but we normally work with voltages that are also huge so we don't notice the stray Ohm or two. (This is why the 2sk1548 works better in the COP>17 circuit than the IRFPG50: it has significantly lower Rdss and a faster turn on and turn off.)
The IRFP450 that I'm using now works much much better. The coil runs at 50 Volts, 6 amps input from batteries, a steady 300 Watts CW making nice corona, and that would kill a PG50 in short order. I have some IRFP460s on order and they will work even better and should allow me to get past half a kW easily, and if I put a 17n80 in there I should be able to get to a kW for short periods. Right now.... the limitation isn't the mosfet, actually, it's the secondary coil. It heats up surprisingly much at the higher power levels. I might have made a mistake by using the black PVC as a former. I know better than to use black plastics or paints on electrostatic machines; they are just conductive enough to bleed off charge from the extreme HV areas. But I didn't think it would matter for this coil. Oh well... I still have nearly nine pounds of wire, so I'll wind another secondary on a properly prepared paper form or some white PVC.
Wilby, I owe you nothing but the contempt you richly deserve, that you repeatedly earn, and that you get from me every day. If I could package it up and send it to you in a great stinking pile, I would.
You have no idea what mosfets I used when and for how long, and you are a liar and a troll. In fact you and your grandmother figure the lying fraudster Ainslie are textbook examples of internet trolls.
Now why don't you just sail off into the sunset with your windy blowhardness, you windex-swilling bartender's helper, you.
Here are a few more pix of sassy ClassE, running on three of TarBaby's batteries at about 4 amps (about 150 Watts), driving a corona motor.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 09:58:15 AM
Wilby, I owe you nothing but the contempt you richly deserve, that you repeatedly earn, and that you get from me every day. If I could package it up and send it to you in a great stinking pile, I would.
You have no idea what mosfets I used when and for how long, and you are a liar and a troll. In fact you and your grandmother figure the lying fraudster Ainslie are textbook examples of internet trolls.
Now why don't you just sail off into the sunset with your windy blowhardness, you windex-swilling bartender's helper, you.
You know, I have to agree with you. We sometimes use the term "troll" very loosely when someone posts something we do not like. But this Wilby person is a troll in the truest definition. I know I am feeding him with this comment, but I am just amazed at the perfect example of trollishness. His only discernable purpose and pleasure here appears to be starting fights. He hangs on every word, looking for an opportunity to find any fault at all, no matter how inconsequential, while mostly ignoring the main question presented. Just an all round nasty person.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on June 28, 2012, 10:25:23 AM
You know, I have to agree with you. We sometimes use the term "troll" very loosely when someone posts something we do not like. But this Wilby person is a troll in the truest definition. I know I am feeding him with this comment, but I am just amazed at the perfect example of trollishness. His only discernable purpose and pleasure here appears to be starting fights. He hangs on every word, looking for an opportunity to find any fault at all, no matter how inconsequential, while mostly ignoring the main question presented. Just an all round nasty person.
go look at the record of posts in this thread idiot... i was staying out of this UNTIL your hero HAD to make a snide ass LIE about me and LIE about what he has done. and notice he doesn't deny any of it because he knows i'm right. ::) if you want, i'll go to rose's old thread and drag up all the relevant posts and quote them here for you... OR you could sod off.
furthermore, i didn't START SHIT... your hero set the precedent, because it's what he thrives on, just like you... if you little girls can manage not to speak lies about what i have said or done, i'll manage not to post here. ::)
tinselkoala/alsetalokin just called me a liar regarding what mosfets he used when and for how long, and he prides himself on 'proving' his claims... what do think the chances are he will prove it? i'm betting on zero...
Wilby, you said you would send me a mosfet, in order to trick me into revealing an address. You did not send me that mosfet and in fact you never intended to. You are a liar.
QED.
What are the chances that you will continue with your strawman ad hominem bloviation? One hundred percent. What are the chances that anything of significance will ever come from you? Precisely zero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uGwIIalOEI
Isn't it interesting how whenever significant results are reported in this thread, or some absurd claim or lie from Ainslie is refuted YET AGAIN, the trolls come out, and between them Wilby and Ainslie manage to bury those posts under sheer trolling, irrelevant nonsense, insults and more lies? I find it extremely interesting. It's completely hilarious that these so-called "free energy researchers" working on "open source projects" in these "public forums" so often try to hide, cover up, or bury data, just as they hide their devices from and keep their little secrets about actual schematics and continue to make false claims. That is, the few of them that actually _do_ have devices at all. It seems that most of them don't actually possess opposable thumbs at all and prefer to jibe and tack and pass wind instead of actually doing work.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 11:03:19 AM
Isn't it interesting how whenever significant results are reported in this thread, or some absurd claim or lie from Ainslie is refuted YET AGAIN, the trolls come out, and between them Wilby and Ainslie manage to bury those posts under sheer trolling, irrelevant nonsense, insults and more lies? I find it extremely interesting. It's completely hilarious that these so-called "free energy researchers" working on "open source projects" in these "public forums" so often try to hide, cover up, or bury data, just as they hide their devices from and keep their little secrets about actual schematics and continue to make false claims. That is, the few of them that actually _do_ have devices at all. It seems that most of them don't actually possess opposable thumbs at all and prefer to jibe and tack and pass wind instead of actually doing work.
listen troll... i wouldn't have said a word had you not lied about what you actually did and misrepresented what i actually said... isn't it interesting that you cannot just stick to the science and have to repeatedly engage in your juvenile name calling, lying and taunting? and then blame the person you lied about or taunted or called a name when they come to defend themselves... ::)
again... tu stultus es!
as an aside, i'll bite on your red herring... what "significant results" were you reporting? you know the ones you accuse me of obfuscating... the only posts you've recently made is some pictures of a crappy little tesla coil. is that your "significant results"? or is it that you are worried someone might miss your precious little "steam was evident at all times" picture? but... that can't be the case because you've spam posted that picture almost a dozen times now... just look back a few pages before i "intruded" by defending myself against your false accusations and lies and there it is. oh there it is again. and again... ::)
The crappy little Tesla coil, Wilby you itinerant window-washer you, is using substantially the same circuit as the single-mosfet Ainslie circuit, and is oscillating for the same reasons. The difference, and the reason that I am showing it, is to illustrate what a PROPERLY SWITCHED and OSCILLATION CONTROLLED mosfet can actually do with its input power. Do you dare to apply the same "power calculation standard measurement protocols" that Ainslie uses to THIS simple mosfet switch that works EXACTLY in accordance with Faraday's Laws of Induction and Kirchoff's Circuit Rules?
And the reason I keep posting the DIFFERENT DAILY IMAGES of the same page from Ainslie's JNP article is because THAT is the only "official" publication of her "work" and it CONTINUES TO CONTAIN THE 5.9 MegaJoule LIE that she has LIED about "retracting". Every day that remains up there, conflicting with the new, sanitized version on her new forum, is YET ANOTHER LIE by someone who is trying to benefit monetarily by convincing people that the lie is true. DO THE MATH, you logic-challenged CMOS smoker, you.
And the significant results that you are attempting to bury go all along through this thread. For example, the FUNCTION GENERATOR PASSING CURRENT result which clearly refutes a significant claim of Ainslie's, and another is the fact that the Figure 7 image in the paper on the new forum AND NOWHERE ELSE had the zero baselines edited out, then magically re-appeared after I called them on it.... and the absurd 5.9 megaJoule claim and the dangling battery capacity sentence are just GONE, without explanation, but they REMAIN in the official version on Rossi's JNP site. The lie PERSISTS TODAY so I'm posting yet another image of the lie that she claims, lying still, to have "retracted publicly". That, Wilby, along with the withholding of the data that she has been promising for over a year to freely share, is a SIGNIFICANT RESULT which once again shows that Ainslie cannot be trusted, that she lies, and that she cannot -- or rather, arrogantly _will not_ -- clean up after her own messes.
This image is NOT the same as the earlier ones of the same page. This image was taken moments ago from the JNP publication.
And _this_ image is another, showing the crappy little ClassE Tesla coil using the SAME CIRCUIT, basically, as the Ainslie single-mosfet circuit, using its 300 W input (4 Tar Baby Batteries at 6 amperes) to actually do something useful: make corona and ozone to purify and beautify the environment. And, yes, it is making Heat in the Load as well; the secondary runs at a stable 150 degrees F in the ambient 70 degree airconditioning of my DeepBunker.
Do I measure any "depletion of potential difference in the supply"?
Wouldn't that depend on how I did my measurements and what I considered to be data? I mean, the batteries measure the same voltage before I start the demo and after I finish the demo. Therefore, no, I cannot measure any depletion of potential difference in the supply. And these batteries have been hooked up to the coil since yesterday afternoon.
Of course, the coil hasn't been turned ON for all that time.....
::)
What about these significant results that the trolls have sought to bury:
Tar Baby runs on CAPACITORS ONLY, making a NEGATIVE MEAN POWER PRODUCT, with oscillations that DO NOT VISIBLY DECAY FOR A SIGNIFICANT TIME PERIOD before they collapse just like those from a battery supply would, if you only had the attention span needed to determine it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0)
Function Generators DO IN FACT pass current from an external battery source, through the ground and probe tip leads, to an external load in a complete circuit, with both the battery and the FG acting in series as power sources, with the resultant output voltage being the algebraic sum of the two voltages at any instant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
Go ahead now, spin and dig, you tiny army of petty-minded trolls. Bring in another truckload or two of insignificant, off topic bloviation in an attempt to rebury without discussion these two HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT video demonstrations, both of which refute various Ainslie claims as simply as making oxtail soup.
so you're saying, basically, that rose's circuit is a class E amplifier... interesting because everyone knows those are pretty efficient. 90-95% or something like that right... ;) and didn't you say somewhere on record that rose's circuit isn't? nevermind, i'm sure i can find it...
thanks for spamming that picture again...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 28, 2012, 03:28:13 PM
so you're saying, basically, that rose's circuit is a class E amplifier... interesting because everyone knows those are pretty efficient. 90-95% or something like that right... ;) and didn't you say somewhere on record that rose's circuit isn't? nevermind, i'm sure i can find it...
thanks for spamming that picture again...
You don't have to look far, Strawman Constructor Wilby.
Ainslie's circuit is INefficient because its capacitances and inductances are not tuned. Take a look at the top trace in my scopeshots. See that 600 volt spike, being delivered from the transistor to the primary coil, from a 35 volt input? See how clean it is? That, Wilby, you mosfet-data-sheet-consumer, is why a ClassE tuned circuit is so efficient. Compare that waveform with any of Ainslie's, and then go back to eating your own stuffing, you barely domesticated turkey. Ainslie's circuit is not properly tuned and the radiation from the primary load is wasted as heat only. When MY circuit is operating in clean ClassE mode, the mosfet stays cool, even though it's carrying six amps.
Oh... and did I mention the 20+ kV output? Sorry, I must have forgotten.
ETA: Actually, Wilby, you calorimetrically challenged energy consumer you, Ainslie's circuit is 100 percent efficient. Put it and its batteries in a big calorimeter and measure the energy it puts out until it stops putting it out. This will equal the energy put into the battery in the first place, minus some small losses due to the calorimeter's inevitable leakage.
Oh.... and by the way:
-- 5.9 megaJoules claimed, and no battery capacity given, in the JNP "publication"
-- retraction claimed, but not actually done
-- the water wasn't actually boiling but there were small bubbles (lol)
-- Function Generators Can and DO pass current in the manner Ainslie has denied
-- IRFPG50 mosfets, and many others, ARE repetitive avalanche rated, with hard numbers for the designers who understand what they mean
-- Tar Baby, which uses the NERD circuit EXACTLY (oh... no.... it does NOT, because it doesn't have clipleads or a white pegboard, does it Wilby) runs exactly on capacitors as it does on batteries, just not for as long, and so will the NERD circuit when tested with the appropriately sized capacitor bank. Or even with a much smaller one, if the NERDS can figure out how to make a "single-shot" trace with their fancy Etch-a-Sketch toy oscilloscope. (A Bottom-Line LeCroy affordable hobbyist's model. If she can insult my oscilloscope, that was used in weapons research at LLNL in the eighties, I can damn well insult hers, which has been used for nothing but painting pretty pictures--- and for demolishing her own claims with her own data, of course).
-- the issue of the Q1 not turning on and passing current, that PW asks about and that needs to be explained because the explanation might INVALIDATE the whole papers just for that reason alone. This question MUST be answered satisfactorily. No doubt PW has demonstrated for himself with his own components, as I have, that those traces CANNOT POSSIBLY be duplicated with the schematic claimed and a functioning mosfet in place.
All these issues, and more, Wilby, are just some of the SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS that have been buried recently by the trolling and bloviation and doggerel and insults from Ainslie that you lot post instead of actually dealing with the REAL ISSUES.
Here is Sassy ClassE, nearly dressed out, fully self-contained except for the RF ground, with 4 Tar Baby batteries.
And here is a rough map of its field while running the Corona Motor at about 5 amps input. I opened the shutter for 30 seconds (f/16, ISO200) and used the NE-2 bulb on a stick, not connected to anything, and moved it around the secondary. I didn't want to get too close, but it's easy to get an idea of the shape and strength of the field.
For scale, the secondary coil form is a 6" length of PVC and about 5 3/4 inches of it is wound with #27 magnet wire. The primary is 14 ga house wiring insulated solid copper and the 5 turns span just under 0.6 inch.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 05:48:04 PM
Ainslie's circuit is INefficient because its capacitances and inductances are not tuned.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 05:48:04 PM
Actually, Wilby, you calorimetrically challenged energy consumer you, Ainslie's circuit is 100 percent efficient.
so which is it you idiot troll? is it inefficient or is it 100% efficient? make up your mind.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 05:48:04 PM
When MY circuit is operating in clean ClassE mode, the mosfet stays cool, even though it's carrying six amps.
your circuit? ahh there's that narcissism you're famous for. isn't it basically (other than the clipleads and white pegboard) rose's circuit? tuned to load match your tesla coil... of course it is and of course it stays cool... ::) it's got a monster heat sink on it.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 28, 2012, 08:23:37 PM
so which is it you idiot troll? is it inefficient or is it 100% efficient? make up your mind.
When will you stop beating your dog, Wilby? Answer the question.
In other words, strawman constructor, you know very well what is meant by efficiency. One has a target, a purpose for any circuit. Heat in the load, RF radiation, etc. Heat in the mosfets on huge heatsinks, LIKE AINSLIE HAS, is usually considered waste heat and is subtracted from stated efficiency levels. But of course, energy out always equals energy in, except in Rosemary-world and some other fantasy lands, so we expect, UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE, any circuit to behave this way: in other words, COUNTING ALL OUTPUTS and ALL INPUTS, every circuit is expected to be 100 percent efficient.
Put that in your strawman's corncob pipe and wipe your windows with it.
Quote
your circuit? ahh there's that narcissism you're famous for. isn't it basically (other than the clipleads and white pegboard) rose's circuit? tuned to load match your tesla coil... of course it is and of course it stays cool... ::) it's got a monster heat sink on it.
My circuit. I built it, I made component substitutions based on my knowledge, and it's sitting here on my workbench right now. If you don't think that makes it MY circuit... .then you must also agree that Ainslie's single mosfet circuit is not hers also, since it or something very like it appears in every IRFPG50 data sheet in the world as the inductive clamp test circuit. And as Mags has shown, something very like the present multimosfetmess is a simple flipflop oscillator.
Now.... you, I think, are simply jealous and playing "sour grapes", because you have nothing at all to show for yourself after all these years, having lost your thumbs in a sailing accident trimming your jib to the wind.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 01:59:01 AM
Your description of your circuit, its components, the equipment used, has many holes in it. Not just 1 or 3 or 10!!!! I see this now. Its all there to see.
Mags
Hi Magsy,
Please be specific. WHERE are those 'holes' as you describe them?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 10:07:40 PM
My circuit. I built it, I made component substitutions based on my knowledge, and it's sitting here on my workbench right now. If you don't think that makes it MY circuit... .then you must also agree that Ainslie's single mosfet circuit is not hers also, since it or something very like it appears in every IRFPG50 data sheet in the world as the inductive clamp test circuit.
Quite right little TK. It most certainly is NOT my circuit. Nor is it yours. It's very well known technology. It's also HIGHLY efficient - provided only you take the trouble to MEASURE that efficiency.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 10:07:40 PMAnd as Mags has shown, something very like the present multimosfetmess is a simple flipflop oscillator.
Not actually little TK. They're nothing alike - not in their MEASURED results.
Regards as ever, and notwithstanding
Rosie Pose
added 'little'
Little Miss Mosfet, you wouldn't know a proper measurement if you woke up next to one.
For example how did you make the measurement that gave you the figure of 5.9 megaJoules, as you state in your official publication on Rossi's JNP? You know, the one you lied about retracting. ENLARGE YOUR SCREEN and read what is up RIGHT NOW on Rossi's "Journal" under YOUR NAME, Ainslie.
Hello again Little TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 11:13:04 PM
Little Miss Mosfet, you wouldn't know a proper measurement if you woke up next to one.
For example how did you make the measurement that gave you the figure of 5.9 megaJoules, as you state in your official publication on Rossi's JNP? You know, the one you lied about retracting. ENLARGE YOUR SCREEN and read what is up RIGHT NOW on Rossi's "Journal" under YOUR NAME, Ainslie.
Everyone on Rossi's blog has been advised that the paper has not been edited as required. Take the trouble to read there. But then, of course, you won't have the excuse to continually misinform our readers here TK. So. Perhaps better you don't bother. Else you'd have NOTHING left to complain about.
Nice fireworks you've got there by the way (BTW). But I wonder perhaps if you're drifting off topic a bit. Are you DESPERATELY trying to distract all and sundry from the real motive in this excuse for a thread? if so, you're doing good. I'm only sorry I can't see those videos of yours.
Meanwhile my dear little TinselKoala - you need to show us the measured results of battery draw down tests - using RECHARGEABLE batteries - and I would strongly recommend that you stay on topic - or start another thread if you want to show us you can copy Tesla's genius and call it your own. You can call it 'A ONE MAN VANITY FAIR' or 'IN SEARCH OF THE WEAK MINDED'. Something like that.
Kindest as always
Rosie Pose
aka Little Miss Mosfet
added that bit about needing an excuse to challenge our representations. LOL.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 10:54:45 PM
Hi Magsy,
Please be specific. WHERE are those 'holes' as you describe them?
Rosie Pose
Most of them have been posted in the last few pages of this thread. No need to repost them here.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 11:24:05 PM
Most of them have been posted in the last few pages of this thread. No need to repost them here.
Mags
Not actually Magsy. These last few pages have been devoted to 'spin' and to TK's rather boring efforts at congratulating himself. It's all a bit monotonous. I'm looking for those 'holes' EVERYWHERE. Help me out.
Rosie Pose
Cool!
In my youth many, many years ago, when a
particularly well built young lassie was spied
certain young men were quick to exclaim:
"Holy Crap, she's built like a brick sh@t house!!"
Brick wall indeed...
I suppose though that isn't the way you meant
it?
Rosemary:
Stop acting in sch a belligerent fashion. You are right that there is nothing new. At the same time you are fully aware of what all of the holes are. "Brute force by force of will," and being in denial of all of the facts, will NOT get you to your final goal. It's just ridiculous.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5EmnQp3V48
MILEHIGH! You're there. I was rather fearful that you'd fallen asleep at the wheel - so to speak. Or drifted off into the upper stratosphere with no thought for us mere mortals. Nice to see you around.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 28, 2012, 11:33:37 PM
Stop acting in sch a belligerent fashion. You are right that there is nothing new. At the same time you are fully aware of what all of the holes are. "Brute force by force of will," and being in denial of all of the facts, will NOT get you to your final goal. It's just ridiculous.
You've ENTIRELY misunderstood me if you think my posts are belligerent. On the contrary. I'm giving credit where credit is due. As is my wont.
Rosie Posie
:-* :)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 11:23:04 PM
Nice fireworks you've got there by the way (BTW). But I wonder perhaps if you're drifting off topic a bit. Are you DESPERATELY trying to distract all and sundry from the real motive in this excuse for a thread? if so, you're doing good. I'm only sorry I can't see those videos of yours.
Meanwhile my dear little TinselKoala - you need to show us the measured results of battery draw down tests - using RECHARGEABLE batteries - and I would strongly recommend that you stay on topic - or start another thread if you want to show us you can copy Tesla's genius and call it your own. You can call it 'A ONE MAN VANITY FAIR' or 'IN SEARCH OF THE WEAK MINDED'. Something like that.
Kindest as always
Rosie Pose
aka Little Miss Mosfet
See, this is another problem you have. Either you dont read all the posts accurately(maybe a bit of a speed reader with a loss for critical details), or you are creating drama. The fireworks device is being driven with a circuit that emulates your circuit. Its an interesting example.
As for the rechargeable batteries, in your case, why the need for recharging, if the batteries are never depleted? ;) Thats just silly talk.
I dont know of a battery that cant be recharged, unless it has been taken beyond return. As in damaged by remaining at too low of a voltage level for too long. Even rechargeable lithium if taken below a certain voltage level will damage the battery.
A car starting battery is rechargeable, but shouldnt be deep cycled. A Duracel AAA, AA, C, D cell can be charged. But the casing is not designed to handle the internal pressures from heat developed over a normal charge time. Charger circuits for supposed non rechargeable batteries have been around for a long time. There used to be a consumer charger of the kind back in the days.
Either way. If the circuit doesnt deplete the battery, then rechargeable batteries are not needed. :o ;) Just one hole.
Mags
Hi Magsy,
Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 11:45:51 PM
See, this is another problem you have. Either you dont read all the posts accurately(maybe a bit of a speed reader with a loss for critical details), or you are creating drama. The fireworks device is being driven with a circuit that emulates your circuit. Its an interesting example.
Again. Not actually. I don't 'speed read'. I wish I could. I am NOT trying to create drama. On the contrary - I'm trying to diffuse the drama that our little TK manages. He is TRULY the quintessential DRAMA QUEEN. And the fireworks have NOTHING to do with our circuit. ON the CONTRARY. We go to some considerable lengths to both make and prove that our circuits are efficient.
It's interesting stuff regarding your 'recharging' the 'non-rechargeable'. If this is right then you should start a thread on this and teach us all. Frankly if this is right then we all should be made more aware of this Magsy. And regarding this as an example of a 'hole' as you phrase it - you're wrong. TK categorically states that there's NO recharge value in that eccentric oscillation of ours.
Kindest as ever Magsy - and still waiting for that learned dissertation related to the multiple 'holes' in our circuit - which you claim.
Rosie Pose
added
Emphasis on our Little TK's natural talents
also added
Actually being a drama QUEEN is probably his ONLY talent.
also added
In fact it is my humble opinion that our Little TK's TRUE GENIUS is in his tantrums. Quite sweet in a way. But very feminine come to think of it.
Also added
Perhaps that's why he sports his little moustache. I LOVE moustaches.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 11:26:33 PM
Not actually Magsy. These last few pages have been devoted to 'spin' and to TK's rather boring efforts at congratulating himself. It's all a bit monotonous. I'm looking for those 'holes' EVERYWHERE. Help me out.
Rosie Pose
Lets see, 2 pages back, which in my experience , a few equals more than a couple(2)
Pico's post...
That a function generator can't pass, sink, or source current?
That a 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG levels properly?
That +12 volts is not being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3?
That an indicated negative mean power measurement means a circuit is COP=infinity?
That your batteries never run down?
That you have discovered a new phenomenon akin to room temperature superconductivity?
Just what is it you are claiming? I don't think anyone really knows any more...
Then on the same page, a "few" posts below, Kitty quotes you as saying....
"No. No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING. Golly. Whatever next?
Avalanching is the undesirable product of paralleled transistors. And that applies to them all. "
You clearly dont read the data sheets.
So just that one detail about the "Avalanching", we can see you are arguing something you clearly dont have any idea about. But if you had read the data sheet, you would. That is, even if the "Avalanching" were a criteria that you were interested in in the first place, even just along the way, then I would not be posting these words at this moment. But I am.
Even though I did repost some of what you requested, after saying that I wouldnt, I have a feeling that your response will be nill on the subject. Where as TK's fireworks are on topic, as you should know if you had followed thoroughly. But it appears you are not.
Mags
Thanks for the effort Magsy. Much appreciated.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
Lets see, 2 pages back, which in my experience , a few equals more than a couple(2)
Pico's post...
That a function generator can't pass, sink, or source current?
This has been answered.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
That a 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG levels properly?
This has been answered.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMThat +12 volts is not being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3?
Quite right. 12 volts is NOT being applied.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMThat an indicated negative mean power measurement means a circuit is COP=infinity?
Quite right. COP=INFINITY IS measured by TK on his excuse of a circuit. And by us on our circuit.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMThat your batteries never run down?
Never claimed this. On the contrary. We've still to test this. DON'T you READ my posts Magsy? Or are you speed reading? You need to SLOW DOWN.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMThat you have discovered a new phenomenon akin to room temperature superconductivity?
Quite right. We've got a continual current flow at room temperature that measures NO discharge from the battery. Very odd. Thanks for reminding us all on this point.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMJust what is it you are claiming? I don't think anyone really knows any more...
Essentially we're asking some BOFFINS and EXPERTS (which sadly precludes comment from picowatt and little TK) to explain how standard measurement protocols are applied to a circuit that results in a negative wattage. You see Magsy - there is NO SUCH THING. NO SUCH ANIMAL AS A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. So. IF we're measuring this wrongly - THEN WHERE ARE THOSE ERRORS. It's the kind of question that only people like Poynty or Groundloop or our academic BOFFINS can answer. TK is sadly disadvantaged by NOT having the required know how and wherewith all to comment. And for reasons best understood by ONLY TK - he QUITE SIMPLY NEVER STOPS. It's EXTRAORDINARY.
Rosie Pose
Magsy? Is that it? Is there more? Do let me know.
Rosie Pose
:) 8) :o :)
Golly I missed these points. Sorry. I must have been speed reading...
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
Then on the same page, a "few" posts below, Kitty quotes you as saying
"No. No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING. Golly. Whatever next? Avalanching is the undesirable product of paralleled transistors. And that applies to them all. "
Not sure where your quote starts and where his quote stops. Either way - here's the thing. A MOSFET is designed to conduct current from an applied switch - or as Poynty puts it - from an applied 'polarity'. They are NOT designed to avalanche. That's very much a secondary attribute that is a consequence of their primary function.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMYou clearly dont read the data sheets.
Not actually. It's all I ever do on those downloads of ours. Over and over. To exhaustion. I am TRULY skilled in power analysis after all these years. Believe it or not. Not an EXPERT. But certainly competent. And considerably more so than our little TK. Self evidently.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMSo just that one detail about the "Avalanching", we can see you are arguing something you clearly dont have any idea about.
Not actually. I'm inclined to suspect that you and TK et al - have DELIBERATELY confused the sense of my post.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMBut if you had read the data sheet, you would. That is, even if the "Avalanching" were a criteria that you were interested in in the first place, even just along the way, then I would not be posting these words at this moment. But I am.
I see now that your reference to 'data sheet' is to the specifications of the MOSFET. I stand my my earlier statement. This is not and never has been the object of a transistor. Or that's certainly as I understand it. And IF I'm wrong on this point - which is very likely - then it most certainly is NOT the object of our application of this.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AMEven though I did repost some of what you requested, after saying that I wouldnt, I have a feeling that your response will be nill on the subject. Where as TK's fireworks are on topic, as you should know if you had followed thoroughly. But it appears you are not.
Not actually. The 'fireworks' that you think are 'relevant' will NEVER induce energy efficiency to an application. Our ENTIRE focus is energy efficiency.
There you go Magsy. I think I've covered all those 'HOLES'. Unless you know of some more.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 12:44:50 AM
There you go Magsy. I think I've covered all those 'HOLES'. Unless you know of some more.
Rosie Pose
You think you've covered "all" those holes? lol I suppose the other six from Pico, that I listed in that same post were, invisible? Yet you say to filled "ALL" those holes.
You try to be tricky with the words thats for sure Rose. Tricky indeed. Nice try, but pic fail, considering we were just talking about you not paying close attn to what is posted.
Oh the irony. ;) But what else is new.
Mags
Magsy? What have I missed? I thought I'd covered them all....
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 01:14:29 AM
You think you've covered "all" those holes? lol I suppose the other six from Pico, that I listed in that same post were, invisible? Yet you say to filled "ALL" those holes.
You try to be tricky with the words thats for sure Rose. Tricky indeed. Nice try, but pic fail, considering we were just talking about you not paying close attn to what is posted.
Oh the irony. ;) But what else is new.
Mags
PLEASE. Let me know. I REALLY want to answer you as comprehensively as possible.
Rosie Pose
Ooops, I have missed a post also. Ill read you Pico list response in the morning. Didnt get to sleep til 330 last night and its 117 now.
Rose, I dont know what to say really. I havnt even read the Pico reply yet, but I have a feeling that your responses will be, well, we will see.
Mags
My dear Magsy,
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 01:18:49 AM
Ooops, I have missed a post also. Ill read you Pico list response in the morning. Didnt get to sleep til 330 last night and its 117 now.
Rose, I dont know what to say really. I havnt even read the Pico reply yet, but I have a feeling that your responses will be, well, we will see.
It seems that you've got a rather heavy reliance on any answer other than your own? But I suppose that's the unhappy lot of those of us who cannot formulate our own opinion. There's always the need to borrow the mind set of anything on offer. Sadly.
Possibly it's because you're in need of sleep. But I see no real difference between your posts from the start to the finish of any day. Just a certain vacillation as to your preferred support. As mentioned - it's another side effect of those of us who simply cannot think for ourselves. I fully understand.
Enjoy your sleep there Magsy. Not sure if you're ever fully awake though.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
I see what looks like another slug slime trail left again, some creatures cant read but just slide around as if on a ice skating rink ..... so we'll make color highlighted images to help the handicapped and mentally impared
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 12:44:50 AM
Golly I missed these points. Sorry. I must have been speed reading...
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
"No. No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING. Golly. Whatever next? Avalanching is the undesirable product of paralleled transistors. And that applies to them all. "
Not sure where your quote starts and where his quote stops. Either way - here's the thing. A MOSFET is designed to conduct current from an applied switch - or as Poynty puts it - from an applied 'polarity'. They are NOT designed to avalanche. That's very much a secondary attribute that is a consequence of their primary function.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
You clearly dont read the data sheets.
Not actually. It's all I ever do on those downloads of ours. Over and over. To exhaustion. I am TRULY skilled in power analysis after all these years. Believe it or not. Not an EXPERT. But certainly competent. And considerably more so than our little TK. Self evidently.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
So just that one detail about the "Avalanching", we can see you are arguing something you clearly dont have any idea about.
Not actually. I'm inclined to suspect that you and TK et al - have DELIBERATELY confused the sense of my post.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
But if you had read the data sheet, you would. That is, even if the "Avalanching" were a criteria that you were interested in in the first place, even just along the way, then I would not be posting these words at this moment. But I am.
I see now that your reference to 'data sheet' is to the specifications of the MOSFET. I stand my my earlier statement. This is not and never has been the object of a transistor. Or that's certainly as I understand it. And IF I'm wrong on this point - which is very likely - then it most certainly is NOT the object of our application of this.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 12:06:18 AM
Even though I did repost some of what you requested, after saying that I wouldnt, I have a feeling that your response will be nill on the subject. Where as TK's fireworks are on topic, as you should know if you had followed thoroughly. But it appears you are not.
Not actually. The 'fireworks' that you think are 'relevant' will NEVER induce energy efficiency to an application. Our ENTIRE focus is energy efficiency.
There you go Magsy. I think I've covered all those 'HOLES'. Unless you know of some more.
Rosie Pose
The referenced links
"IN DISPUTE" on mosfet avalanche were ....
poynt99 http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311751/#msg311751 (http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311751/#msg311751)
Reply #54 on: February 05, 2012, 06:03:52 PM
Rosemary Ainslie http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311761/#msg311761 (http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311761/#msg311761)
Reply #55 on: February 05, 2012, 11:36:41 PM
And for the gross toothless
super troll slime crawler that only knows how to bloviate and has no proof of any claim(s) other than being a idiot .... please see the attached images Rosemary for your personal reference the "DISPUTED" postings and the International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET data sheet and what the manufacture states about it's avalanche rating. ::)
Rosemary you've used the same International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET for over ten (10) years .... who would have thought .... some expert you are :P
FTC
???
My dear FTC
Thanks for that. I take it you're referring to Magsy and TK. I'm sure Magsy will be able to advantage himself from your dilligence. Nice to see my posts repeated. Hopefully he'll read them.
Rosie Pose
www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 04:54:50 AM
My dear FTC
Thanks for that. I take it you're referring to Magsy and TK. I'm sure Magsy will be able to advantage himself from your dilligence. Nice to see my posts repeated. Hopefully he'll read them.
Rosie Pose
No need to thank me, I'm glad you finally see yourself Rosemary for what you are, spreading that slime trail of yours everywhere you go, my postings I'm referring to as
noted about you Rosemary and your continued ignorance. :o
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg327294/#msg327294 (
@ TK about you Rosemary )
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg327406/#msg327406 (
@ Rosemary [aka super troll] )
You never looked at the images as always .... so I'll post them again just for you. As I said time and time again "you call your self a expert" and don't even read the component (
mosfet) data sheets or know what they say ? :P
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 06:18:15 AM
You never looked at the images as always .... so I'll post them again just for you. As I said time and time again "you call your self a expert" and don't even read the component (mosfet) data sheets or know what they say ?
No I'm no expert. LOL. But unlike you I'm really good at doing power analysis off those data dumps. That's all that spread sheet analysis Fuzzy. Remember? Those sums that you couldn't do at all. And you left it to me and some others to do. In the same way you couldn't put a paper together. Not even close. Which is why it's so EXTRAORDINARY - that you CLAIM under OATH to Scribd that our paper is YOUR EXCLUSIVE WORK. I'm not sure that's the 'real' truth as MileHigh puts it. And I believe that this perjury of yours may yet come back to bite you. But the good news is this. At least you can't DENY the advantages that we all measured there. Not unless you withdraw that paper.
Rosie Pose.
BTW - Sorry to see you're not treating us to more of those malapropisms. They're fun. Don't hold back.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 04:02:36 AM
I see what looks like another slug slime trail left again, some creatures cant read but just slide around as if on a ice skating rink ..... so we'll make color highlighted images to help the handicapped and mentally impared
And for those readers who may not be fully aware of who Fuzzy is - he's that gross vulgarian troll who THANKFULLY is somewhat dyslexic. Without this failing God alone knows what disgusting reaches he'd manage in his rather disasterous analogies. We can all be grateful for small mercies.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And this is the paper that he stole. Heavily contested ownership. One of those authors first claimed that it was EXCLUSIVELY his work. Then Fuzzy claimed it as his. The 'real truth' is that they're neither of them the owners of that paper. Sadly Scribd believe Fuzzy because he perjured himself and claimed to be the SOLE AUTHOR. If you can believe that. He can barely manage to string a sentence together. And Scribed have forbidden me any rights to publish a paper the bulk of which is ENTIRELY my own work. It still rankles.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)
Again,
Rosemary
Wilby - thanks for that paper on avalanche characteristics of MOSFET's. Clearly I needed it. I suspect there are others who may also possibly benefit from a read there.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Guys - these claims are laughable...
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 02:45:03 PM
What about these significant results that the trolls have sought to bury
Tar Baby runs on CAPACITORS ONLY, making a NEGATIVE MEAN POWER PRODUCT, with oscillations that DO NOT VISIBLY DECAY FOR A SIGNIFICANT TIME PERIOD before they collapse just like those from a battery supply would, if you only had the attention span needed to determine it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0)
In this video we have the systematic collapse of the oscillation over a marginally extended period. But TK is ENTIRELY unable to sustain that oscillation without the batteries. That's per our claim.
And equally absurd is this...
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 02:45:03 PM
Function Generators DO IN FACT pass current from an external battery source, through the ground and probe tip leads, to an external load in a complete circuit, with both the battery and the FG acting in series as power sources, with the resultant output voltage being the algebraic sum of the two voltages at any instant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
where he seems FASCINATED by the fact that he can light an LED when he supplements current output from a function generator with a battery supply. God ALONE knows what he's trying to INFER - IMPLY - INSINUATE. I think the idea is to pretend that the signal from a function generator actually moves as a current flow - directly onto our switched circuit. It doesn't. The only thing the signal manages is an applied voltage to the gate of those FET's. This, in turn, induces a current flow.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2012, 02:45:03 PMGo ahead now, spin and dig, you tiny army of petty-minded trolls. Bring in another truckload or two of insignificant, off topic bloviation in an attempt to rebury without discussion these two HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT video demonstrations, both of which refute various Ainslie claims as simply as making oxtail soup.
Frankly we'd all be better off if we could just concentrate on oxtail soup. At least that's got nutritional benefit.
Anyway. I thought I'd do him a kindness by referencing his videos. They're starved of an audience. This may answer his vanity.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 07:15:09 AM
And for those readers who may not be fully aware of who Fuzzy is - he's that gross vulgarian troll who THANKFULLY is somewhat dyslexic. Without this failing God alone knows what disgusting reaches he'd manage in his rather disasterous analogies. We can all be grateful for small mercies.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And this is the paper that he stole. Heavily contested ownership. One of those authors first claimed that it was EXCLUSIVELY his work. Then Fuzzy claimed it as his. The 'real truth' is that they're neither of them the owners of that paper. Sadly Scribd believe Fuzzy because he perjured himself and claimed to be the SOLE AUTHOR. If you can believe that. He can barely manage to string a sentence together. And Scribed have forbidden me any rights to publish a paper the bulk of which is ENTIRELY my own work. It still rankles.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems)
Again,
Rosemary
Your such a
slimy liar Rosemary without facts to prove anything you say except libel and slander shown in your posts.
I don't hide a thing unlike you .... https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=6B7817C40BB20460!528 ( Legal File )
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 08:24:05 AM
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Not actually. I both can and have.
Rosie Pose
Dear readers,
I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.
She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly. Now she wants some method to test this. An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy. Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly.
In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on. Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic. There can be no other explanation. This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.
Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in) is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly. I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.
From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.
She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on. Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.
In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR. The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR. This is as plain as day for all to see. Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2, She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal. The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR"). All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR.
When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7). Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate. There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage). When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) . However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG. This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG. Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it. Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation. Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements). As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen. As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases. The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias. (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why. And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)
But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed. She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense. The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage. The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth. Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.
I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected. Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".
It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).
These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Not actually. I both can and have.
Rosie Pose
There are 2 of you? And you make fun of my posts.
Mags
Magsy?
This was in answer to Glen.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 08:24:05 AM
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: Rosemary AinslieNot actually. I both can and have.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 09:31:36 AM
There are 2 of you? And you make fun of my posts.
But in point of fact - I find it very amusing to see the extent to which everyone applies liberal and rather unrestrained criticism of me and of our work - and then they seem to take umbrage when I'm NOT offended. At best - I'm amused. And NO - there's only 1 of me - I think! I hope so anyway.
Regards
Rosie
added
picowatt
I started reading your post and just got disheartened at its length and obscurity. Forgive me - if you're depending on my reading it I, unfortunately, just don't have the appetite. I have a very short attention span and absolutely no interest in your opinions. Unless it was not intended for my readership. In which case all is dandy.
Rosie Posie
Here we go picowatt. I see now what you're getting to.
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage). When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) . However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG. This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG. Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it. Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation. Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements). As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen. As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases. The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias. (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why. And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)
This is balderdash. From inception to conclusion.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 09:59:31 AM
picowatt
I started reading your post and just got disheartened at its length and obscurity. Forgive me - if you're depending on my reading it I, unfortunately, just don't have the appetite. I have a very short attention span and absolutely no interest in your opinions. Unless it was not intended for my readership. In which case all is dandy.
Rosie Posie
I do not care one way or the other if you read it. It was intended as a quick synopsis for readers here related to errors in your papers and your misunderstanding of your circuit's operation.
Possibly your short attention span is precisely why you have never learned how FG's, o'scopes, and your circuit operate.
I assure you, my description of your circuit's operation is precisely accurate, and not "opinion". You would be very hard pressed indeed to find anyone competent in electronics that would disagree with anything stated in my post.
If you think I have made opinionated errors, then why not take the opportunity to ridicule me and copy/post it at your "other site". Ask .99 if anything in my post is even remotely inaccurate.
Rather than argue and dispute, this is a perfect example of yet another learning opportunity for you gone to waste.
However, other readers may find it rather enlightening.
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 10:18:50 AM
I do not care one way or the other if you read it. It was intended as a quick synopsis for readers here related to errors in your papers and your misunderstanding of your circuit's operation.
Possibly your short attention span is precisely why you have never learned how FG's, o'scopes, and your circuit operate.
I assure you, my description of your circuit's operation is precisely accurate, and not "opinion". You would be very hard pressed indeed to find anyone competent in electronics that would disagree with anything stated in my post.
If you think I have made opinionated errors, then why not take the opportunity to ridicule me and copy/post it at your "other site". Ask .99 if anything in my post is even remotely inaccurate.
Rather than argue and dispute, this is a perfect example of yet another learning opportunity for you gone to waste.
However, other readers may find it rather enlightening.
LOL. I rather hope not. It would be sad to find you effectively misinforming anyone at all. And that seems to be all you can manage. And NO. I will not have your nonsense polluting our little forum. We're trying to keep things topical and scientifically dependable.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 10:25:30 AM
LOL. I rather hope not. It would be sad to find you effectively misinforming anyone at all. And that seems to be all you can manage. And NO. I will not have your nonsense polluting our little forum. We're trying to keep things topical and scientifically dependable.
Rosie Pose
This is not misinformation, nor is it nonsense. And if you truly believed that, you would take that post to an EE and confirm that it is all nonsense to support you position.
But you will not, for you fear it is all true. And what would that mean?
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 10:28:22 AM
This is not misinformation, nor is it nonsense. And if you truly believed that, you would take that post to an EE and confirm that it is all nonsense to support you position.
But you will not, for you fear it is all true. And what would that mean?
Not actually picowatt. I'd be embarrassed to show anyone at all your ridiculous proposal that Q2 turns ON with an applied negative signal from the function generator. It's ABSURD.
Rosie Pose
Dear readers,
The description of her circuit's operation as described in my post (reply #3356) is readily apparent to anyone skilled in the art.
Moreover, the operation of her circuit as described in that post has been verified by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical data taken from a replication of her circuit. Yet she continues to dispute these facts.
As well, I disagree with her continued bastardization of the term "COP". Originally intended as a comparison of heat pump efficiencies, "COP" refers to a ratio of work input to heat change at the reservoir of interest.
"COP" is used loosely around here to typically refer to the ratio of power in to power out, and most can live with that interpretation. In her assertion, however, that her circuit is "COP=infinity", one would expect that an infinite amount of power can be extracted for any given amount of input. This is, on its face, ridiculous.
What she apparently really means by "COP=infinity", is that she has managed to acheive a negative mean power measurement with the method and equipment used to perform that measurement. As .99's analysis and simulations have shown, and again TK's empirical data, the inductances involved in battery lead wiring are not being accounted for and therefore the true battery voltage is not being used when acheiving the negative mean power measurement.
Again, although this is fully described in a paper by .99 and via TK's empirical data, she continues to claim a "COP=infinity".
At the very least, this should be corrected to state that she has acheived a "negative mean power measurement" using the methods and equipment as indicated.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 10:38:08 AM
Not actually picowatt. I'd be embarrassed to show anyone at all your ridiculous proposal that Q2 turns ON with an applied negative signal from the function generator. It's ABSURD.
Rosie Pose
It is only "absurd" to the "likes" of you.
You may remain fearfully and blissfully ignorant of the facts as you wish, but you will find few to accompany you in that bliss...
All:
The Bizarro Universe is unfolding as it should.
You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.
Deteriorata. Deteriorata.
Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss, and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment, and despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Remember The Pueblo.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate.
Know yourself.
If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you -
That lemon on your left, for instance.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore. It will stick to your face.
Gracefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan.
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
Hire people with hooks.
For a good time, call 606-4311. Ask for Ken.
Take heart in the bedeepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever fortune may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Therefore, make peace with your god,
Whatever you perceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up!
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 29, 2012, 05:35:02 AM
www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf (http://www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf)
A bit out of character for you actually to post something useful and helpful, isn't it? But thank you, this is a very interesting document. Of course it contains all kinds of heresies, like the statement that a Joule is a Watt-second (not a Watt per second as Ainslie has it) and also this marvellous and concise statement about how to do power calculations, which contradicts Ainslie in several ways:
QuoteIt is possible, with today’s microprocessor
technology, to monitor, multiply and sum theinstantaneous current and voltage at regular intervalsto obtain the total energy into the device at any point
in time. Dividing the total energy by the total timeelapsed, to obtain the average power, and
multiplying by the transient thermal impedance
would give the junction temperature after any
interval of time.
And of course the same statement about the junction temperature also applies to the external load on the mosfet.
Pearls before swine, Wilby, horses to water.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 10:38:08 AM
Not actually picowatt. I'd be embarrassed to show anyone at all your ridiculous proposal that Q2 turns ON with an applied negative signal from the function generator. It's ABSURD.
Rosie Pose
And again, in this short post, you demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding the operation of a function generator and how you circuit operates.
It is truly pathetic, and indeed, you should be "embarrassed".
PW, thank you for that very clear and detailed description of the action of the NERD circuit and the role of the FG during both phases of operation, gate signal HI or signal LO. You have explained in detail a phenomenon that I have actually repeatedly commented on and which .99 has also noticed in his simulations.
Picowatt said,
Quote(one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why. And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)
It's what I've been calling the "voltage floor" and I've illustrated it several times in my videos of Tar Baby and it's very clear in all of the Ainslie scope traces that use a negative (gate signal LO) gate drive portion. She has the FG's offset cranked all the way negative, according to her descriptions, and yet the voltage always bottoms out at -4 V plus noise. I have indeed wondered why, and I had come up with the same explanation you have done, but I could not express it so clearly and concisely. It surprised me when I first encountered it using my F43, which, if something were not "loading it up" (as I mentioned in some early videos) should have been able easily to reach -20V driving a mosfet gate.
However, it seems that your analysis is just more "pearls before swine", because this seems to be the typical Ainslie non-response which always has to include some kind of insult, lie, or threat.
Ainslie says:
QuoteI started reading your post and just got disheartened at its length and obscurity. Forgive me - if you're depending on my reading it I, unfortunately, just don't have the appetite. I have a very short attention span and absolutely no interest in your opinions. Unless it was not intended for my readership. In which case all is dandy.
and
QuoteThis is balderdash. From inception to conclusion.
So much for attempts at technical explanations. She must not be able to see the shapes of your words, picowatt. Maybe you should use a larger font.
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 11:13:57 AM
And again, in this short post, you demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding the operation of a function generator and how you circuit operates.
It is truly pathetic, and indeed, you should be "embarrassed".
She apparently has no clue that voltages are relative. That's not part of her "model". The fact that the FG's black or "ground" wire can put out a Positive voltage at the very same time that the red or "probe" wire is putting out a Negative voltage must be an astonishing mystery to her, impossible to explain. Start talking about gradients in electric fields, or just why Sassy ClassE can light up neon bulbs wirelessly in a large volume of space, and watch her eyes roll back in her head as her brain's ego filters kick in and prevent any further input.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2012, 11:32:15 AM
PW, thank you for that very clear and detailed description of the action of the NERD circuit and the role of the FG during both phases of operation, gate signal HI or signal LO. You have explained in detail a phenomenon that I have actually repeatedly commented on and which .99 has also noticed in his simulations.
Picowatt said,
It's what I've been calling the "voltage floor" and I've illustrated it several times in my videos of Tar Baby and it's very clear in all of the Ainslie scope traces that use a negative (gate signal LO) gate drive portion. She has the FG's offset cranked all the way negative, according to her descriptions, and yet the voltage always bottoms out at -4 V plus noise. I have indeed wondered why, and I had come up with the same explanation you have done, but I could not express it so clearly and concisely. It surprised me when I first encountered it using my F43, which, if something were not "loading it up" (as I mentioned in some early videos) should have been able easily to reach -20V driving a mosfet gate.
However, it seems that your analysis is just more "pearls before swine", because this seems to be the typical Ainslie non-response which always has to include some kind of insult, lie, or threat.
Ainslie says:and
So much for attempts at technical explanations. She must not be able to see the shapes of your words, picowatt. Maybe you should use a larger font.
TK,
Yes, everything in my reply #3356 has been fully proven and verified via .99's sims and your empirical data. Yet she prefers to remain ignorant of the facts. It is truly amazing, but not unexpected. Afterall, consider all the data and text that would need correction/retraction from her papers if she were to actually understand all that is discussed in that post. It seems she would rather just bury her head in the sand and refuse to believe readily accepted electronic circuit operation and proven facts. Even her own 'scope captures clearly confirm the operation of Q2 as discussed, but she refuses to see it.
She will never perform any due diligence that may confirm everything in my post, as she is too afraid to do so.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2012, 11:54:35 AM
She apparently has no clue that voltages are relative. That's not part of her "model". The fact that the FG's black or "ground" wire can put out a Positive voltage at the very same time that the red or "probe" wire is putting out a Negative voltage must be an astonishing mystery to her, impossible to explain. Start talking about gradients in electric fields, or just why Sassy ClassE can light up neon bulbs wirelessly in a large volume of space, and watch her eyes roll back in her head as her brain's ego filters kick in and prevent any further input.
TK,
This post actually clouds the FG operation a bit. The voltage at the FG signal ground never changes potential. The FG signal ground is always at whatever potential it is connected to. In her case, the FG signal ground is always at the same voltage as indicated at the non-battery end of the CSR, to which the FG signal ground is connected. I know you know this, but I want this to be very clear.
I wish someone would post a drawing depicting two batteries in series with the common center of those two batteries connected to the non-battery end of the CSR. An spdt switch would then have its throws connected to each battery free end and the pole connected via a series connected 50R to the Q1gate/Q2 source.
When the switch is in one position, a positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 and to the source of Q2.
When the switch is in the opposite position, a negative voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 and to the source of Q2.
This would be a very accurate representation of the action of the FG in this circuit.
Maybe then she could visualise the action of the FG in her circuit and how Q2 is biased on.
But then, maybe not...
PW
Voltages are relative, though. It is clearly possible for a voltage to be applied that is "below" or more negative than the signal ground, as your SPDT switch example proves. Then, if one attached the negative lead of a voltmeter to that more negative voltage, the signal ground would be positive with respect to it, and if you put a circuit element in there, current would flow in the proper conventional direction wrt the signs of the measurement. How's that for clouding the issue?
The voltage at the (FG signal ground-system ground-Q2 gate) never changes potential, that is true, but "voltage" is potential with respect to-- or reference to-- another potential. What happens is that the "other" FG wire swings positive _ and negative_ with respect to that fixed reference level. So if you have your voltmeter's negative lead hooked to the signal ground, it will appear to indicate both positive and negative polarities as the other lead swings.So when you are applying a voltage to the Q2 source that is more negative than the common ground (where the Q2 gate is hooked up), that makes Q2's gate _positive with respect to Q2's source_ even though that point is pinned to the system and signal ground potential. The transistor then moves in and out of the linear conductance region as the FG's negative signal to the source (hence the positive relative signal to its gate) fluctuates around that 4 volt potential difference level during the oscillations. (Of course here we are treating the csr as if it weren't there or that the FG's ground is connected as in the demo video, not the schematic.)
We are both describing the same thing, and agreeing about it, but just from different perspectives.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2012, 12:52:29 PM
Voltages are relative, though. It is clearly possible for a voltage to be applied that is "below" or more negative than the signal ground, as your SPDT switch example proves. Then, if one attached the negative lead of a voltmeter to that more negative voltage, the signal ground would be positive with respect to it, and if you put a circuit element in there, current would flow in the proper conventional direction wrt the signs of the measurement. How's that for clouding the issue?
The voltage at the (FG signal ground-system ground-Q2 gate) never changes potential, that is true, but "voltage" is potential with respect to-- or reference to-- another potential. What happens is that the "other" FG wire swings positive _ and negative_ with respect to that fixed reference level. So if you have your voltmeter's negative lead hooked to the signal ground, it will appear to indicate both positive and negative polarities as the other lead swings.So when you are applying a voltage to the Q2 source that is more negative than the common ground (where the Q2 gate is hooked up), that makes Q2's gate _positive with respect to Q2's source_ even though that point is pinned to the system and signal ground potential. The transistor then moves in and out of the linear conductance region as the FG's negative signal to the source (hence the positive relative signal to its gate) fluctuates around that 4 volt potential difference level during the oscillations. (Of course here we are treating the csr as if it weren't there or that the FG's ground is connected as in the demo video, not the schematic.)
We are both describing the same thing, and agreeing about it, but just from different perspectives.
TK,
This is indeed all true, but first "someone" must first see that a negative voltage is applied to the Q2 source. THEN, it can be discussed how a negative voltage applied to the Q2 source is similar to applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2.
Q2 does not care if its gate is made more positive with respect to its source, or if its source is made more negative than its gate. As long as the gate voltage relative to its source is a positive value in excess of Vth, Q2 will turn on.
Again, I know you know this.
I see that a replicator "over there" is having a bit of trouble with a 555 heating up. She claims she never had this problem, as if she ever attempted operating the NERD circuit on a 555 like you did. I wonder if the replicator is even applying a negative voltage during that portion of the cycle.
If so, can we say "bias current"?
PW
TK,
And for clarity, she already seems to believe that the FG signal common is literally changing polarity and (somehow) directly applying a positive voltage to the Q2 gate. She is not speaking relatively so. She has made this clear in several of her posts. Therefore, I am attempting to be very clear regarding the FG signal common always remaining at the same voltage as the non-battery end of the CSR. The only polarity changing, is that of the FG output, as referenced to the FG signal common and the non-battery end of the CSR to which the FG common is connected.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 01:05:48 PM
TK,
This is indeed all true, but first "someone" must first see that a negative voltage is applied to the Q2 source. THEN, it can be discussed how a negative voltage applied to the Q2 source is similar to applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2.
Q2 does not care if its gate is made more positive with respect to its source, or if its source is made more negative than its gate. As long as the gate voltage relative to its source is a positive value in excess of Vth, Q2 will turn on.
Again, I know you know this.
I see that a replicator "over there" is having a bit of trouble with a 555 heating up. She claims she never had this problem, as if she ever attempted operating the NERD circuit on a 555 like you did. I wonder if the replicator is even applying a negative voltage during that portion of the cycle.
If so, can we say "bias current"?
PW
TK,
It is truly a shame if her only replicator "over there" is a neophyte to electronics and being "lead by the blind" as it were regarding her skills in the art.
It seems doubtful that a negative voltage is being applied to the NERD circuit using a 555 in his replication during the equivalent FG output LO period. As you can attest to, a simple "standard" 555 circuit operating on a single supply cannot emulate the FG settings. It is a bit more difficult.
Possibly I missed somethng, has she ever presented a circuit showing the NERD circuit operating from a 555?
It just goes on and on...
PW
Dear readers,
I highly suggest all read her post 41 "over there" (I believe it was 41, a response to .99). It explains in more inaccurate detail why she "believes" that the 'scope must be AC coupled. If the 'scope is DC coupled, she says the voltage at Q2 remains "zero". From this, I assume she means that the voltage at the gate of Q2 remains at zero, which it precisely does (or moreso precisely, it remains at the voltage of the non-battery end of the CSR). She knows this cannot be, as the FG is set to output a negative voltage during its LO period, so she thinks that merely switching the 'scope to AC solves this dilemma.
The entire post is nothing but unintelligent gibberish. I do not know who "advises" her, but they are either very wrong, misunderstood, or just plain imaginary.
Her post is good for chuckle though... if it weren't so sad at the same time.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 01:15:13 PM
TK,
And for clarity, she already seems to believe that the FG signal common is literally changing polarity and (somehow) directly applying a positive voltage to the Q2 gate. She is not speaking relatively so. She has made this clear in several of her posts. Therefore, I am attempting to be very clear regarding the FG signal common always remaining at the same voltage as the non-battery end of the CSR. The only polarity changing, is that of the FG output, as referenced to the FG signal common and the non-battery end of the CSR to which the FG common is connected.
PW
Yep, it's clear enough to me, that is for sure. But we've seen how flailing and wallowing about muddies the waters and even the clearest explanations get twisted around in Ainslie-space. I'll just let you make your point your way, but I've done some FG output videos, as usual, that attempt to illustrate what you mean.
After all, one could simply hook the FG's "ground" lead (black output clip) to a big honking cold water pipe, and then it should be perfectly clear to ANYONE , even YKW, that the potential at that point is always at Earth Ground.... you'd be hard pressed to change _that_ potential level by any means available to Ainslie. Yet, her circuit will operate just as it always does, even though it is now clearly impossible for the FG's negative output lead to change potential.
I have a 6 foot length of 1/2 inch copper pipe driven deep into the wet soil underneath my window air conditioner's overflow drip, with a 14-ga stranded lead-in wire to my workbench, that is my Earth system and RF ground when needed. You can bet your next three lunches that _that_ point isn't gonna let its potential be changed by no smoking FG, not even the Interstate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2012, 02:03:08 PM
Yep, it's clear enough to me, that is for sure. But we've seen how flailing and wallowing about muddies the waters and even the clearest explanations get twisted around in Ainslie-space. I'll just let you make your point your way, but I've done some FG output videos, as usual, that attempt to illustrate what you mean.
After all, one could simply hook the FG's "ground" lead (black output clip) to a big honking cold water pipe, and then it should be perfectly clear to ANYONE , even YKW, that the potential at that point is always at Earth Ground.... you'd be hard pressed to change _that_ potential level by any means available to Ainslie. Yet, her circuit will operate just as it always does, even though it is now clearly impossible for the FG's negative output lead to change potential.
I have a 6 foot length of 1/2 inch copper pipe driven deep into the wet soil underneath my window air conditioner's overflow drip, with a 14-ga stranded lead-in wire to my workbench, that is my Earth system and RF ground when needed. You can bet your next three lunches that _that_ point isn't gonna let its potential be changed by no smoking FG, not even the Interstate.
TK,
AC condensation "drips" are really ideal for keeping a ground rod's surroundings moist. Can't think of a better use for that "drip", unless you need some distilled water!
I have to rely on the plants being watered in the flowerbed my rods are buried in...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 01:27:13 PM
TK,
It is truly a shame if her only replicator "over there" is a neophyte to electronics and being "lead by the blind" as it were regarding her skills in the art.
It seems doubtful that a negative voltage is being applied to the NERD circuit using a 555 in his replication during the equivalent FG output LO period. As you can attest to, a simple "standard" 555 circuit operating on a single supply cannot emulate the FG settings. It is a bit more difficult.
That's right, a simple 555 can only output a signal at Pin 3 that is from a bit over its Zero volt supply to pin 1 (the negative rail) up to its positive supply voltage at Pin 8. In addition, the 555 can only source, at best, about 200 mA and can only dissipate about 0.6 Watts and has a maximum operating temperature of 70 C. They are certainly not applying a negative voltage with a 555 unless they are powering it with an external floating supply, not the main battery (unless they are using a charge pump as I have done). And with a max source capability of 200 mA under the best conditions the chip will get hot if they are using it to make the negative drive bias current.
However, the chip will get probably get hot even if they are only using it to make positive pulses for the gate HI mode, Q1 on, because of the oscillations and the impedance mismatch resulting in power being reflected back into the chip. This is common when using 555 to drive inductive loads, even the stray inductances in the NERD circuit. I have actually exploded 555 chips from not having a fast enough diode protection in there.
And I can't think of any simple way for the 555 timer, even on an external floating supply, to make both the negative bias current and the positive gate pulse as is needed for the NERD preferred mode of 18 percent gate HI. (In this context, clearly, an op-amp output stage is to be considered too complex to be considered.)
Regardless of the bias source used, whether it is a 555 or not, it must be capable of sourcing sufficient current to do the job. A 555 can barely do it -- max rated 200 mA -- , hence the heating and the need for heatsinks.
Quote
Possibly I missed somethng, has she ever presented a circuit showing the NERD circuit operating from a 555?
It just goes on and on...
PW
The first, COP>17 claimed circuit, used a 555 but wasn't required to have negative drive. I invite you to _please_ build up the 555 timer circuit given in the "Quantum magazine" article published on her forum as "paper 3" and let us know what kind of signal it puts out and what effect it has on the state of the mosfet it's driving.
She has reported that a friend of hers has used a "chip", probably a 555, in the present circuit and successfully got oscillations using only a 12 volt supply. But who knows what actually occurred. This was all around the time she was blowing transistors and freely reporting it. No schematic or detailed description of this was published as far as I can tell. For Tar Baby, the oscillations need a bit over 16 volts, I think.
Fuzzy may know of more, but as far as I know, I'm the only one who has _actually_ operated the full circuit on a 555 timer, making oscillations, using only the circuit's own battery supply.
In other words... no. She only claimed it, never showed it nor produced a schematic for it.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 08:24:05 AM
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Not actually. I both can and have.
Rosie Pose
RIGHT Rosemary .... slime your way out of these two questions, I'm sure the "Open Source Community" would like to see answers without your constant bloviating ::)
1) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located "specifically" for
Test #3 referenced in your "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf [attached file] ) that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the
COP>INFINITY operation ??
2) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located for
"ANY" test using a
555 timer replacing the functions generator that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the
COP>INFINITY operation ??
FWIW, here again are the schematics for the 555 timer and the charge pump inverter I used for Tar Baby. Perhaps these schematics may be amusing to the current crop of builders.
TK,
There is an alternate arrangement using a 555 that can both bias Q2 on and turn on Q1 as the FG does.
It will still require a supply voltage more negative than the battery stack negative rail, but the additional supply can be referenced to the NERD battery negative rail. Envision the following:
A "standard" 555 circuit is connected so that the 555 positive supply pin is connected to the batt negative in the NERD circuit. A second supply that is -10 volts relative to the NERD battery negative is connected to the 555 negative supply pin. This arrangement allows the 555 to swing between the NERD battery ground (when 555 out is HI) and -10 volts (when 555 out is LO) relative to the NERD battery ground.
Pin 3 of the 555 is used as the output, and a pair of PNP/NPN emitter followers are connected to the 555 pin 3 to act as a current buffer. The collectors of the PNP/NPN are connected to the NERD battery ground and to the -10 volt supply operating the 555 (the bases of the PNP/NPN tied to pin 3). This arrangement is just a standard current buffer to help the 555 stay cool (the current buffer may not be needed at lower Ibias settings, but is suggested)
The emitters of the PNP/NPN buffer are tied together and connected ONLY to the source of Q2 via a series 50R resistor, or a lower value resistor as may be required (depending on the 555's negative supply voltage and desired Ibias).
You should be able to visualise this and easily see how when the 555 output is LO, a -10volts is applied to the 50R series resistor connected to the Q2 source causing Q2 to bias on and its Ibias to flow thru the 50R and 555 current buffer. All in all, pretty standard stuff.
Now, to be able to turn Q1 on when the 555 output is high (which will actually be at a level slightly below the NERD negative battery rail), a bootstrap circuit can be utilized.
The negative terminal of a 10 uF electrolytic is connected to the emitters of the 555 buffer (the 555 buffer output). The positive terminal of the 10uF is connected to the cathode of a diode. The anode of that diode is connected to the NERD negative battery rail. The gate of Q1 is connected to the 10uF/diode junction (only to the gate of Q1 is connected to the cap/diode junction, the connection between the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 have to be separated).
When the 555 output is a negative voltage (and Q2 biased on), the 10uF cap charges to approx -10volts. When the 555 output is HI (that is switches to NERD ground potential and turns off Q2) the diode end of the 10uF cap rises to +10 volts (the +10 volts on the cap reverse biases the diode so it is turned off). As there is only Q1 gate leakage current discharging the 10uF cap, it will hold its +10 volt level for some time, keeping Q1 turned fully on until the 555 again switches LO. The 10uF need not be that large of value, and to speed up Q2 bias on time, can likely be reduced to well under 1uF and still keep Q1 turned on for the desired amount of time. The 555 current buffer also helps provide the required current to charge the bootstrap cap and keep the Q2 bias on time reasonably fast.
Obviously, the -10 supply must be capable of supplying the required Q2 bias current. A similar PNP/NPN buffer added to your 555 voltage inverter circuit circuit operated from the first battery in the string is a possible supply source. Alternately, another 12 volt battery with its positive terminl connected to the NERD battery ground can be used for the 555 negative supply.
Just food for thought.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2012, 11:12:49 AM
A bit out of character for you actually to post something useful and helpful, isn't it?
i learned it from watching you big poppy... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2012, 11:12:49 AM
Pearls before swine, Wilby, horses to water.
well... you are my favorite little piggy... you know, the one who cries weeee weeee weeee all the way home. ;)
@PW: Got it, understood, makes perfect sense. It's wonderful to have a common language, isn't it. I like the bootstrap cap to make Q1 turn on, that's clever.
@Wilby: Parsing your post, I see that you must mean that you are in imitation of me, having learned to post something useful. And the other part.... "Home" is several levels up, if you check your top left screen. We are in "solid state devices", the "Testing the TK Tar Baby" thread. You can huff and puff, but you can't blow this house down. The swine that you are casting your pearls before, that is, the person whom your .pdf would most benefit, will neither appreciate it, like those pearls before the swine, nor will she likely even read it, like that horse you can't make to drink.
Thank you for making my metaphors explicit, you parity-challenged left-turning donut eater, you.
Hello MileHigh.
Is this YOUR work? It's EXCELLENT. Blow away stuff. Sort of 60's flirtation with existential irrelevance. But very well constructed.
WOW. If you subscribe to this then there's no wonder you're usually located so far out of reach.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: MileHigh on June 29, 2012, 11:10:20 AM
All:
The Bizarro Universe is unfolding as it should.
You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.
Deteriorata. Deteriorata.
Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss, and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment, and despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Remember The Pueblo.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate.
Know yourself.
If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you -
That lemon on your left, for instance.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore. It will stick to your face.
Gracefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan.
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
Hire people with hooks.
For a good time, call 606-4311. Ask for Ken.
Take heart in the bedeepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever fortune may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Therefore, make peace with your god,
Whatever you perceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up!
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Rosemary:
A character flaw is that I am too lazy to give credit where credit is due sometimes.
Try the magic box. What yee seek yee shall find.
If you are good, it should take you about 0.14 seconds.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 29, 2012, 10:46:22 PM
Rosemary:
A character flaw is that I am too lazy to give credit where credit is due sometimes.
Try the magic box. What yee seek yee shall find.
If you are good, it should take you about 0.14 seconds.
MileHigh
No MileHigh. Give me a link. You know my difficulties with these ruddy computers. Right now I'm feeling winded. I was SO hoping that was your work. But I DO want to know who wrote that. You're true genius is in your taste in art. I've seen it over and over. It's impeccable.
Rosie Pose
Actually, it was 0.19 seconds!
https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=31&gs_id=6&xhr=t&q=You+are+a+fluke+of+the+universe&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=You+are+a+fluke+of+the+universe&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=aa371a1c4c8326fa&biw=1400&bih=711 (https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=31&gs_id=6&xhr=t&q=You+are+a+fluke+of+the+universe&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=You+are+a+fluke+of+the+universe&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=aa371a1c4c8326fa&biw=1400&bih=711)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1NAwlepnSs
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 10:49:46 PM
No MileHigh. Give me a link. You know my difficulties with these ruddy computers. Right now I'm feeling winded. I was SO hoping that was your work. But I DO want to know who wrote that. You're true genius is in your taste in art. I've seen it over and over. It's impeccable.
Rosie Pose
Here is a link with a bit more history and the original from which the parody was written:
http://dmdb.org/lyrics/deteriorata.html
And, as National Lampoon was a rather American rag, here is a link to a bit of its history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lampoon_(magazine)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bUTcy6w2Rw
Let's all gather round the campfire and sing Kumbaya.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 12:44:50 AM
Either way - here's the thing. A MOSFET is designed to conduct current from an applied switch - or as Poynty puts it - from an applied 'polarity'. They are NOT designed to avalanche. That's very much a secondary attribute that is a consequence of their primary function.Not actually.
I stand my my earlier statement. This is not and never has been the object of a transistor. Or that's certainly as I understand it.
On that spec title page, they list standard features features of the device, 6 of them
Number 2 on that list is, "Repetitive Avalanche Rated".
To me, it seems to be an important feature of this transistor that it is capable of handling a rated avalanche state, "Repetitively". That means it is rated to be in a circuit by where the circuit could cause an avalanche state, "repetitively". Can we all agree on that?
Otherwise why would it be stated in the top 6 features of this transistor, coming in at number 2 in that list?
There are data sheets for transistors that dont show this as a feature or quality. So why would this sheet do so? An error? Typo?
Is it there just for all to ignore?????
You said "I stand my my earlier statement. This is not and never has been the object of a transistor. Or that's certainly as I understand it."
Or certainly as you understand it? Well ya must be stuck in groundhog day with Bill Murray. Because you seem to refuse to try and understand something new to you. At least Bill took advantage of it. He learned something new every day. This transistor sheet does show that your transistor is designed to do just that, Avalanche Repetitively. Ya might want to write that down. :o ;D
You can go ahead and stand by your words. Im going to stand over here. ;)
Mags
Summer Breeze Makes me feel fine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0o5GauFG1Q
MaGs :o
PW:
In the Bizarro Universe, you want your car to get less gas mileage.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4639091-Archive-1958-Bulgemobile-Catalog-%28Rare-Find...%29
MileHigh
And then, just when all were having a Kumbaya moment...
Ya' do have to grin a bit...
LOL. Thanks for the links guys. Frankly I prefer Guest's version to the original. It's BRILLIANT. And as usual - it seems that I am WAY out of step with the times. One day - hopefully - I'll catch up. It strikes me that there's a world of really brilliant commentary out there. My new favourite is COLBERT. What a GENIUS.
Anyway. Sorry for the distraction Little TK. Far be it from me to take this subject OFF TOPIC. That's YOUR mission in life.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: MileHigh on June 29, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
PW:
In the Bizarro Universe, you want your car to get less gas mileage.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4639091-Archive-1958-Bulgemobile-Catalog-%28Rare-Find...%29
MileHigh
Hilarious! I believe it was the '59 model that had the Thunderamic 12000 V16 option.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 11:15:49 PM
LOL. Thanks for the links guys. Frankly I prefer Guest's version to the original. It's BRILLIANT. And as usual - it seems that I am WAY out of step with the times. One day - hopefully - I'll catch up. It strikes me that there's a world of really brilliant commentary out there. My new favourite is COLBERT. What a GENIUS.
Anyway. Sorry for the distraction Little TK. Far be it from me to take this subject OFF TOPIC. That's YOUR mission in life.
Rosie Pose
What good is a post without a few digs and jabs included?
****** BUMP ******Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 08:24:05 AM
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Not actually. I both can and have.
Rosie Pose
RIGHT Rosemary .... slime your way out of these two questions, I'm sure the "Open Source Community" would like to see answers without your constant bloviating
1) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located "specifically" for Test #3 referenced in your "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf [attached file] ) that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
2) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located for "ANY" test using a 555 timer replacing the functions generator that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
Quote from: MileHigh on June 29, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
PW:
In the Bizarro Universe, you want your car to get less gas mileage.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4639091-Archive-1958-Bulgemobile-Catalog-%28Rare-Find...%29 (http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4639091-Archive-1958-Bulgemobile-Catalog-%28Rare-Find...%29)
MileHigh
Not sure if I've done it right - but here's a link from your link - MH.
Rosie Pose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HdqAwXgGe8
Hello Magsy,
I see you're still going on and on.
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 11:09:06 PM
On that spec title page, they list standard features features of the device, 6 of them
Number 2 on that list is, "Repetitive Avalanche Rated".
To me, it seems to be an important feature of this transistor that it is capable of handling a rated avalanche state, "Repetitively". That means it is rated to be in a circuit by where the circuit could cause an avalanche state, "repetitively". Can we all agree on that?
Otherwise why would it be stated in the top 6 features of this transistor, coming in at number 2 in that list?
There are data sheets for transistors that dont show this as a feature or quality. So why would this sheet do so? An error? Typo? Is it there just for all to ignore? ??? ?
You said "I stand my my earlier statement. This is not and never has been the object of a transistor. Or that's certainly as I understand it."
Or certainly as you understand it? Well ya must be stuck in groundhog day with Bill Murray. Because you seem to refuse to try and understand something new to you. At least Bill took advantage of it. He learned something new every day. This transistor sheet does show that your transistor is designed to do just that, Avalanche Repetitively. Ya might want to write that down. :o ;D
You can go ahead and stand by your words. Im going to stand over here. ;)
Mags
No question my understanding is at fault. And thankfully you ARE standing over there. That's quite a good pun Magsy.
Rosie Pose
:)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 11:30:32 PM
****** BUMP ******
RIGHT Rosemary .... slime your way out of these two questions, I'm sure the "Open Source Community" would like to see answers without your constant bloviating
1) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located "specifically" for Test #3 referenced in your "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf [attached file] ) that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
2) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located for "ANY" test using a 555 timer replacing the functions generator that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
Hi Fuzzy
How's that 'class action' lawsuit coming on? Do let us know. I've told you where to present your papers. And I know your address if you ever want a reply.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Magluvin on June 29, 2012, 11:09:06 PM
On that spec title page, they list standard features features of the device, 6 of them
Number 2 on that list is, "Repetitive Avalanche Rated".
To me, it seems to be an important feature of this transistor that it is capable of handling a rated avalanche state, "Repetitively". That means it is rated to be in a circuit by where the circuit could cause an avalanche state, "repetitively". Can we all agree on that?
Otherwise why would it be stated in the top 6 features of this transistor, coming in at number 2 in that list?
There are data sheets for transistors that dont show this as a feature or quality. So why would this sheet do so? An error? Typo? Is it there just for all to ignore?????
You said "I stand my my earlier statement. This is not and never has been the object of a transistor. Or that's certainly as I understand it."
Or certainly as you understand it? Well ya must be stuck in groundhog day with Bill Murray. Because you seem to refuse to try and understand something new to you. At least Bill took advantage of it. He learned something new every day. This transistor sheet does show that your transistor is designed to do just that, Avalanche Repetitively. Ya might want to write that down. :o ;D
You can go ahead and stand by your words. Im going to stand over here. ;)
Mags
mags... mosfets aren't designed to avalanche, they are designed to switch. avalanche is a condition that can occur and yes, certain transistors are "ruggedized" or as you seem to be saying "designed" to survive an avalanche condition. this is the avalanche rating in the datasheet. http://www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf
i think you both are correct, and neither of you can see the "validity" of the others argument.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 30, 2012, 12:20:53 AM
mags... mosfets aren't designed to avalanche, they are designed to switch. avalanche is a condition that can occur and yes, certain transistors are "ruggedized" or as you seem to be saying "designed" to survive an avalanche condition. this is the avalanche rating in the datasheet. http://www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf (http://www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf)
i think you both are correct, and neither of you can see the "validity" of the others argument.
Thanks Wilby
Conclusions:
Specifying an avalanche rated MOSFET into a
circuit which does not require it comes with a
penalty. A better solution would be careful attention
to PC board layout, transformer design and the
addition of an expensive snubber to prevent over
voltage spikes. This solution will result in a more
reliable, more efficient and possibly less expensive
system.
Mags
Doesn't anybody remember that Ainslie specified that the mosfet used MUST be avalanche rated, back in the old days? That is one reason I find the present "discussion" so hilarious.
Meanwhile, the crappy little Sassy ClassE is doing what it is designed to do, with high efficiency. Less than 30 VDC input from a non-regulated filtered supply, and it will light as many of those CFLs as you can bring into the field. Wirelessly.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 12:39:28 AM
Doesn't anybody remember that Ainslie specified that the mosfet used MUST be avalanche rated, back in the old days? That is one reason I find the present "discussion" so hilarious.
yeah it's almost as funny as back in the old days when it took all you "experts" 100 or so pages to get around to "discussing" it back then... ::) or your daffynition of 'replicate'... ::) or your 'theory' about mosfet performance... ::) ohhh how we laughed!
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 12:39:28 AM
Meanwhile, the crappy little Sassy ClassE is doing what it is designed to do, with high efficiency. Less than 30 VDC input from a non-regulated filtered supply, and it will light as many of those CFLs as you can bring into the field. Wirelessly.
but yet not as efficient as rose's heater... which as you noted earlier is 100% efficient. ;)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 11:30:32 PM
****** BUMP ******
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 08:24:05 AM
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Not actually. I both can and have.
Rosie Pose
RIGHT Rosemary .... slime your way out of these two questions, I'm sure the "Open Source Community" would like to see answers without your constant bloviating
1) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located "specifically" for Test #3 referenced in your "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf [attached file] ) that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
2) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located for "ANY" test using a 555 timer replacing the functions generator that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 12:03:13 AM
Hi Fuzzy
How's that 'class action' lawsuit coming on? Do let us know. I've told you where to present your papers. And I know your address if you ever want a reply.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary you low life idiot slimeball .... again you change the subject because you cannot and never have made publically available posted links with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY device(s) operation.
You are a nothing but a toothless super troll giving information on devices you created that are
"FRAUDULENT" having
"NO" proof of their operation other than cherry picked data for a
THESIS.
Facepalm. Yes, Wilby, you rotational expert without portfolio, SassyClassE is also 100 percent efficient using the same criteria. Are you already three sheets to the wind? It's not even midnight in Seattle. Or Coral Gables, whichever is closer. Usually your tack is slightly closer hauled.
I could even claim it's more than 100 percent efficient, because it's tapping into the Schumann Resonance of the Earth itself as it hurtles through the Solar System, extracting Bremstrahlung energy as it's curved along its orbit like a giant electron. This energy comes surging up from the ground through the specially-treated copper-gadolinium alloy rod, which has been lubricated into the ground with lemon juice and salt.
And apparently, it would be up to you to prove me wrong, because this is the place for uncritical acceptance of wild theories.
Don't forget... as to the question of efficiency....
The experiment described in the "paper", that is associated with Figure 7 where the claim is made that 5.9 megaJoules were dissipated in 1.6 hours, was described by Ainslie this way, on the day it was actually performed (or perhaps the next day):
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 30, 2012, 12:43:15 AM
but yet not as efficient as rose's heater... which as you noted earlier is 100% efficient. ;)
Really? How many CFLs can Ainslie's "heater" light up, wirelessly, on 30 volts input?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 12:56:57 AM
Facepalm. Yes, Wilby, you rotational expert without portfolio, SassyClassE is also 100 percent efficient using the same criteria. Are you already three sheets to the wind? It's not even midnight in Seattle. Or Coral Gables, whichever is closer. Usually your tack is slightly closer hauled.
facepalm indeed... your 'load' isn't a heater. measure the 'efficiency' of rose's heater and then measure the efficiency of your crappy little tesla coil "actually doing something useful: make corona and ozone to purify and beautify the environment" with the same criteria you used for rose's circuit and present your data. ::)
you've been ionizing your vodka again haven't you... ::)
She may have provided the data... to somebody, at some time. But it's certain that the spreadsheets are not available for public inspection.
The present refusal to provide the data to MrSean2k is just the first _overt_ refusal. She's promised to provide them several times in the past to other people, including Stefan Hartmann, and has simply "let it slide" without further mention or explanation.
But the excuse currently given is clearly bogus. I mean, Ainslie possesses the originals, right? And a copy could be filed with a notary and kept under seal, so that if any evil debunkers tried to, say..... SELECT DATA THAT ONLY SUPPORTED THEIR HYPOTHESES.... or tried to ALTER OR EDIT OR COVER UP DATA OR IMAGES.... the certified copy could be compared and the perpetrators busted. So it's easy to assure both the integrity of the data sets released and their careful and unbiased examination.... by releasing them.
Keeping them secret, not providing them when asked for.... is a no-no. The first thing a reviewer might do... after checking the basic math and the references... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.
and yet here you are... four years later... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 30, 2012, 01:02:34 AM
facepalm indeed... your 'load' isn't a heater. measure the 'efficiency' of rose's heater and then measure the efficiency of your crappy little tesla coil "actually doing something useful: make corona and ozone to purify and beautify the environment" with the same criteria you used for rose's circuit and present your data. ::)
you've been ionizing your vodka again haven't you... ::)
Avoiding the question as usual. You still haven't even told me whether you've stopped beating your dog or not.
HOW MANY, Wilby? How many CFLs can Ainslie light up?
Or, to put it another way.... measure SassyClassE using the SAME CRITERION used by Ainslie to claim super efficiency: the negative mean power product. Would you like to wager upon the outcome?
Compare, contrast, conclude.
Who's stultified now, you Latinate trenchfoot sockwearer.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 30, 2012, 01:14:28 AM
and yet here you are... four years later... ::)
Look in the mirror, Wilby. What do you see?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:15:50 AM
Who's stultified now, you Latinate trenchfoot sockwearer.
LOL. I think you're rather stultified TK. And I think this is a fair description of you. All round. You've a choice turn of phrase and a bottomless reach of insult. Quite amusing. In its way. But sadly. All you EVER do is congratulate yourself. It's getting a bit boring. The more so as the rest of us don't see that much cause.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:15:50 AM
Avoiding the question as usual. You still haven't even told me whether you've stopped beating your dog or not.
another logical fallacy as usual... and you still haven't offered up that public mea culpa you owe me... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:15:50 AM
HOW MANY, Wilby? How many CFLs can Ainslie light up?
irrelevant ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:15:50 AM
Or, to put it another way.... measure SassyClassE using the SAME CRITERION used by Ainslie to claim super efficiency: the negative mean power product. Would you like to wager upon the outcome?
Compare, contrast, conclude.
but those "CRITERION" are flawed according to you and milelow and poynty and pico etc. etc. ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:15:50 AM
Who's stultified now, you Latinate trenchfoot sockwearer.
still you... as you seem to think your crappy tesla coil is more efficient than an electric heater... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:16:32 AM
Look in the mirror, Wilby. What do you see?
another logical fallacy (ad hominem tu quo que this time)... ::) don't you ever get tired of using those?
i see you troll...
Look, Wilby's tied himself up in knots. Granny knots, not shipshape bowlines or ring bends too.
He thinks Ainslie's circuit is a heater, when it's really a battery non-charger.
And it's extremely efficient at that, Wilby. It non-charges its battery with COP > INFINITY. READ THE PAPERS, which contain her claims. Any heat it produces is extra, a byproduct of it not charging its batteries.
And he thinks that looking in a mirror is an abusive argument against him personally, instead of simply pointing out his own location in time. Is that a fisherman's bend, there, Wilby, or just a slipknot?
How many CFLs can Ainslie's circuit light up, Wilby? Is ClassE the same as an Ainslie circuit, an inductive clamp test circuit, a deliberately feeding-back RF oscillator, the circuit listed in the .pdf you linked? Or not? Do you have some more oranges to compare, to see if they are really apples or not? Or maybe your problem is just that all your grapes are sour.
After all these years YOU STILL BEING HERE, they would be. Try making wine, that doesn't take much manual skill, just your own foot-stomping calhounedness will take care of it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 01:23:00 AM
LOL. I think you're rather stultified TK. And I think this is a fair description of you. All round. You've a choice turn of phrase and a bottomless reach of insult. Quite amusing. In its way. But sadly. All you EVER do is congratulate yourself. It's getting a bit boring. The more so as the rest of us don't see that much cause.
Rosie Pose
You again, bogus claimant? Why aren't you ashamed of yourself? You have been demonstrated to be a liar and incompetent many times over, even by your own pet trolls.
No retraction of your lying 5.9 megaJoules claim has been made. It is STILL UP RIGHT NOW on Rossi's JNP, and I can't find any statement where it has been corrected or retracted. In fact it has been many days since anyone has even commented on your "paper" in Rossi's JNP. Of course you are carrying on your private email correspondence with your sycophants as usual and those aren't normally available to the public. Or are they.....
And no public posting of your original data sets have been made, contrary to your "I can and I have" claim. You cannot, and you have not publicly posted your data for inspection. The data you HAVE posted, in the form of scopeshots, refute your claims utterly and illustrate your mendacious approach to experimentation: you only record and report what you want to see, what supports your contentions, and you do not design tests in an effort to refute yourself.
So we do it for you.
And it goes on and on. You are even lying to and misleading your hopeful builder, who will soon find out for himself just what a fool and liar you are as he repeats the same work the rest of us have already done, but which you are concealing from him.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 02:23:17 AM
Look, Wilby's tied himself up in knots. Granny knots, not shipshape bowlines or ring bends too.
He thinks Ainslie's circuit is a heater, when it's really a battery non-charger.
And it's extremely efficient at that, Wilby. It non-charges its battery with COP > INFINITY. READ THE PAPERS, which contain her claims. Any heat it produces is extra, a byproduct of it not charging its batteries.
And he thinks that looking in a mirror is an abusive argument against him personally, instead of simply pointing out his own location in time. Is that a fisherman's bend, there, Wilby, or just a slipknot?
How many CFLs can Ainslie's circuit light up, Wilby? Is ClassE the same as an Ainslie circuit, an inductive clamp test circuit, a deliberately feeding-back RF oscillator, the circuit listed in the .pdf you linked? Or not? Do you have some more oranges to compare, to see if they are really apples or not? Or maybe your problem is just that all your grapes are sour.
After all these years YOU STILL BEING HERE, they would be. Try making wine, that doesn't take much manual skill, just your own foot-stomping calhounedness will take care of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HemKGDavw
troll response from tinselkoala/alsetalokin coming up in 3... 2... 1...
Yeah, a lead balloon is an appropriate metaphor for your sailing skills, isn't it.
But here's something more appropriate for this thread, you jive turkey-baster, you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjPlhb4f9P8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjPlhb4f9P8)
Brown haired monkey reply in three... two... one.....
Oh, I love those post-posting edits, don't you? Windex for the soul, that is what that is. Scrub it clean like a cool breeze in your face.
Hi again Little TK,
Here's an update to settle all that spite. Enjoy,
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg2427/topicseen.html#new
What, have you answered .99's questions about AC/DC coupling?
Or have you addressed Brian Ahern's bad math, which .99 has corrected?
No, neither of those, I'll bet. You probably make some more silly claims, like your bottom end LeCroy scope being superior to anything Tektronix can kludge together. Or perhaps you claim that the battery is entirely disconnected during the oscillations of your circuit. I know you can't make a post here without lying or insulting someone, so I would wager that you do the same there, where nobody will question you for fear of getting edited away.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 02:42:38 AM
Yeah, a lead balloon is an appropriate metaphor for your sailing skills, isn't it.
actually the lead balloon metaphor was for your repeated use of logical fallacy, you have been changing the subject since i mentioned that rose's heater circuit was more efficient than your crappy little tesla coil.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 02:42:38 AM
But here's something more appropriate for this thread, you jive turkey-baster, you.
i'd say this is more appropriate for this thread... ::) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixg2ukmiKc
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 02:42:38 AM
Oh, I love those post-posting edits, don't you? Windex for the soul, that is what that is. Scrub it clean like a cool breeze in your face.
i know you do, i see you do it all the time... ::)
troll response in 3... 2... 1...
Hello again Little TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
She may have provided the data... to somebody, at some time. But it's certain that the spreadsheets are not available for public inspection.
The present refusal to provide the data to MrSean2k is just the first _overt_ refusal. She's promised to provide them several times in the past to other people, including Stefan Hartmann, and has simply "let it slide" without further mention or explanation.
But the excuse currently given is clearly bogus. I mean, Ainslie possesses the originals, right? And a copy could be filed with a notary and kept under seal, so that if any evil debunkers tried to, say..... SELECT DATA THAT ONLY SUPPORTED THEIR HYPOTHESES.... or tried to ALTER OR EDIT OR COVER UP DATA OR IMAGES.... the certified copy could be compared and the perpetrators busted. So it's easy to assure both the integrity of the data sets released and their careful and unbiased examination.... by releasing them.
Not actually. Your own efforts at so called 'documentation' of my work is all the proof that's needed that you guys can spin data any way you choose. No need to refer to facts. I didn't let my offer to Stefan lapse. I simply changed my mind. His preferred editorial bias was beginning to bother me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AMKeeping them secret, not providing them when asked for.... is a no-no. The first thing a reviewer might do... after checking the basic math and the references... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.
Again. Not actually. It seems that all that's needed is the apparatus or close inspection of the apparatus to enable replications. Unlike you the genuine researcher doesn't first rampage through public threads with overly abundant evidence of calumny and malice - before he asks for more evidence. Such bad manners does not, usually, generate an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.
Which reminds me. I need to repost a post of mine - lest the public think for one minute that you're in a position to comment on anything at all.
Rosie Pose
Here it is again. I'll try and get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all.
And Guys,
Just a gentle reminder. Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory. Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement. And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access.
That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.
What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance. The significance is this. EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy. And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 09:48:53 AM
Here it is again. I'll try and get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all.
And Guys,
Just a gentle reminder. Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory. Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement. And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access.
That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.
What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance. The significance is this. EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy. And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
You most definitely have shown no proof of "COP=infinity", you have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", which, during the measurement thereof, did not account for lead inductance in the connect and interconnect leads to the battery. Your continued bastardization of the term "COP" is improper, incorrect, and very misleading. Shame on you.
"Infinity" is a very, very large number. I suggest you stick to claiming you have managed to make the LeCroy display a "negative mean power measurement". Again, you may have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", but you provide nothing to back up a claim of "COP=infinity".
Just as you refuse to learn how your Q2 operates and how the 'scope is displaying +12 volts to Q1 in FIG3, you refuse to learn what is provided in .99's analysis of the "negative mean power measurement" that you, as well as TK, have managed to measure.
Also, that letter you wrote to your "lab" is precious. So full of non-sensical, non-technical, useless information. Do you really believe stating that the FG should be at its "extreme settings" means anything at all? How about stating period, duty cycle, offset, peak to peak swing, Q2 bias current, real numbers and settings that a lab could actually reproduce? Anyone at a "reputable" lab receiving that letter would only chuckle and grin.
The errors regarding Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7, and your total inability to either learn or accept how Q2 is biased on when the FG applies a negative voltage to the Q2 source are inexcusable.
I stand by my assertion in your locked thread, you are indeed "not very receptive to learning". In fact, you would need to learn more about 'scopes, FG's and MOSFET's just to realize how unreceptive to learning you truly are.
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
Dear readers,
I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.
She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly. Now she wants some method to test this. An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy. Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly.
In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on. Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic. There can be no other explanation. This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.
Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in) is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly. I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.
From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.
She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on. Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.
In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR. The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR. This is as plain as day for all to see. Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2, She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal. The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR"). All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR.
When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7). Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate. There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage). When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) . However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG. This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG. Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it. Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation. Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements). As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen. As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases. The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias. (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why. And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)
But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed. She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense. The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage. The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth. Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.
I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected. Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".
It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).
These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".
PW
"I'll try to get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all"
QuoteHere it is again. I'll try and get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all.
And Guys,
Just a gentle reminder. Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory. Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement. And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access.
That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.
What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance. The significance is this. EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy. And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Probably the simplest rebuttal to this is that the NERD team never put a simple analog ammeter or a digital multimeter set to measure current in series with the battery connection. That clearly shows significant current flow indicating that the batteries are discharging. This failure to make a simple measurement as a way of double-checking your DSO measurements is symbolic of the whole mess.
What you are doing is an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering. You are going to get a negative report back from the alleged lab. Hopefully that will convince you and this will be all over. But considering that you are a brick wall and stick to all of your uneducated, nonsensical, incorrect and irrational opinions about how the circuit actually works, one never knows.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 30, 2012, 11:24:08 AM
Probably the simplest rebuttal to this is that the NERD team never put a simple analog ammeter or a digital multimeter set to measure current in series with the battery connection. That clearly shows significant current flow indicating that the batteries are discharging. This failure to make a simple measurement as a way of double-checking your DSO measurements is symbolic of the whole mess.
What you are doing is an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering. You are going to get a negative report back from the alleged lab. Hopefully that will convince you and this will be all over. But considering that you are a brick wall and stick to all of your uneducated, nonsensical, incorrect and irrational opinions about how the circuit actually works, one never knows.
MH,
Well said...
How would you interpret/define the claim of "COP=infinity"?
She seems to have backed away from the "batteries never run down" claim, but continues to state that tests will likely show that their capacity is exceeded. But if the batteries discharge at all, how can a claim of COP=infinity be made? What if the batteries die before I am finished extracting an "infinite" amount of energy? What would the COP be then?
PW
Do you see? She cannot make a single post without lying or insulting or threatening.
QuoteOur paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement.
On the contrary, Little Miss Mendacitor Mosfet, your "paper" makes many claims that are untrue and not supported by the data. The "5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours" nonsense is just one of them. "Bringing water to boil" is another one, when you did no such thing. You stuck an overheated resistor into a jug of water and observed some small bubbles. In other words, you lied in your paper and you are lying now.
QuoteAnd that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access.
It has been explained to you MANY TIMES that your measurement conditions are neither stringent, accurate, nor appropriate for the claims you are making. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. And you used a loaner oscilloscope that you used under false pretenses and which was withdrawn for that reason by the Tek representative that loaned it to you, which is why you no longer like Tektronix, even though many of their low-end scopes are superior to the bottomline LeCroy that you borrowed from Coast-to-Coast, that you damaged, and then had to purchase.
And anyone can RENT much more sophisticated test equipment for reasonable rates from many different metrology companies across the globe, so your "access" claim is also a lie. ANYONE can access those instruments, just as anyone can take a taxi from London to the Louvre if they want to.
Stringent conditions.... taping a thermocouple to a water heater element in a broom closet and recording by hand a few numbers now and then...... You are a joke. A lying joke, like a bad practical joke that makes a big mess that we know you'll never clean up.
Quote
That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.
(sic)
Well, little miss ANAMOLY, your own data prove that statement is also a lie, since the scopeshots from that trial show 1) a DECREASING BATTERY MEAN VOLTAGE DURING THE RUN and 2) SIGNIFICANT CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY during the NON OSCILLATION phase of the cycle.
Therefore not only are you a bad speller, but also .... YOU LIE AGAIN, and your own data proves it.
NOTE PARTICULARLY Item 1, showing the strong CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY, and also note the total battery voltage.
And there are many more shots, even better than this one, that demonstrate the same phenomenon, which is not "anamolous" at all: it is normal circuit behaviour and is so well understood that it can be modelled, simulated, and instantiated in hardware in many ways, and there is nothing strange about it at all.
TK,
The next time you perform tests on the NERD circuit, make sure you set the FG to its "extreme settings", as per her letter to the "reputable lab". Surely, with your understanding of the operation of a FG, you must know what "extreme settings" means!
If I were a guitar player and the FG were a Marshall, I guess I'd rake my hand along the top of the knobs to put everything at "10".
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 12:12:26 PM
Do you see? She cannot make a single post without lying or insulting or threatening.
On the contrary, Little Miss Mendacitor Mosfet, your "paper" makes many claims that are untrue and not supported by the data. The "5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours" nonsense is just one of them. "Bringing water to boil" is another one, when you did no such thing. You stuck an overheated resistor into a jug of water and observed some small bubbles. In other words, you lied in your paper and you are lying now. It has been explained to you MANY TIMES that your measurement conditions are neither stringent, accurate, nor appropriate for the claims you are making. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. And you used a loaner oscilloscope that you used under false pretenses and which was withdrawn for that reason by the Tek representative that loaned it to you, which is why you no longer like Tektronix, even though many of their low-end scopes are superior to the bottomline LeCroy that you borrowed from Coast-to-Coast, that you damaged, and then had to purchase.
And anyone can RENT much more sophisticated test equipment for reasonable rates from many different metrology companies across the globe, so your "access" claim is also a lie. ANYONE can access those instruments, just as anyone can take a taxi from London to the Louvre if they want to.
Stringent conditions.... taping a thermocouple to a water heater element in a broom closet and recording by hand a few numbers now and then...... You are a joke. A lying joke, like a bad practical joke that makes a big mess that we know you'll never clean up. (sic)
Well, little miss ANAMOLY, your own data prove that statement is also a lie, since the scopeshots from that trial show 1) a DECREASING BATTERY MEAN VOLTAGE DURING THE RUN and 2) SIGNIFICANT CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY during the NON OSCILLATION phase of the cycle.
Therefore not only are you a bad speller, but also .... YOU LIE AGAIN, and your own data proves it.
NOTE PARTICULARLY Item 1, showing the strong CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY, and also note the total battery voltage.
And there are many more shots, even better than this one, that demonstrate the same phenomenon, which is not "anamolous" at all: it is normal circuit behaviour and is so well understood that it can be modelled, simulated, and instantiated in hardware in many ways, and there is nothing strange about it at all.
TK,
At least Q1 was functioning properly in THAT 'scope shot!
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on June 30, 2012, 11:24:08 AM
(snip) You are going to get a negative report back from the alleged lab. Hopefully that will convince you and this will be all over. (snip)
You don't really believe that, do you?
In the first place she would never send her baby off to a lab that would actually do any required tests that might prove her WRONG, like comprehensive battery drawdown tests or accurate calorimetry. She has requested that they send it back to her in a WEEK !! It takes a week just to stabilize and calibrate an accurate volume calorimeter, much less test and report on a world-changing overunity zipon-containing device.
In the second place, if she has to include the magic 200 dollar IsoTech (or INSTEK) function generator along with the device.... did she also include the magic batteries? The ones that never have been recharged, except for the two that ... caught fire? I've asked this before but of course there has been no answer. And as picowatt states, the "instructions" in the letter are laughable. "Just hook it up and turn it on, crank the FG to its extreme settings, and begin measurement", essentially. But be sure to mount the device on the pegboard properly.
Perhaps there are more specific instructions included in the box.
In the third place... she will control the information, there won't be any independent report made available from people you can ask without her intervention. Just exactly like all the other supposed vettings from the various alphabet agencies she cites-- no original reports are available for inspection. The recent experience in the locked thread where she is arguing with powercat about what he himself said, or the way she continually misrepresents things other people say and do.... should give you pause. Any "report" that we will get will be filtered through Ainslie and will be positive, "confirming" her claims, and yet... the batteries will discharge and a lot of power will wind up dissipating in the mosfets themselves, so the only way any touted 100 percent efficiency claims can be true is if the entire device's total emission is counted as the "output".
And in the ..... place, .....
And in the nth place, there is no laboratory anyway. She's sent her thing off, if at all, to a couple of sycophants who probably don't know an offset from a tuffet and think that Ainslie's measurement technique and calculations are accurate and believable. It's a delaying tactic, with plenty of opportunity for the thing to get lost or damaged. For sure, it won't be tested and returned to her by July 7th.
Possible "extreme settings" operating procedure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsX5PtVTfxg
Quote from: evolvingape on June 30, 2012, 12:34:24 PM
Possible "extreme settings" operating procedure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsX5PtVTfxg
Yeah TK, set your FG like that, EXTREME SETTINGS !
(Good one EA!)
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 12:27:26 PM
TK,
The next time you perform tests on the NERD circuit, make sure you set the FG to its "extreme settings", as per her letter to the "reputable lab". Surely, with your understanding of the operation of a FG, you must know what "extreme settings" means!
If I were a guitar player and the FG were a Marshall, I guess I'd rake my hand along the top of the knobs to put everything at "10".
PW
Absolutely. Get them 12AX7 plates glowing cherry red and the blue light shining through the amp tech's nightmares...
Yes, especially with the Interstate. 40 v p-p and +/- 20 v of offset.... and/or really long on times..... I could go through a pile of mosfets in a hurry with that puppy. Even with the nambypamby IsoTech GFG8216a one can, by turning the knobs to the stops, easily apply straight DC at +15 V to a mosfet gate for as long as one likes. Of course the mosfet will become ... er.... "quiescent" to use Rossi's word, pretty soon if it is also carrying 6 amps d-s.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 12:27:26 PM
If I were a guitar player and the FG were a Marshall, I guess I'd rake my hand along the top of the knobs to put everything at "10".
PW
Unless you are "Nigel" from Spinal Tap, then you'd be goin' to eleven. :P
Quote from: poynt99 on June 30, 2012, 12:54:37 PM
Unless you are "Nigel" from Spinal Tap, then you'd be goin' to eleven. :P
Turn it all the way up and then one more!!
Quote from: evolvingape on June 30, 2012, 12:34:24 PM
Possible "extreme settings" operating procedure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsX5PtVTfxg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsX5PtVTfxg)
Ahhhhahaha... I am laughing so hard, that's great. Always wear your safety glasses when using power chords !
Still... his knobs only go up to 100.
Hi Guys,
It's extraordinary that our so called 'EXPERTS' keep asking this question. I would have thought it was self evident.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 11:50:28 AM
MH,
Well said...
How would you interpret/define the claim of "COP=infinity"?
She seems to have backed away from the "batteries never run down" claim, but continues to state that tests will likely show that their capacity is exceeded. But if the batteries discharge at all, how can a claim of COP=infinity be made? What if the batteries die before I am finished extracting an "infinite" amount of energy? What would the COP be then?
PW
Here's what I mean. Our COP>17 circuit proved that more energy was dissipated at the load than was delivered by the battery. But we still measured energy being delivered by the battery. In our new tests we can measure no energy AT ALL being delivered by the battery. But we have measurable energy being dissipated at the load. That takes it to COP INFINITY.
Strange why this needs any explanation. It's clearly referenced in our paper.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 01:28:53 PM
Hi Guys,
It's extraordinary that our so called 'EXPERTS' keep asking this question. I would have thought it was self evident.
Here's what I mean. Our COP>17 circuit proved that more energy was dissipated at the load than was delivered by the battery. But we still measured energy being delivered by the battery. In our new tests we can measure no energy AT ALL being delivered by the battery. But we have measurable energy being dissipated at the load. That takes it to COP INFINITY.
Strange why this needs any explanation. It's clearly referenced in our paper.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9_rb6OCiLc
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 11:16:27 AM
You most definitely have shown no proof of "COP=infinity", you have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", which, during the measurement thereof, did not account for lead inductance in the connect and interconnect leads to the battery. Your continued bastardization of the term "COP" is improper, incorrect, and very misleading. Shame on you.
Golly. What a pompous, fatuous, idiotic pretentious, opinionated, self-serving halfwit you are picowatt - with respect... :o ;D (LOL - maybe not so much.) It's your own rather limited training that's at question. Not our claim. Perhaps my previous post will help you out here. Golly. Let me borrow a much preferred phrase of yours ...'Shame on you' 8) :o This new complaint of yours is nearly as idiotic as your pretense that a negative voltage at the Gate of Q2 will turn it on. Extraordinary. Surely you know that this claim of yours will fold at our first demonstration? It's not even hard to disprove.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM"Infinity" is a very, very large number. I suggest you stick to claiming you have managed to make the LeCroy display a "negative mean power measurement". Again, you may have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", but you provide nothing to back up a claim of "COP=infinity".
So you keep saying. But that's because you're more liberal with your opinions than they merit. And I, in turn, would suggest that YOU stop embarrassing yourself. IF you're going to object then get a valid basis to object. You keep forgetting. We're not the idiots that you keep presuming.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AMJust as you refuse to learn how your Q2 operates and how the 'scope is displaying +12 volts to Q1 in FIG3, you refuse to learn what is provided in .99's analysis of the "negative mean power measurement" that you, as well as TK, have managed to measure.
Actually picowatt - I think you're the one who needs teaching. Hold your horses. I'll get around it soon - when we do our demonstrations.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AMAlso, that letter you wrote to your "lab" is precious. So full of non-sensical, non-technical, useless information. Do you really believe stating that the FG should be at its "extreme settings" means anything at all? How about stating period, duty cycle, offset, peak to peak swing, Q2 bias current, real numbers and settings that a lab could actually reproduce? Anyone at a "reputable" lab receiving that letter would only chuckle and grin.
Not actually. They know EXACTLY what I mean. They've read the papers and they know perfectly well how a function generator works and I've MARKED the points that I refer to as extreme - on the generator itself.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AMThe errors regarding Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7, and your total inability to either learn or accept how Q2 is biased on when the FG applies a negative voltage to the Q2 source are inexcusable.
They are functioning properly. Again. I will SHOW you this. And again. If you had any modicum of wisdom you would defer comments such as this. Because these are EASILY disproved. What will you do then? Apologise? Or just fade into the obscurity you came from?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AMI stand by my assertion in your locked thread, you are indeed "not very receptive to learning". In fact, you would need to learn more about 'scopes, FG's and MOSFET's just to realize how unreceptive to learning you truly are.
And I stand by my assertion that you are entirely disqualified from comment. Dear God. You don't even understand the implications of COP INFINITY as opposed to over unity - let alone that that both Q1 and Q2 need a positive signal to turn on. Golly
Rosie Pose
added
Quote from: MileHigh on June 30, 2012, 11:24:08 AM
Probably the simplest rebuttal to this is that the NERD team never put a simple analog ammeter or a digital multimeter set to measure current in series with the battery connection. That clearly shows significant current flow indicating that the batteries are discharging. This failure to make a simple measurement as a way of double-checking your DSO measurements is symbolic of the whole mess.
We most certainly DID use a simple multimeter and were thereby able to prove that the multimeter's measurements were UTTERLY inaccurate. It can't register at those oscillation frequencies.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 30, 2012, 11:24:08 AMWhat you are doing is an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering. You are going to get a negative report back from the alleged lab.
LOL I KNOW this. It will be the same negative value that TK ALSO found. I have NO DOUBT as to this. LOL (laugh out loud)
Quote from: MileHigh on June 30, 2012, 11:24:08 AMHopefully that will convince you and this will be all over. But considering that you are a brick wall and stick to all of your uneducated, nonsensical, incorrect and irrational opinions about how the circuit actually works, one never knows.
Not actually. That NEGATIVE result is PRECISELY what makes this subject of EXTREME interest to our public. Surely you know that? MileHigh?
Rosie Pose
:-*
Added one too many LOL's just for the hell of it and because I think MH likes to speculate on its really true meaning. That'll keep him occupied for a bit. Hopefully
edited. Changed 'switching speeds' to oscillation frequencies.
And I highlighted both edits and repositioned my emoticon - and took out an unnecessary line space
For someone who can't read their own 'scope properly, who doesn't understand how their own function generator works, and doesn't even understand how her own circuit operates, you got a lot of nerve calling others "unqualified"
What a joke.
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
Dear readers,
I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.
She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly. Now she wants some method to test this. An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy. Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly.
In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on. Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic. There can be no other explanation. This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.
Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in) is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly. I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.
From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.
She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on. Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.
In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR. The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR. This is as plain as day for all to see. Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2, She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal. The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR"). All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR.
When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7). Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate. There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage). When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) . However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG. This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG. Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it. Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation. Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements). As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen. As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases. The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias. (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why. And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)
But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed. She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense. The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage. The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth. Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.
I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected. Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".
It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).
These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 11:50:28 AM
MH,
Well said...
This is NOT surprising. I can well understand how you'd recommend the use of an ammeter that can't actually read the oscillations. It would be critical to any attempts at disproof. We've scheduled this little test picowatt. It's very easy to show in 10 minutes how UTTERLY erroneous is the reading on your standard ammeters which you're so desperately advising all and sundry to use.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 11:50:28 AM
How would you interpret/define the claim of "COP=infinity"?
HOPEFULLY you understand this now. If not I'll gladly repost that post of mine.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 11:50:28 AMShe seems to have backed away from the "batteries never run down" claim, but continues to state that tests will likely show that their capacity is exceeded.
Not actually. It's never been a part of the claim.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 11:50:28 AMBut if the batteries discharge at all, how can a claim of COP=infinity be made? What if the batteries die before I am finished extracting an "infinite" amount of energy? What would the COP be then?
We DO NOT claim that we're achieving COP INFINITY. We claim to MEASURE COP INFINITY. We're yet to test the effects on the battery. Do you EVER actually check anything at all that I've said before opining about it? Or do you just suffer from a compulsive need to bore us with your ridiculous opinions?
Rosie Pose
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 02:20:51 PM
For someone who can't read their own 'scope properly, who doesn't understand how their own function generator works, and doesn't even understand how her own circuit operates, you got a lot of nerve calling others "unqualified"
What a joke.
So you keep saying picowatt. But it seems that I'm way better qualified on this equipment than you are. You seem to think that a DC coupling on channel 3 will corrupt all the other channels on our LeCroy. That's just for starters.
Rosie Pose
Picowatt?
Was that excessively long repost of yours intended to take the focus away from this comment of mine?
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 11:16:27 AM
You most definitely have shown no proof of "COP=infinity", you have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", which, during the measurement thereof, did not account for lead inductance in the connect and interconnect leads to the battery. Your continued bastardization of the term "COP" is improper, incorrect, and very misleading. Shame on you.QuoteQuote from: RosemaryGolly. What a pompous, fatuous, idiotic pretentious, opinionated, self-serving halfwit you are picowatt - with respect... :o ;D (LOL - maybe not so much.) It's your own rather limited training that's at question. Not our claim. Perhaps my previous post will help you out here. Golly. Let me borrow a much preferred phrase of yours ...'Shame on you' 8) :o This new complaint of yours is nearly as idiotic as your pretense that a negative voltage at the Gate of Q2 will turn it on. Extraordinary. Surely you know that this claim of yours will fold at our first demonstration? It's not even hard to disprove.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 12:32:01 PM
You don't really believe that, do you?
In the first place she would never send her baby off to a lab that would actually do any required tests that might prove her WRONG, like comprehensive battery drawdown tests or accurate calorimetry. She has requested that they send it back to her in a WEEK !! It takes a week just to stabilize and calibrate an accurate volume calorimeter, much less test and report on a world-changing overunity zipon-containing device.
In the second place, if she has to include the magic 200 dollar IsoTech (or INSTEK) function generator along with the device.... did she also include the magic batteries? The ones that never have been recharged, except for the two that ... caught fire? I've asked this before but of course there has been no answer. And as picowatt states, the "instructions" in the letter are laughable. "Just hook it up and turn it on, crank the FG to its extreme settings, and begin measurement", essentially. But be sure to mount the device on the pegboard properly.
Perhaps there are more specific instructions included in the box.
In the third place... she will control the information, there won't be any independent report made available from people you can ask without her intervention. Just exactly like all the other supposed vettings from the various alphabet agencies she cites-- no original reports are available for inspection. The recent experience in the locked thread where she is arguing with powercat about what he himself said, or the way she continually misrepresents things other people say and do.... should give you pause. Any "report" that we will get will be filtered through Ainslie and will be positive, "confirming" her claims, and yet... the batteries will discharge and a lot of power will wind up dissipating in the mosfets themselves, so the only way any touted 100 percent efficiency claims can be true is if the entire device's total emission is counted as the "output".
And in the ..... place, .....
And in the nth place, there is no laboratory anyway. She's sent her thing off, if at all, to a couple of sycophants who probably don't know an offset from a tuffet and think that Ainslie's measurement technique and calculations are accurate and believable. It's a delaying tactic, with plenty of opportunity for the thing to get lost or damaged. For sure, it won't be tested and returned to her by July 7th.
LOL. I can't WAIT for this to be out in the open. The ONE thing I KNOW is that there will be a precise replication of all our claims. We've even sent our function generator to ENSURE this. It all puts me into such a delicious frame of mind that I simply CAN'T get riled at this sort of post. Poor little TK. WHAT will you do when serious scientists finally get hold of this information? Will you write to them? Anxiously? And then tell them what to think about that 'negative wattage'?. You'll need to disclose your accreditation. Or perhaps your GER...? That'll be more than enough. Then you can systematically advise them about the miracles of your tinselkoil number thingy and your beautifully expressive posts in this thread. They'd LOVE to know more about you. I'm sure. Such a DELIGHTFUL turn of phrase. And such IMPECCABLE tests you've shown. Especially that boomp boomp number. Remarkably exempt from any evidence of PROFESSIONALISM - anywhere at all. Just a romp in your compulsive need to express yourself rather more fully than is merited.
Rosie Pose
An N channel MOSFET is turned on whenever its gate is made more positive RELATIVE to its gate. If the gate is held at or near ground, as it is in YOUR circuit, the source must be made negative to turn on the MOSFET.
Either action, applying a positive voltage to the gate relative to the source OR applying a negative voltage to the source relative to the gate will turn on an N channel MOSFET. The gate only need be made more positive WITH RESPECT TO the source. The source can be at ground and a positive voltage applied to the gate, OR, the gate can be held at ground and a negative voltage applied to the source. Both actions will turn on the MOSFET.
ANYONE that has the slightest understanding of the operation of a MOSFET KNOWS this. It is an undeniable FACT.
In your circuit, the gate of Q2 is ALWAYS held at a low voltage close to zero volts. BECAUSE the gate of Q2 is CONNECTED directly to the non-battery end of the CSR. SO, the gate of Q2 can NEVER be any other voltage than the voltage observed at the CSR.
In your circuit, to bias on Q2, the FG must apply a NEGATIVE voltage to the source of Q2, and when it does, bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG to the battery neg. (and to be clear, a "negative voltage" means a voltage less than the your battery ground)
This is so obvious to anyone that can read a schematic that any argument from you to the contrary is simply a source of amusement.
But then, possibly the inability to read your own schematic needs to be added to the list.
More Bizarro World in the Bizarro Universe:
Rosemary heaping praise on complete beginners and calling them experts (Remember all the praise you had for Aaron when he made his pathetic attempts to replicate your first circuit and clearly did not even know how to operate an oscilloscope properly? (After 10-years worth of playing with one.))....
And at the same time Rosemary bashing and stating that Picowatt doesn't know what he is talking about when he is clearly and expert with many decades of experience in electronics....
You are so morally bankrupt Rosemary that even farthings run away from you.
The mind boggles.
P.S.: It was fun watching the steam rise from the top of Aaron's head.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 02:49:19 PM
An N channel MOSFET is turned on whenever its gate is made more positive RELATIVE to its gate. If the gate is held at or near ground, as it is in YOUR circuit, the source must be made negative to turn on the MOSFET.
The appropriate expletive relates to equestrian waste products. I'll spare you. You're talking absolute NONSENSE. I'll SHOW YOU. Our MOSFETS WILL NOT TURN ON WITH A NEGATIVE SIGNAL APPLIED TO THE GATE. NOT EVER. IN ANY WAY AT ALL. NO HOW. NOT EVER. Can I be plainer?
And the balance of your comments are also equally and entirely INCORRECT.
Anyway. That's it for the night Picowatt. Ramble on to your heart's content. You're clearly a rather foolish man that you make claims which will be easily disproved. But meanwhile - if it satisfies your ego - feel free. Just know that we've scheduled a whole wack of tests - PRECISELY to discredit these ABSURD statements of yours. MUCH required - for a variety of reasons.
Rosie Pose.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 02:33:12 PM
Picowatt?
Was that excessively long repost of yours intended to take the focus away from this comment of mine?
Not at all, it was intended to again highlight the errors regarding Q1, the basic operation of your circuit, and how Q2, is biased on by the FG... for those willing and able to learn.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 03:03:02 PM
Not at all, it was intended to again highlight the errors regarding Q1, the basic operation of your circuit, and how Q2, is biased on by the FG... for those willing and able to learn.
I would strongly advise anyone at all to first establish your credentials before they believe any of your presentations - again with or without respect.
And yet again
Rosie Pose
See how she lies and misrepresents? It's no wonder, though, because she doesn't read words, she just looks at shapes.
AINSLIE: READ THIS if you can:
NOBODY
HAS
EVER
SAID
THAT
A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE
TO THE GATE
WILL TURN A MOSFET ON.
Again, you hare hallucinating and you are responding to your hallucinations, not to facts.
A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE TO THE SOURCE, like picowatt has been saying, WILL TURN A MOSFET ON, and anyone can prove this for themselves. I'll even make a video for you, idiot Ainslie. You won't watch it of course, and even if you did you wouldn't understand it, and even if you DID you'd still lie about it or insult someone about it.
If only you were right about something even occasionally, you might be entertaining. But as it is, you are simply useless, a mockery, a parody of yourself. You are simultaneously the most arrogant and the most stupid, ignorant person I have ever met, and I live amongst cholo gangsters.
(People often DO apply negative voltages to the gates of N-channel mosfets; this is in order to assure that they TURN OFF hard. I use this feature in my TinselKoil 2.0 SSTC, where the 4 n-channel mosfet gates are directly driven by the AC, positive AND negative voltages, coming from the trifilar toroidal gate phase transformers.)
MileHigh
Stick to poetry. Or art. You're science is not so good.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 30, 2012, 02:51:56 PM
More Bizarro World in the Bizarro Universe:
Rosemary heaping praise on complete beginners and calling them experts (Remember all the praise you had for Aaron when he made his pathetic attempts to replicate your first circuit and clearly did not even know how to operate an oscilloscope properly? (After 10-years worth of playing with one.))....
And at the same time Rosemary bashing and stating that Picowatt doesn't know what he is talking about when he is clearly and expert with many decades of experience in electronics....
You are so morally bankrupt Rosemary that even farthings run away from you.
The mind boggles.
P.S.: It was fun watching the steam rise from the top of Aaron's head.
And BTW - can I impose on you for some doggerel for my thread? Be glad of it if you're equal to the task?
Regards
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 02:59:50 PM
The appropriate expletive relates to equestrian waste products. I'll spare you. You're talking absolute NONSENSE. I'll SHOW YOU. Our MOSFETS WILL NOT TURN ON WITH A NEGATIVE SIGNAL APPLIED TO THE GATE. NOT EVER. IN ANY WAY AT ALL. NO HOW. NOT EVER. Can I be plainer?
And the balance of your comments are also equally and entirely INCORRECT.
Anyway. That's it for the night Picowatt. Ramble on to your heart's content. You're clearly a rather foolish man that you make claims which will be easily disproved. But meanwhile - if it satisfies your ego - feel free. Just know that we've scheduled a whole wack of tests - PRECISELY to discredit these ABSURD statements of yours. MUCH required - for a variety of reasons.
Rosie Pose.
In the very first paragraph of this response you demonstrate your lack of reading and comprehension skills.
No where have I said a negative voltage is applied to the GATE of Q2 in your circuit. Are you really that bad at all this?
In your circuit, the gate of Q2 is held very close to ground potential by its connection to the CSR. To turn on Q2, the FG must apply a negative voltage to the SOURCE of Q2.
That is why you need all that negative offset from the FG... to bias Q2 on sufficiently. Note that in all your captures, the FG trace never goes much below -4volts regardless of how much negative offset you apply to the FG. This is due to the voltage drop across the FG's internal 50 ohm resistor due to the Q2 current flow thru the FG.
Actually TK
YES
THEY
HAVE
BUT - it's buried in the absurd scientificese that picowatt uses to pretend he knows science. It's that absurd reach when he describes the colours of the Emperors New Cloak.
TEDIOUS
IN
THE
EXTREME
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 03:09:30 PM
See how she lies and misrepresents? It's no wonder, though, because she doesn't read words, she just looks at shapes.
AINSLIE: READ THIS if you can:
NOBODY
HAS
EVER
SAID
THAT
A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE
TO THE GATE
WILL TURN A MOSFET ON.
Again, you hare hallucinating and you are responding to your hallucinations, not to facts.
A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE TO THE SOURCE, like picowatt has been saying, WILL TURN A MOSFET ON, and anyone can prove this for themselves. I'll even make a video for you, idiot Ainslie. You won't watch it of course, and even if you did you wouldn't understand it, and even if you DID you'd still lie about it or insult someone about it.
If only you were right about something even occasionally, you might be entertaining. But as it is, you are simply useless, a mockery, a parody of yourself. You are simultaneously the most arrogant and the most stupid, ignorant person I have ever met, and I live amongst cholo gangsters.
It's that absurd post that you needed to write following on from his - where you gave an alternate OPINION as you put it - while you attempted to show a qualified SUPPORT
ROSIE POSE
AKA
POLLY PARROT
AKA
MISS MOSFET
Rosemary's slimy slug trail goes on and on ...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 09:41:21 AM
Hello again Little TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
She may have provided the data... to somebody, at some time. But it's certain that the spreadsheets are not available for public inspection.
The present refusal to provide the data to MrSean2k is just the first _overt_ refusal. She's promised to provide them several times in the past to other people, including Stefan Hartmann, and has simply "let it slide" without further mention or explanation.
Not actually. Your own efforts at so called 'documentation' of my work is all the proof that's needed that you guys can spin data any way you choose. No need to refer to facts. I didn't let my offer to Stefan lapse. I simply changed my mind. His preferred editorial bias was beginning to bother me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Keeping them secret, not providing them when asked for.... is a no-no. The first thing a reviewer might do... after checking the basic math and the references... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.
Again. Not actually. It seems that all that's needed is the apparatus or close inspection of the apparatus to enable replications. Unlike you the genuine researcher doesn't first rampage through public threads with overly abundant evidence of calumny and malice - before he asks for more evidence. Such bad manners does not, usually, generate an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.
Which reminds me. I need to repost a post of mine - lest the public think for one minute that you're in a position to comment on anything at all.
Rosie Pose
As everyone can see the selective response to TK's posting leaving out the paragraph .....
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
But the excuse currently given is clearly bogus. I mean, Ainslie possesses the originals, right? And a copy could be filed with a notary and kept under seal, so that if any evil debunkers tried to, say..... SELECT DATA THAT ONLY SUPPORTED THEIR HYPOTHESES.... or tried to ALTER OR EDIT OR COVER UP DATA OR IMAGES.... the certified copy could be compared and the perpetrators busted. So it's easy to assure both the integrity of the data sets released and their careful and unbiased examination.... by releasing them.
The response from Rosemary isn't a excuse but a
open admission of purposively committing a fraud on the "open source community" with inaccurate and misleading statements, cobbled published testing and evaluation information to get experimentalist to do her work. The slimeball quote of Rosemary's that "I changed my mind" has always been and is not exceptionable when exploiting and manipulating help from forum members asking for help in replications to be made for conformation or verification of her said performance claim(s).
Rosemary's
open admission of purposively committing a fraud and by actions has no boundaries with her, from all the lies on experts, authors, documentation to the YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc :o
The protections Rosemary has put in place at her lousy pathetic self promoting forum hasn't brought one so called
COP>INFINITY device author or collaborator to post any comments .... why ? It's because they don't in reality exist but only in Rosemary's sick perverted mind. :P
FTC
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 03:13:52 PM
Actually TK
YES
THEY
HAVE
BUT - it's buried in the absurd scientificese that picowatt uses to pretend he knows science. It's that absurd reach when he describes the colours of the Emperors New Cloak.
TEDIOUS
IN
THE
EXTREME
It's that absurd post that you needed to write following on from his - where you gave an alternate OPINION as you put it - while you attempted to show a qualified SUPPORT
ROSIE POSE
AKA
POLLY PARROT
AKA
MISS MOSFET
Yes, I can now completely understand how a well written, concise, and technically accurate description of the operation of your circuit would seem absolutrly absurd to you.
Why not show that post to an EE and point out all its absurdity to him or her? Why not confirm the +12 volts to Q1 with LeCroy?
You really are afraid of the truth, aren't you?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 03:13:52 PM
Actually TK
YES
THEY
HAVE
BUT - it's buried in the absurd scientificese that picowatt uses to pretend he knows science. It's that absurd reach when he describes the colours of the Emperors New Cloak.
TEDIOUS
IN
THE
EXTREME
It's that absurd post that you needed to write following on from his - where you gave an alternate OPINION as you put it - while you attempted to show a qualified SUPPORT
ROSIE POSE
AKA
POLLY PARROT
AKA
MISS MOSFET
Nope, nowhere in that post or any other has anyone said that a negative voltage to the gate of a mosfet will turn that mosfet on (n-channel mosfets).
If you think he did, it is TRIVIAL to produce the quotation supporting your assertions.... but you cannot, because your assertion is a lie.
Read it again, this time more S L O W L Y...
Attempt to comprehend what is being said before you refer to it as "absurd".
Ask questions, learn...
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
Dear readers,
I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.
She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly. Now she wants some method to test this. An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy. Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly.
In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on. The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on. Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic. There can be no other explanation. This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.
Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in) is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly. I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.
From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.
She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on. Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.
In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR. The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR. This is as plain as day for all to see. Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2, She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal. The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR"). All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR.
When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7). Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate. There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage). When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) . However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG. This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG. Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it. Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation. Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements). As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen. As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases. The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias. (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why. And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)
But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed. She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense. The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage. The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth. Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.
I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected. Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".
It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).
These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".
PW
picowatt - here's your statement.
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).
You claim a negative signal at the gate of Q1. You claim a simultaneous negative to the Source of Q1. You admit to a connection between the source of Q2 and the Gate of Q1. You OMIT reference to the connection between the source and gate of Q2. IF the Source of Q2 is NEGATIVE - then the GATE OF Q2 is ALSO NEGATIVE. Therefore - you are claiming that switch at Q2 is ON ... NOTWITHSTANDING A NEGATIVE SIGNAL AT THAT GATE.
Now. I'm missing a very interesting program. Cheers guys.
Rosie
Rosemary scared? Nah. Rosemary isn't scared about being wrong. If she was, she would have given up years ago. Make no mistake though, she isn't fooling anyone with a solid background in electronics, and good measurement skills. Her latest conflation of MOSFET source and drain is no exception.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
..... snip rubbish .....
Now. I'm missing a very interesting program. Cheers guys.
Rosie
I see this one is on your
"FAVORITES" list Rosemary .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKhf8tXJqRM .....
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
picowatt - here's your statement.
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).
You claim a negative signal at the gate of Q1. You claim a simultaneous negative to the Source of Q1. You admit to a connection between the source of Q2 and the Gate of Q1. You OMIT reference to the connection between the source and gate of Q2. IF the Source of Q2 is NEGATIVE - then the GATE OF Q2 is ALSO NEGATIVE. Therefore - you are claiming that switch at Q2 is ON ... NOTWITHSTANDING A NEGATIVE SIGNAL AT THAT GATE.
Now. I'm missing a very interesting program. Cheers guys.
Rosie
Sic.
You idiot Rosemary. Look at YOUR circuit diagram. THE SOURCE OF Q2 AND THE GATE OF Q2 ARE NOT CONNECTED. Except of course through the function generator. Now, since the FG puts one polarity at one wire and the other polarity at the other wire...Well, DO THE MATH.
Of course if you are using a DIFFERENT schematic.... why don't you reveal it? It would explain much that is currently unexplained. Pun intended.
I have understood this before Rose began trashing me. It is very easy to understand that if the source of the mosfet has negative potential put to it, in reference to the gate polarity, the mosfet will turn on. It isnt hard to understand once we understand the difference in potentials happening between the gate and source at the time.
Even if the gate has a negative potential, in which one might say the transistor should be off at the time, if the source is more negative, the transistor will turn on. Because the gate is positive in reference to the sources more negative polarity.
It is pretty simple.
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
picowatt - here's your statement.
When the Fg output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off. Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).
You claim a negative signal at the gate of Q1. You claim a simultaneous negative to the Source of Q1. You admit to a connection between the source of Q2 and the Gate of Q1. You OMIT reference to the connection between the source and gate of Q2. IF the Source of Q2 is NEGATIVE - then the GATE OF Q2 is ALSO NEGATIVE. Therefore - you are claiming that switch at Q2 is ON ... NOTWITHSTANDING A NEGATIVE SIGNAL AT THAT GATE.
Now. I'm missing a very interesting program. Cheers guys.
Rosie
I never stated or claimed that a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q1 and the gate of Q1 simultaneously. Can't happen. The source of Q1 is conected to the CSR (as is the gate of Q2). The gate of Q1 is connected to the FG output (as is the source of Q2).
I did indeed however mention that the gate of Q1 and source of Q2 are connected. Therefore, the gate of Q1 and the source of Q2 are always at the same voltage.
When the FG output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 essentially does nothing, Q1 is biased off and remains off during this portion of the cycle..
However, simultaneously, the FG's negative voltage is also applied to the source of Q2, which turns Q2 on.
What connection between the source of Q2 and the gate of Q2 are you referring too?
The gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR (as is the source of Q1). The source of Q2 is connected to the FG output (and Q1 gate). Are we looking at the same schematic? The gate of Q2 and the source of Q2 are definitely not "connected" in the schematic in your paper.
Why would I mention or discuss a connection that does not exist?
Even in that post she misrepresents what PW said.
Is it possible that she doesn't understand that those black lines in the schematic indicate CONNECTING WIRES?
Does her ignorance of the circuit actually run that deeply? Q2 Gate and Source connected?!? Sure, through the function generator (a bipolar power supply) they are.
I am flabbergasted yet again by the arrogance and ignorance of Rosemary Ainslie.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 05:21:39 PM
Even in that post she misrepresents what PW said.
Is it possible that she doesn't understand that those black lines in the schematic indicate CONNECTING WIRES?
Does her ignorance of the circuit actually run that deeply? Q2 Gate and Source connected?!? Sure, through the function generator (a bipolar power supply) they are.
I am flabbergasted yet again by the arrogance and ignorance of Rosemary Ainslie.
Possibly she does not know what the little half loop in the wire crossing in the schematic means.
Ainslie said, in reference to PW's statement:
QuoteYou claim a negative signal at the gate of Q1. You claim a simultaneous negative to the Source of Q1.
Nowhere has PW claimed that. Ainslie, you are lying and misrepresenting PW's statement.
PROVE YOUR CLAIM, AINSLIE, by quoting where PW said what you say he said. YOU CANNOT, because he never said nor meant what YOU ARE CLAIMING HE SAID.
And we are supposed to have confidence in ANYTHING you say? You are a joke. You are arguing with your own hallucinations and rationalizations, and you are SIMPLY AND INEFFABLY WRONG.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 05:29:29 PM
Possibly she does not know what the little half loop in the wire crossing in the schematic means.
Or the little letters "S", "D", and "G" either, since she draws her "schematics" like this:
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 05:29:53 PM
Ainslie said, in reference to PW's statement:Nowhere has PW claimed that. Ainslie, you are lying and misrepresenting PW's statement.
PROVE YOUR CLAIM, AINSLIE, by quoting where PW said what you say he said. YOU CANNOT, because he never said nor meant what YOU ARE CLAIMING HE SAID.
And we are supposed to have confidence in ANYTHING you say? You are a joke. You are arguing with your own hallucinations and rationalizations, and you are SIMPLY AND INEFFABLY WRONG.
TK,
TK, forgive me, I stand corrected. I see now that she typed Q1 in both instances in that quote. Yes, she either miswrote or misquoted.. I Totally missed it...
Edited the confusion...
TK,
Does anyone have a clue as to what that scribbled schematic is? Is this yet another schematic?
In that schematic I see that the Q2 source and gate are apparently connected. But not the one in the paper.
Do we even know which schematic is correct now, again...
PW
She's made these statements before, as if drawing schematics was difficult or posed problems in some regard. She doesn't seem to realize that any component can be drawn and connected to any other component in any manner at all, using lines, dots, and non-connecting "jumpovers", although there are two conventions in use for "jumpovers". Simply drawing components connected together requires no sanity checking or functionality at all, you can just do it. Connect an LED in series with a microwave oven transformer and a laboratory rat, if you like, on paper: it can be done consistently and understandably. Except by Ainslie.
Tight layouts for PC boards and the like can be done nowadays by computer programs which optimize circuit topology based on the original rat's nest haphazard layout that the designer may have entered into the program. But some basic knowledge of schematic conventions and symbols is _assumed_ to exist within the users of such programs.... and even in within the persons who claim such incredible genius as to be overturning Quantum Electrodynamics with a circuit full of superluminal zipons.
@PW: sorry, crossed posts. That "schematic" scribble was produced by her in an effort to explain to someone how the connection error .99 discovered was supposed to be conceived. She's referred to the crosswiring elsewhere as "holding hands".
Why she cannot simply draw standard component symbols and connect their standardly-labelled terminals with black lines representing wires, I cannot explain, other than it is another symptom of her willfull ignorance and overweening arrogance.
It's like someone speaking to you in an imaginary made up language and expecting you to understand, especially when words in that language sound just like words in YOUR language, but mean the opposite.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 05:54:10 PM
@PW: sorry, crossed posts. That "schematic" scribble was produced by her in an effort to explain to someone how the connection error .99 discovered was supposed to be conceived. She's referred to the crosswiring elsewhere as "holding hands".
Why she cannot simply draw standard component symbols and connect their standardly-labelled terminals with black lines representing wires, I cannot explain, other than it is another symptom of her willfull ignorance and overweening arrogance.
It's like someone speaking to you in an imaginary made up language and expecting you to understand, especially when words in that language sound just like words in YOUR language, but mean the opposite.
TK,
But it is nothing like the schematic in the "paper", nor is it all that understandable. Is this an altogether different version of the circuit?
PW
@PW:
Who knows. It's another example of her fractured fairy tales. I just tried to find the original source but I lost interest. Maybe FTC remembers where it came from; I think it's in one of the old locked threads, and it must be from after 19 April 2011 since that was about when her error was brought to light by .99. Or.... depending on whether you believe that she already knew or not... the coverup was brought to light.
Here's my favorite version of the schematic, from one of the many different versions of the "paper" that she's posted and hasn't cleaned up. I like the "swastika" design.
I guess those rectangular things with bipolar transistor base symbols in them are supposed to be mosfets. At least she got the pinouts right for TO-247/TO-3P.
Yeah, what is up with those silly engineers anyway? Anybody can see that a mosfet is rectangular.... so why do we use a round circuit symbol for it?
:-\
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
Yeah, what is up with those silly engineers anyway? Anybody can see that a mosfet is rectangular.... so why do we use a round circuit symbol for it?
:-\
TK,
I can live with it. I've seen all kinds of wierd symbols from low cost software.
At least this one is wired as in the paper, with a single Q2.
pW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 05:10:49 PM
Sic.
You idiot Rosemary. Look at YOUR circuit diagram. THE SOURCE OF Q2 AND THE GATE OF Q2 ARE NOT CONNECTED. Except of course through the function generator. Now, since the FG puts one polarity at one wire and the other polarity at the other wire...Well, DO THE MATH.
Of course if you are using a DIFFERENT schematic.... why don't you reveal it? It would explain much that is currently unexplained. Pun intended.
you idiot TK. Look at any MOSFET anywhere in the whole wide world. IF their source and gate legs were NOT connected then they would not able to conduct ANYTHING EVER.
So. When you can explain how it is possible that the source and gate leg of Q2 are NOT connected then I'll fully appreciate your argument or even picowatt's argument.
Rosie Pose
Howdy everyone,
Here is my collection of Rosemary's COP>INFINITY device schematics or diagrams that have been posted by Rosemary "somewhere" but not all in one place. ::)
With exception to the first which is "Fig 12a" ( RA_001_018_.JPG ) in the International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET data sheet. ( file attached [ irfpg50.pdf ])
FTC
;)
Sorry. I should have referenced this separately.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 05:10:49 PM
Now, since the FG puts one polarity at one wire and the other polarity at the other wire...Well, DO THE MATH.
If the function generator applies a negative to Q1 - are you conceding that it then applies a positive to Q2? Because that is NOT what picowatt is claiming.
And this...
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 05:10:49 PMOf course if you are using a DIFFERENT schematic.... why don't you reveal it? It would explain much that is currently unexplained. Pun intended.
Everything that needs explaining that relates to current is FULLY explained in our second paper. Intrigues me you guys go to some considerable lengths to avoid mentioning it.
Rosie Pose
Is this an issue of different interpretation? [are there words being left out perhaps?]
The Gate and Source of a MOSFET ARE NOT connected [together]. This is a true statement.
The Gate and Source of a MOSFET ARE connected [to the circuit]. This is also a true statement.
Hi Poynty
Quote from: poynt99 on June 30, 2012, 07:29:15 PM
Is this an issue of different interpretation? [are there words being left out perhaps?]
The Gate and Source of a MOSFET ARE NOT connected [together]. This is a true statement.
The Gate and Source LEGS of a MOSFET are physically tied to the same structure.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 30, 2012, 07:29:15 PMThe Gate and Source of a MOSFET ARE connected [to the circuit]. This is also a true statement.
Our Source leg of Q2 FLOATS and is NOT therefore connected to the circuit. As per the schematic.
I think that's right
Regards
Rosie
added
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:34:14 PM
Hi Poynty
The Gate and Source of a MOSFET are physically tied to the same structure.
The Gate and Source of a MOSFET ARE NOT
electrically connected [together].
This is a true statement.That should be more clear now. ;)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:27:50 PM
Sorry. I should have referenced this separately.If the function generator applies a negative to Q1 - are you conceding that it then applies a positive to Q2? Because that is NOT what picowatt is claiming.
And this...
Everything that needs explaining that relates to current is FULLY explained in our second paper. Intrigues me you guys go to some considerable lengths to avoid mentioning it.
Rosie Pose
When the FG applies a negative voltage to the GATE of Q1, it is also appying a negative voltage to the Source of Q2.
The SOURCE and GATE of Q2 are NOT connected together.
Q1's source and gate are also not connected.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 07:37:42 PM
When the FG applies a negative voltage to the GATE of Q1, it is also appying a negative voltage to the Source of Q2.
MOST DEFINITELY. I've got no argument with that.
Rosie
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 07:37:42 PM
When the FG applies a negative voltage to the GATE of Q1, it is also appying a negative voltage to the Source of Q2.
Who's arguing?
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:45:31 PM
Who's arguing?
R
And it is that negative voltage applied to the source of Q2, that turns Q2 on.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 07:47:16 PM
And it is that negative voltage applied to the source of Q2, that turns Q2 on.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Q2 is NEVER on during the oscillation.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
you idiot TK. Look at any MOSFET anywhere in the whole wide world. IF their source and gate legs were NOT connected then they would not able to conduct ANYTHING EVER.
So. When you can explain how it is possible that the source and gate leg of Q2 are NOT connected then I'll fully appreciate your argument or even picowatt's argument.
Rosie Pose
Idiot.
If the source and gate legs of a mosfet are connected together internally, it will conduct EVERYTHING, FOREVER, because it is SHORTED INTERNALLY.
Or, if you connect them EXTERNALLY, the mosfet will NEVER TURN ON, because it needs to have at least +4 VOLTS POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE between GATE AND SOURCE for it to turn on, and if they are connected together.... that ain't gonna happen, you ignorant arrogant idiot.
LOOK AT YOUR CIRCUIT DIAGRAM. Are you actually blind, as well as ignorant?
A small caveat here...
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 07:37:42 PM
When the FG applies a negative voltage to the GATE of Q1, it is also applying a negative voltage to the Source of Q2.
Who's arguing? Provided that you're referring to the SOURCE LEG of Q2
R
LOL. Guys,
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 07:53:43 PM
Idiot.
If the source and gate legs of a mosfet are connected together internally, it will conduct EVERYTHING, FOREVER, because it is SHORTED INTERNALLY.
Or, if you connect them EXTERNALLY, the mosfet will NEVER TURN ON, because it needs to have at least +4 VOLTS POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE between GATE AND SOURCE for it to turn on, and if they are connected together.... that ain't gonna happen, you ignorant arrogant idiot.
LOOK AT YOUR CIRCUIT DIAGRAM. Are you actually blind, as well as ignorant?
Here you see our drama QUEEN coming into full 'throat' and malice in full flood. LOL. How CHARMING.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:34:14 PM
Hi Poynty
The Gate and Source LEGS of a MOSFET are physically tied to the same structure.
Our Source leg of Q2 FLOATS and is NOT therefore connected to the circuit. As per the schematic.
I think that's right
Regards
Rosie
added
BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID IN THE POST THAT STARTED THIS DISCUSSION, and that you omitted when you continued it:
Quote...you OMIT reference to the connection between the source and gate of Q2.
Ainslie here is clearly talking about her hallucinated ELECTRICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN SOURCE AND GATE OF THE Q2 TRANSISTORS.
And it's nonsense to claim that one leg of Q2 is not connected to the circuit.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 08:00:23 PM
BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID IN THE POST THAT STARTED THIS DISCUSSION, and that you omitted when you continued it:
Ainslie here is clearly talking about her hallucinated ELECTRICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN SOURCE AND GATE OF THE Q2 TRANSISTORS.
And it's nonsense to claim that one leg of Q2 is not connected to the circuit.
Not actually TK. The Source leg of Q2 FLOATS. It is NOT connected to the circuit. HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT IT IS? JUST CHECK OUT THE SCHEMATIC.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:27:50 PM
Sorry. I should have referenced this separately.If the function generator applies a negative to Q1 - are you conceding that it then applies a positive to Q2? Because that is NOT what picowatt is claiming.
And this...
Everything that needs explaining that relates to current is FULLY explained in our second paper. Intrigues me you guys go to some considerable lengths to avoid mentioning it.
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, if one terminal of a BATTERY is positive, what is the other terminal?
If one terminal of a POWER SUPPLY is positive, what is the other terminal?
If one terminal of a FUNCTION GENERATOR is positive.... what, then, is the other terminal?
You are once again misrepresenting what PW said and what I say, and you are ONCE AGAIN displaying your abysmal ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
And THIS is what your "second paper" presents as an "explanation": a set of incoherent, if entertaining, cartoons that have no connection to any reality. Why does nobody mention it? Because it's meaningless nonsense, that's why.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 08:36:28 PM
Ainslie, if one terminal of a BATTERY is positive, what is the other terminal?
If one terminal of a POWER SUPPLY is positive, what is the other terminal?
If one terminal of a FUNCTION GENERATOR is positive.... what, then, is the other terminal?
You are once again misrepresenting what PW said and what I say, and you are ONCE AGAIN displaying your abysmal ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
You're arguing MY argument. NOT picowatts.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 08:34:53 PM
Not actually TK. The Source leg of Q2 FLOATS. It is NOT connected to the circuit. HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT IT IS? JUST CHECK OUT THE SCHEMATIC.
R
I have notated the connections of Q2's source leg to the rest of the circuit, on YOUR OWN SCHEMATIC.
IT DOES NOT "FLOAT".
Guys - I've yet again been advised to stay away from this thread. It's really achieving absolutely NOTHING - and I know this.
In any event just let me explain this much. TK is WELL able to get that oscillation from Q2 with a CONTINUAL NEGATIVE SIGNAL applied to the gate. As are we And that's only with the use of Q2. IF there's a continual negative charge - and YET there's an oscillation - then he's yet to explain how the battery discharges current NOTWITHSTANDING the restriction imposed at the gate of the transistor - from that negative voltage signal applied. Remember that each positive half of each of those oscillations represents the current flow from the battery supply. So. Where is the path for that? Certainly not across that gate.
It's absurd that they pretend to have the answers. They're nowhere near. Nor are we. But we at least have a consistent argument proposed for consideration.
Regards,
Rosemary
Let me add this while I can still modify this post. I'm referring to the circuit that he uses with just one MOSFET. Hope that's clearer.
Again
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:49:53 PM
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Q2 is NEVER on during the oscillation.
R
You are wrong. Q2 is ONLY on during the oscillations.
When you apply a negative voltage to the source of a MOSFET that is connected as in your schematic, it will turn on.
Just as it is impossible for Q1 to not turn on when its gate is made more positive than Vth, it is impossible for Q2 to not turn on when a negative voltage less than -Vth is applied to Q2's source.
This is predicted as per what YOU would call "the standard model", it has been verified in .99's sims, and it has been measured in TK's replication. The amount of current Q2 passes is what we refer to as "bias current" or "Ibias" for short
The Q2 bias current was predicted to be between 50 and 200milliamps, .99's sims confirmed it, TK measured it.
Your own 'scope captures prove it as well. When you set the FG to full negative offest, there should be -12 volts or so coming out of the FG. However, in all captures, your FG output trace only shows around -4 volts, also as predicted. This is due to the voltage drop across the FG's internal 50 ohm output resistor caused by the current flow thru Q2 and that 50 ohm resistor.
Q2 is never turned fully on, it is merely biased into a region of linear operation. The Q2 bias current is, again, 50-200ma. depending on the FG setting. The observed voltage at the source of Q2, when the FG output is a negative voltage, is always going to be the -Vgs for the current flowing thru it, which in the case of your circuit, is around -4volts.
All very standard, well understood electronics. Any first year EE would agree.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 07:34:14 PM
Hi Poynty
The Gate and Source LEGS of a MOSFET are physically tied to the same structure.
Our Source leg of Q2 FLOATS and is NOT therefore connected to the circuit. As per the schematic.
I think that's right
Regards
Rosie
added
I would like to see the circuit that the source leg of Q2 is not connected to the circuit. ;)
If you think thats right. ;)
Mags
Oh picowatt
How then do you explain the oscillation with the use of ONLY one MOSFET? NO FUNCTION GENERATOR. NO POSTIVE SIGNAL ANYWHERE AT ALL. Anything from the battery BLOCKED.
Quote from: picowatt on June 30, 2012, 08:48:28 PM
You are wrong. Q2 is ONLY on during the oscillations.
When you apply a negative voltage to the source of a MOSFET that is connected as in your schematic, it will turn on.
Just as it is impossible for Q1 to not turn on when its gate is made more positive than Vth, it is impossible for Q2 to not turn on when a negative voltage less than -Vth is applied to Q2's source.
This is predicted as per what YOU would call "the standard model", it has been verified in .99's sims, and it has been measured in TK's replication. The amount of current Q2 passes is what we refer to as "bias current" or "Ibias" for short
The Q2 bias current was predicted to be between 50 and 200milliamps, .99's sims confirmed it, TK measured it.
Your own 'scope captures prove it as well. When you set the FG to full negative offest, there should be -12 volts or so coming out of the FG. However, in all captures, your FG output trace only shows around -4 volts, also as predicted. This is due to the voltage drop across the FG's internal 50 ohm output resistor caused by the current flow thru Q2 and that 50 ohm resistor.
Q2 is never turned fully on, it is merely biased into a region of linear operation. The Q2 bias current is, again, 50-200ma. depending on the FG setting. The observed voltage at the source of Q2, when the FG output is a negative voltage, is always going to be the -Vgs for the current flowing thru it, which in the case of your circuit, is around -4volts.
All very standard, well understood electronics. Any first year EE would agree.
Rosie Pose
Anyway guys - this is FUTILE. They're DESPERATELY trying to minimise something that's HUGELY significant. And there are MANY of them contributing to their own argument. That was courtesy Stefan's belated membership allowed to MileHigh and to FTC. They're colluding.
And right now I'm off to get some sleep.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 08:39:14 PM
You're arguing MY argument. NOT picowatts.
Rosie Pose
No, Ainslie. You are misrepresenting and misunderstanding what PW is telling you.
Read his posts again. He is telling you that the Potential at Q2's GATE is always at the same potential as the negative pole of the battery. This does not change no matter what the FG is putting out. The "black" lead of the FG is also connected to this point: therefore IT DOES NOT CHANGE POTENTIAL EITHER.
In fact it is the other "red" lead of the FG that swings to voltages that are either positive or negative with respect to this UNCHANGING POTENTIAL at the negative pole of the battery/the system ground/the black FG output lead.
PW is telling you this and I am telling you this as well. Now, when the FG's RED lead is putting out a voltage that is sufficiently NEGATIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE BLACK LEAD, which is at ground potential, then the Q2 turns on. However in your case, the Q2 does not _fully_ turn on, it is rather functioning in the "linear response" region of its performance-- in other words, it's not acting as a simple switch but more like a rheostat. This is because it cannot get more than -4 volts to the source (equivalent to +4 at the gate) due to the reason described by pw earlier, and even this voltage fluctuates due to the oscillations. It then oscillates in and out of that region, partially conducting and nonconducting at the oscillation frequency.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 08:53:20 PM
Oh picowatt
How then do you explain the oscillation with the use of ONLY one MOSFET? NO FUNCTION GENERATOR. NO POSTIVE SIGNAL ANYWHERE AT ALL. Anything from the battery BLOCKED.
Rosie Pose
Anyway guys - this is FUTILE. They're DESPERATELY trying to minimise something that's HUGELY significant. And there are MANY of them contributing to their own argument. That was courtesy Stefan's belated membership allowed to MileHigh and to FTC. They're colluding.
And right now I'm off to get some sleep.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Which circuit are you referring to in this post?
It sounds more desperate than sensical.
ADDED: And keep in mind, I never said you needed a POSITIVE voltage from the FG in your NERD circuit to make it oscillate. So again, this post makes no sense.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 08:46:07 PM
Guys - I've yet again been advised to stay away from this thread. It's really achieving absolutely NOTHING - and I know this.
So you keep promising....
But it is achieving something. It is making you look stupid, for sure.
Quote
In any event just let me explain this much. TK is WELL able to get that oscillation from Q2 with a CONTINUAL NEGATIVE SIGNAL applied to the gate.
YOU GROSS AND BALDFACED LIAR. I am
NOT applying a continuous NEGATIVE SIGNAL TO THE GATE OF Q2. LOOK AT MY SCHEMATICS. And neither are you. Oh.. .that's right, you can't read schematics. Well, get your advisors to explain it to you.
Quote
As are we And that's only with the use of Q2. IF there's a continual negative charge - and YET there's an oscillation - then he's yet to explain how the battery discharges current NOTWITHSTANDING the restriction imposed at the gate of the transistor - from that negative voltage signal applied. Remember that each positive half of each of those oscillations represents the current flow from the battery supply. So. Where is the path for that? Certainly not across that gate.
It's absurd that they pretend to have the answers. They're nowhere near. Nor are we. But we at least have a consistent argument proposed for consideration.
Regards,
Rosemary
And the rest is nonsense as usual. You have no consistent argument, either, just a bunch of handwaving conjectures, bad math and mendacious descriptions of your experiment.
If you look at the schematic below, you will see that the continuous NEGATIVE bias current is applied to the SOURCE of Q2 at the point marked "+" (from your old schematic) and that the positive pole of the bias supply is connected to the negative pole of the main battery, thus THEY ARE AT THE SAME POTENTIAL, system ground. Definitely no "negative signal" bias current is being applied to the GATE as you claim and misrepresent.
I should add, for the spectators, that this system, suggested way back in the old days by Stefan Hartmann our good host, and by many other people since then, is specifically designed to emulate the CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION, LONG DUTY CYCLE mode that Ainslie used to claim that she preferred, before she realized that high heat in the load required significant Q1 on time as well.
SO this negative bias supply circuit does the SAME THING as the FG does when it's making the oscillations: it is supplying a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE to the SOURCE of Q2 and doing it with the ability to "source" the required up to 200 mA of current, just as the FG was doing. It is achieving the oscillations by exactly the same method and application of polarities that the FG does.
(posted schematic again to keep everything on the same page)
Part 1.
A closer look at what makes up a FG, with some particular insight into how its output stage works.
ROUT is the 50 Ohm resistance usually included as a standard in most FGs.
RINT is the resistance associated with the output transistors and their ability to control the load they are driving. This resistance is represented by the RINT resistors shown going back to the associated power supply for each transistor.
The +15.5V and -15.5V power supplies are typical voltages for a FG output stage, and demonstrates how and why the FG can generate both a positive-going and negative-going voltage swing at its positive terminal (with respect to its negative terminal).
Carefully note that the power supplies and negative output terminal are commoned together.
Howdy all,
If your not confused yet on Rosemary's understanding of her COP>INFINITY device(s) operation on mosfets Q1 and Q2 ..... well ::)
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html#links (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html#links)
Rosemary's BlogSpot Quote
#232 - "another summation based on countering the counter arguments"Quote
..... snip rubbish .....
The red pencilled lines are intended to show the commonality of the switches. Therefore, in effect, one has those transistors arranged that the battery can access either Q1 or Q2 - REGARDLESS. Which argument then claims that there is ALWAYS a path for the positive flow of current from the battery supply. And therefore too - the battery is NEVER disconnected. Which, by default - means that when we measure energy being delivered from the supply - which is that voltage measured above zero - then correctly it IS INDEED being discharged by the battery. This conclusion makes not the slightest difference to our claim. We still measure that negative wattage number. There is still, evidentially, more energy being delivered back to the battery than was first supply by the battery. But there's a nicety that needs to be factored in which goes to the real anomaly and not to standard assumptions about anything at all. Lest we lose the significance of this data - I'm taking the trouble to show this here - as it's been argued on the forum.
This may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection. The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain. Which is standard convention. Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls. And it SERIOUSLY falls. It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5. Given a 6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts. At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage. And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative. WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING. In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT. Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating. We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle. But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.
Now. If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second. And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery. For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second - during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS. IN A MOMENT? That's hardly likely. And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours? As are ours? And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time. DO THE MATH. It beggars belief. In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.
..... snip rubbish .....
FTC
???
See.... Since 2009 we have been trying to explain to these people that when an N-channel mosfet is wired to switch a highside low impedance load, the DRAIN VOLTAGE is HIGH, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF. And when the mosfet is ON, the DRAIN VOLTAGE measurement drops to near the negative rail voltage. This is completely normal and I have demonstrated it several times in such simple manner as to be bordering on the mindless. And it doesn't indicate any huge current flows or complete battery discharges.
YET THEY STILL MAKE THE SAME ERROR, as evidenced in the quote Fuzzy posted.
This error is also at the heart of the inverted duty cycle issue from the COP>17 circuit. They measure the duty cycle by monitoring the mosfet DRAIN VOLTAGE with respect to the source. They see a duty cycle here of 4 percent HIGH, that is, four percent of the time the voltage at the drain is at battery voltage. And they think that means the mosfet is ON during that time and OFF when the drain voltage falls.
Do the Math. She has the audacity to say that and then commit the most egregious computational lunacies one after the other in the same breath. I am starting to think that this is some kind of parody of a parody, and the reality show will premier in September, and Ainslie will turn out to be Red Green, or somebody like that as host.
Rosemary:
If Chess won't remove it, then I am asking you to remove it yourself:
Hello MileHigh,
I've answered you here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2440.html#msg2440
Take care there MileHigh.
Rosie Pose
So there, MH, she can insult you and libel you and lie about you and what you say and do all she likes on her own forum where nobody can challenge her.
And she will continue to do so, until... as usual.... her sycophants fall away as they learn the truth, she alienates the actual forum owner/maintainer, and the cycle repeats yet another year.
Meanwhile, today on July 1, 2012, her "official" publication of her "paper" on Rossi's Journal of Nocluelear Physics Blog.... is still there and still contains the miraculous lie about 5.9 megaJoules and "bringing water to boil" when the experiment described did NO SUCH THING at all. "The water wasn't actually boiling but there were tiny bubblies." Aww, innt that cute. and 5.9 megaJoules ! Over a KILOWATT, continuously for 1.6 hours !! No wonder all the water was boiled away and the little broom closet became unbearably hot.... OH, WAIT.... it DIDN'T.
Ainslie lies and misrepresents and commits scientific FRAUD each and every day that that paper remains up, UNCORRECTED AND WITHOUT EXPLANATION, on Rossi's "Journal" site, containing, among other lies and misrepresentations, the lies shown here:
Here are a couple of videos that might help to explain a little bit about the behaviour of mosfets switching a high-side low impedance load.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbAGWkWFmxM
Of course, one would actually have to WATCH them to be able to comment coherently.... and, for some people, not even then.
However, I am confident that any of Picowatt's soldering students could grasp what is going on and be able to teach their playmates everything an eight-year-old needs to know about mosfets. It's too bad that Ainslie isn't eight years old.... she might actually be able to learn something if she were. But it's far too late to expect Ainslie to learn anything at all; she still can't even draw a circuit diagram. She even has the mosfet connections wrong in her cartoon explanations in the second paper-- which is also still up, with all its mistakes like the wrong connections in the cartoons.
Hi Guys,
Just be advised that Glen, like TK - ALWAYS gives insubstantial reference. It's required for that 'spin'. If you want an idea of what was ACTUALLY discussed then you'll need to check in on this link.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2012, 10:40:07 AM
Hi Guys,
Just be advised that Glen, like TK - ALWAYS gives insubstantial reference. It's required for that 'spin'. If you want an idea of what was ACTUALLY discussed then you'll need to check in on this link.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html)
That's pretty funny coming from Ainslie, queen of the NON-referenced and non-supported claims of all sorts. Even when she DOES manage to give a reference to an outside, checkable source, she gets it wrong.
Like the famous Wiki references to power and energy calculations and the definitions of Joule and Watt.
And that entire blog post repeats the EXACT SAME ERROR that has been happening for over ten years now, the failure to understand that DRAIN HI means MOSFET OFF.
Please, watch my last two videos, Ainslie. It is impossible to make the issue more clear than that.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2012, 10:40:07 AM
Hi Guys,
Just be advised that Glen, like TK - ALWAYS gives insubstantial reference. It's required for that 'spin'. If you want an idea of what was ACTUALLY discussed then you'll need to check in on this link.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html
Your logic is quite sound in describing how it is just not possible for thousands of amps to be flowing as the indicated oscillation voltage may lead one to believe. Afterall, where are the glowing wires that would accompany such large current flows and CSR indications?
In fact, this is one of the greatest arguments in support of '99's analysis as to the cause of the negative mean power measurement as it is being measured. Inductive reactance. I fail to see the need for yet another "materials" related theory when inductive reactance readily explains the measurement and is also quite easily confirmed.
Well I can see how Rosemary is still abusing the definition of the term "troll" and applies it to anybody that disagrees with her.
Quoting Rosemary:
Quoteunfortunately MileHigh we'll continue to assume that you're very comfortably advantaged from your own 'slant' that you apply to any energy efficient devices.
What the hell does "energy efficient device" even mean?
You know all, it can be alleged that "Rosemary" is the real paid person here and she is being paid by the big oil companies. She is part of a fifth column and her mission is to discredit all free energy research. How could someone be so ridiculously stupid and ignorant about her own circuit? How can someone be so dense and be caught lying on multiple occasions? The reason is to cast doubt on all free energy researchers.
So it could be that "Rosemary" is all just a front. An actress portrayed Rosemary for the few times we saw her and heard her voice. But beyond that she is just a few psyops agents working hard to make the realm of free energy research look like a bunch of hapless amateurs that are so incredibly stupid that they stage a freak out when they are asked to do a serious power analysis of a single resistor connected to a single battery.
It's just impossible that a saga like this that has been going on for years and has been implicitly discrediting all free energy research can be anything else but a fifth column psyops operation. Can people be that stupid that they can't even understand how the MOSFETs are wired in their own circuit or they can't even understand the fact that current is flowing through the function generator?
I don't think so, the only reasonable explanation for this comedy of the absurd is that "Rosemary Ainslie" is a fifth column agent planted here to completely discredit all free energy research.
MileHigh
Quote from: picowatt on July 01, 2012, 11:09:44 AM
Your logic is quite sound in describing how it is just not possible for thousands of amps to be flowing as the indicated oscillation voltage may lead one to believe. Afterall, where are the glowing wires that would accompany such large current flows and CSR indications?
In fact, this is one of the greatest arguments in support of '99's analysis as to the cause of the negative mean power measurement as it is being measured. Inductive reactance. I fail to see the need for yet another "materials" related theory when inductive reactance readily explains the measurement and is also quite easily confirmed.
Note that in the post she is talking about taking measurements at the mosfet _drain_, something that doesn't appear in the scopeshots we have, except for a few.
(Ever wonder why she doesn't like to show the drain signal, since it carries so much information about mosfet performance? It's not because she ran out of room on the scope screen. It is because of this "anomaly" that she doesn't understand and cannot explain within her logic system.)
This, as I have tried to drive home, illustrates again that she doesn't expect the drain voltage to drop to the negative rail when the mosfet is ON. She thinks the drain voltage measurement should be high when the mosfet is on, since she's measuring the drain-load connection point and the load is ON when it's receiving voltage, right? Hence she's astonished when the drain voltage drops to nearly zero, indicating in her mind that the battery has discharged its entire potential in a few microseconds, requiring oodles and oodles of amps.
In this case, the inductance has nothing to do with her confusion. It is such a basic matter that you can't even believe that someone would make such a fundamental error... but it's true. She thinks that the drain voltage should be HIGH when the mosfet is ON, and the fact that she sees that it isn't is, to her, an enormous anomaly.
At least she finally spelled anomaly right.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 01, 2012, 12:34:58 PM
Well I can see how Rosemary is still abusing the definition of the term "troll" and applies it to anybody that disagrees with her.
Quoting Rosemary:
What the hell does "energy efficient device" even mean?
You know all, it can be alleged that "Rosemary" is the real paid person here and she is being paid by the big oil companies. She is part of a fifth column and her mission is to discredit all free energy research. How could someone be so ridiculously stupid and ignorant about her own circuit? How can someone be so dense and be caught lying on multiple occasions? The reason is to cast doubt on all free energy researchers.
So it could be that "Rosemary" is all just a front. An actress portrayed Rosemary for the few times we saw her and heard her voice. But beyond that she is just a few psyops agents working hard to make the realm of free energy research look like a bunch of hapless amateurs that are so incredibly stupid that they stage a freak out when they are asked to do a serious power analysis of a single resistor connected to a single battery.
It's just impossible that a saga like this that has been going on for years and has been implicitly discrediting all free energy research can be anything else but a fifth column psyops operation. Can people be that stupid that they can't even understand how the MOSFETs are wired in their own circuit or they can't even understand the fact that current is flowing through the function generator?
I don't think so, the only reasonable explanation for this comedy of the absurd is that "Rosemary Ainslie" is a fifth column agent planted here to completely discredit all free energy research.
MileHigh
MH,
You may be on to something. That would explain her paper being on JNP. Possibly just an operation to discredit LENR researchers as well.
I'll bet there is a lot on money involved, and quite possibly we are just communicating with some AI software that only spits out frustratingly non-sensical replies. Sorta' like those search results we sometimes see when the page is just a mish-mash of words intended to attract search engines.
Yes indeed MH, you may be onto something...
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2012, 01:07:13 PM
Note that in the post she is talking about taking measurements at the mosfet _drain_, something that doesn't appear in the scopeshots we have, except for a few. This, as I have tried to drive home, illustrates again that she doesn't expect the drain voltage to drop to the negative rail when the mosfet is ON. She thinks the drain voltage measurement should be high when the mosfet is on, since she's measuring the drain-load connection point and the load is ON when it's receiving voltage, right? Hence she's astonished when the drain voltage drops to nearly zero, indicating in her mind that the battery has discharged its entire potential in a few microseconds, requiring oodles and oodles of amps.
In this case, the inductance has nothing to do with her confusion. It is such a basic matter that you can't even believe that someone would make such a fundamental error... but it's true. She thinks that the drain voltage should be HIGH when the mosfet is ON, and the fact that she sees that it isn't is, to her, an enormous anomaly.
At least she finally spelled anomaly right.
TK,
I read her blog post as referring to the observed swings of the oscillation riding on the DC of the battery as indicated by the battery trace of the 'scope. If there is a +/- 60 volt AC waveform riding on the battery DC, AND there is no significant resistance or reactance betwee the 'scoped measurement point and the batteries, there would indeed have to be a very large amount of current flowing. But, due to lead and battery inductance, the impedance seen by the oscillations is sufficiently high that AC current flow is much lower than it would be if the impedance was very low.
I do recall some reference to the drain signal later on, but I pretty much quit reading as soon as I saw yet another theory being put forward.
Recall a while back that when attempts to run her circuit on capacitors discharged the capacitors. Instead of accepting that as indicating that current was beng drawn by the circuit, she went off on a new theory wheren the circuit needed the "potential" of the battery to operate.
Occam would likely roll over in his grave...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2012, 01:07:13 PM
Note that in the post she is talking about taking measurements at the mosfet _drain_, something that doesn't appear in the scopeshots we have, except for a few.
(Ever wonder why she doesn't like to show the drain signal, since it carries so much information about mosfet performance? It's not because she ran out of room on the scope screen. It is because of this "anomaly" that she doesn't understand and cannot explain within her logic system.)
This, as I have tried to drive home, illustrates again that she doesn't expect the drain voltage to drop to the negative rail when the mosfet is ON. She thinks the drain voltage measurement should be high when the mosfet is on, since she's measuring the drain-load connection point and the load is ON when it's receiving voltage, right? Hence she's astonished when the drain voltage drops to nearly zero, indicating in her mind that the battery has discharged its entire potential in a few microseconds, requiring oodles and oodles of amps.
In this case, the inductance has nothing to do with her confusion. It is such a basic matter that you can't even believe that someone would make such a fundamental error... but it's true. She thinks that the drain voltage should be HIGH when the mosfet is ON, and the fact that she sees that it isn't is, to her, an enormous anomaly.
At least she finally spelled anomaly right.
TK,
I read the blogpost again. First she seems to be saying that she is measuring directly across the batteries (by which I assume she means the connection points of the batteries to the circuit board, as all pictures I have seen look like the batteries themselves are too far away to probe directly). In further describing how the probe is connected to the battery, she indicates the ground clip is on the batt neg, but then, you are correct, she indicates the probe is at or on the "drain".
Possibly she just mispoke, and meant the drain side (positive side) of the battery.
The only time the drain of the MOSFET's are pulled low would be when Q1 is switched on hard. Even then, with 72 volt batteries, the drain would only pull down to 11volts or so (assumes 11R load and Rds=2R).
So I do believe she is actually discussing all that AC riding on Vbatt.
PW
@PW: The blog post is one more of a continuing string of Ainslie confusions. When the post was made, she indeed was talking about scoping the drain, but she "thought" she was scoping the battery voltage while doing this. I have a long history of discussion of this problem with her and a group of early replicators on the Energetic Forum (Aaron and Ashtweth and others) who also did not understand that in the configuration used, the drain voltage will be low when the mosfet is ON and will be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF.
Have you built and tested the 555 timer circuit from the original Quantum article about the COP>17 circuit? Where it is claimed they used a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle? They in fact used a duty cycle that produced a 3.7 percent HIGH voltage at the mosfet drain with the 555 timer, and nobody using a FG at the 3.7 ON specified settings, or their own 555 timers set at small duty cycles, was ever able to reproduce her load heat results. But I did... by using a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle as actually delivered by the exact 555 circuit specified exactly in the Quantum article.
The drain voltage oscillations go farther than one would expect using Ohm's Law alone, due to the inductance effects, I suppose. The oscillations are superimposed on every measurement made; there is significant RF power, 5 watts isn't chopped liver in the near field.
Here's one of the few scopeshots that shows the common drains, the green trace. You can see the sag to the voltage you predict during the Q1 ON times, but during the Q2 oscillations it makes further excursions.
And here's another showing the drains. Again, it's the green trace. Note however that in this trial there is NO positive gate voltage, the gate drive goes from zero down. So the Q1 is not being turned on, no current flows as is proper. During the Q2 oscillation times, the drain trace oscillates as do all the other traces. But this shot is also "wrong" because it shows the drain AC coupled.
Quote from: picowatt on July 01, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
MH,
You may be on to something. That would explain her paper being on JNP. Possibly just an operation to discredit LENR researchers as well.
I'll bet there is a lot on money involved, and quite possibly we are just communicating with some AI software that only spits out frustratingly non-sensical replies. Sorta' like those search results we sometimes see when the page is just a mish-mash of words intended to attract search engines.
Yes indeed MH, you may be onto something...
This is possible. Back before one of her threads was locked, Romero's thread was kicking into high gear. And with what little she claims to know of electronics, she was bashing him as a fake then. And for what reasons? To take some heat off of her? Because his thread was booming and hers not getting the attn it deserved?
MH might have something there. And it seems she always wants personal emails from others. So that she can identify them? And try to scare them off with threats of exposure of the contacts she has gained if need be? So, it is not impossible.
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2012, 02:18:10 PM
@PW: The blog post is one more of a continuing string of Ainslie confusions. When the post was made, she indeed was talking about scoping the drain, but she "thought" she was scoping the battery voltage while doing this. I have a long history of discussion of this problem with her and a group of early replicators on the Energetic Forum (Aaron and Ashtweth and others) who also did not understand that in the configuration used, the drain voltage will be low when the mosfet is ON and will be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF.
Have you built and tested the 555 timer circuit from the original Quantum article about the COP>17 circuit? Where it is claimed they used a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle? They in fact used a duty cycle that produced a 3.7 percent HIGH voltage at the mosfet drain with the 555 timer, and nobody using a FG at the 3.7 ON specified settings, or their own 555 timers set at small duty cycles, was ever able to reproduce her load heat results. But I did... by using a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle as actually delivered by the exact 555 circuit specified exactly in the Quantum article.
The drain voltage oscillations go farther than one would expect using Ohm's Law alone, due to the inductance effects, I suppose. The oscillations are superimposed on every measurement made; there is significant RF power, 5 watts isn't chopped liver in the near field.
Here's one of the few scopeshots that shows the common drains, the green trace. You can see the sag to the voltage you predict during the Q1 ON times, but during the Q2 oscillations it makes further excursions.
TK,
Yes, but during the Q1 on time, there are no oscillations, and assuming channel 4 in the capture you post is the drain, it does look like it is following Mr. Ohm quite well. During the oscillations, there would be little DC drop observed, as even 250ma of Ibias would only drop the drain to 69 volts or so (assumes 72 volt batt, 11R load, 250ma Ibias).
So, most of that oscillation observed, even at the drain, is pretty much riding on DC close to the level of Vbatt.
And yes, I read up on the COP=17 thing. It was rather telling that the heat signature was in close agreement with the inverse of the stated duty cycle, as you demonstrated.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2012, 02:22:16 PM
And here's another showing the drains. Again, it's the green trace. Note however that in this trial there is NO positive gate voltage, the gate drive goes from zero down. So the Q1 is not being turned on, no current flows as is proper. During the Q2 oscillation times, the drain trace oscillates as do all the other traces. But this shot is also "wrong" because it shows the drain AC coupled.
TK,
Looks like channel 4 is AC coupled in this capture.
PW
ADDED: I guess I should read further! When I see a schematic or capture, I tend to look only at those! Yep, we agree, channel 4 is AC coupled!
But this also demonstrates why I was not too excited one way or another about more captures being released. They are pretty much meaningless without accompanying lab notes giving the schematic and equip settings and the purpose of the test.
I have quile literally more than 14,000 captures stored in my bench laptop. They would be all but meaningless to anyone without the notes that go along with each test regarding what variables were changed, what is being investigated, etc.
MOSFETs... HOW do they work, anyway?
Part 5, in which I control the rate of charge removal from the mosfet gate to produce a simple "timer".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3teBThPE_c
Stay tuned for Part 6, where we take a field trip to my outside Earth ground rod, bringing along the trusty Interstate F43, to illustrate PW's point that ground potential is _ground potential_, with the entire EARTH as the capacitive reservoir behind it, and we are NOT going to be changing that potential by any means available to us.
(Most of us, anyway.)
Rosemary I note all my referenced links in my postings .... your just to damn stupid to actually read a posting let alone comment properly.Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 30, 2012, 11:53:55 PM
Howdy all,
If your not confused yet on Rosemary's understanding of her COP>INFINITY device(s) operation on mosfets Q1 and Q2 ..... well ::)
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html#links (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html#links)
Rosemary's BlogSpot Quote #232 - "another summation based on countering the counter arguments"
FTC
???
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2012, 10:40:07 AM
Hi Guys,
Just be advised that Glen, like TK - ALWAYS gives insubstantial reference. It's required for that 'spin'. If you want an idea of what was ACTUALLY discussed then you'll need to check in on this link.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html)
This is yet another example of thousands of your misrepresentation and misleading of facts. The fact is all your COP>INFINITY claims have no referenced links for the data because "YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND" and refuse to post the required for proof of operation ..... Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 30, 2012, 03:22:04 PM
Rosemary's slimy slug trail goes on and on ...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 09:41:21 AM
Hello again Little TK,
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
She may have provided the data... to somebody, at some time. But it's certain that the spreadsheets are not available for public inspection.
The present refusal to provide the data to MrSean2k is just the first _overt_ refusal. She's promised to provide them several times in the past to other people, including Stefan Hartmann, and has simply "let it slide" without further mention or explanation.
Not actually. Your own efforts at so called 'documentation' of my work is all the proof that's needed that you guys can spin data any way you choose. No need to refer to facts. I didn't let my offer to Stefan lapse. I simply changed my mind. His preferred editorial bias was beginning to bother me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Keeping them secret, not providing them when asked for.... is a no-no. The first thing a reviewer might do... after checking the basic math and the references... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.
Again. Not actually. It seems that all that's needed is the apparatus or close inspection of the apparatus to enable replications. Unlike you the genuine researcher doesn't first rampage through public threads with overly abundant evidence of calumny and malice - before he asks for more evidence. Such bad manners does not, usually, generate an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.
Which reminds me. I need to repost a post of mine - lest the public think for one minute that you're in a position to comment on anything at all.
Rosie Pose
As everyone can see the selective response to TK's posting leaving out the paragraph .....
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
But the excuse currently given is clearly bogus. I mean, Ainslie possesses the originals, right? And a copy could be filed with a notary and kept under seal, so that if any evil debunkers tried to, say..... SELECT DATA THAT ONLY SUPPORTED THEIR HYPOTHESES.... or tried to ALTER OR EDIT OR COVER UP DATA OR IMAGES.... the certified copy could be compared and the perpetrators busted. So it's easy to assure both the integrity of the data sets released and their careful and unbiased examination.... by releasing them.
The response from Rosemary isn't a excuse but a open admission of purposively committing a fraud on the "open source community" with inaccurate and misleading statements, cobbled published testing and evaluation information to get experimentalist to do her work. The slimeball quote of Rosemary's that "I changed my mind" has always been and is not exceptionable when exploiting and manipulating help from forum members asking for help in replications to be made for conformation or verification of her said performance claim(s).
Rosemary's open admission of purposively committing a fraud and by actions has no boundaries with her, from all the lies on experts, authors, documentation to the YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
The protections Rosemary has put in place at her lousy pathetic self promoting forum hasn't brought one so called COP>INFINITY device author or collaborator to post any comments .... why ? It's because they don't in reality exist but only in Rosemary's sick perverted mind.
FTC
Where is your response to this post directly above ? ::)
You cant even discuss or post comments in context you idiot always misrepresenting or misleading the conversation, cherry picking your responses, splitting your reply postings up sentence by sentence or even word by word to cloud up your fraudulent devices murky water with a smoke screen of deception and delusions.
Rosemary your words are nothing but a rubbish can full of your favorite slug scum, you self proclaimed super troll in high heals, your such a low life that you give your friends the same favors as everyone else of snake oil, grub worms and buffalo chips so possibly people will listen and believe you. We're all really sick and tired of your normal personal diet of food staples I just listed that your always trying to feed us all everyday.
You are a nothing but a toothless super troll giving fake information on devices you created that are "FRAUDULENT" having "NO" proof of their operation other than some cherry picked data specifically for your stupid THESIS.
FTC
Part 2.
Here we have a look at things when the FG Output stage is connected to the NERD circuit.
The circuit is drawn exactly as per the ROSSI paper 1, and the FG is connected precisely the same.
Think about what happens to Q1 and Q2 when the FG positive output terminal (RED) is +10V, and when it is -10V (with respect to the negative terminal, black).
Quote from: poynt99 on July 01, 2012, 06:30:15 PM
Part 2.
Here we have a look at things when the FG Output stage is connected to the NERD circuit.
The circuit is drawn exactly as per the ROSSI paper 1, and the FG is connected precisely the same.
Think about what happens to Q1 and Q2 when the FG positive output terminal (RED) is +10V, and when it is -10V (with respect to the negative terminal, black).
.99,
Excellent depiction of the FG as utilized in this circuit!
Your time and effort greatly appreciated...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 01, 2012, 06:53:28 PM
.99,
Excellent depiction of the FG as utilized in this circuit!
Your time and effort greatly appreciated...
PW
Thanks PW.
The hope is that every little bit will help so all can be on the same page.
Quote from: picowatt on July 01, 2012, 06:53:28 PM
.99,
Excellent depiction of the FG as utilized in this circuit!
Your time and effort greatly appreciated...
PW
Dittoes, and it's perfectly clear why my F43's final output stage got "smoked".
Well, it's raining so I don't want to lug stuff outside. I know how disappointed you "guys" must be, since there has been so much comment so far on my latest set of videos.
So I went and skipped ahead a bit and continued with the inside work, just to keep everybody amused while waiting for the showers to stop.
MOSFETs... how do they WORK?? Part 5a.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQMPVoqOTNo
Quote from: poynt99 on July 01, 2012, 07:03:27 PM
Thanks PW.
The hope is that every little bit will help so all can be on the same page.
.99,
Possibly label the FG out transistors? ... though we can all use NPN/PNP or upper/lower.
Consider discussing what happens when the output transistors are "fully on", i.e., when the FG is at full negative offset and full positive offset.
If we assume that to be +/- 14volts output swing for discussion, use 4 volts for Vgs(on) and ignore Rint for now, those numbers will be easy to play with.
Spoiler alert: 10/50=.2
Also, it should be noted by all that the two bias diodes to the left of the FG output transistors can be ignored regarding these discussions.
Thanks again .99,
PW
(EDIT: removed "fully saturated" and replaced it with "fully on" for improved clarity)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2012, 07:20:18 PM
Well, it's raining so I don't want to lug stuff outside. I know how disappointed you "guys" must be, since there has been so much comment so far on my latest set of videos.
So I went and skipped ahead a bit and continued with the inside work, just to keep everybody amused while waiting for the showers to stop.
MOSFETs... how do they WORK?? Part 5a.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQMPVoqOTNo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQMPVoqOTNo)
Hey TK
You should probably check for negative wattage at the 4v source. ;]
What might be interesting is to add those capacitance's to the Q1 and Q2 of the Nerd circuit, so we can examine what is really going on during that self oscillation, to slow the oscillation down.
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2012, 07:20:18 PM
Well, it's raining so I don't want to lug stuff outside. I know how disappointed you "guys" must be, since there has been so much comment so far on my latest set of videos.
So I went and skipped ahead a bit and continued with the inside work, just to keep everybody amused while waiting for the showers to stop.
MOSFETs... how do they WORK?? Part 5a.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQMPVoqOTNo
TK,
What?? No separate on/off time RC's in there?
I am going to have that stuck in my head the rest of the day...click, click, click, click, click...
Personally, I think your proposed ground rod demo was going a bit over the top with it all.
PW
Sorry, I don't want to pull this thread in another direction, but I feel this screen cap from Rosemary's web site is worth preserving.
From this thread:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2450/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=bdadbed9717b8b6127d6ecf9625f9db1#new
The screen cap is really gross and you wonder what is underneath the gutter.
Please go back to the technical discussion.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 01, 2012, 07:55:11 PM
Sorry, I don't want to pull this thread in another direction, but I feel this screen cap from Rosemary's web site is worth preserving.
From this thread:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2450/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=bdadbed9717b8b6127d6ecf9625f9db1#new
The screen cap is really gross and you wonder what is underneath the gutter.
Please go back to the technical discussion.
MileHigh
MH,
What she does not seem to realize is that all the threads she has started for this and similar purposes, only further destroy her credibility and draw attention to alternate forums and the whole sordid history involved in her "projects".
Can you imagine a professional from JNP dropping in who may actually be schooled in Physics or Electronics reading her Doggerel and now her posts similar to this?
The errors in her papers were enough to make one question her credibility. These threads of her's go even further in destroying what little credibility may have remained.
She does it all to herself...
PW
Quote from: Magluvin on July 01, 2012, 02:25:14 PM
This is possible. Back before one of her threads was locked, Romero's thread was kicking into high gear. And with what little she claims to know of electronics, she was bashing him as a fake then. And for what reasons? To take some heat off of her? Because his thread was booming and hers not getting the attn it deserved?
MH might have something there. And it seems she always wants personal emails from others. So that she can identify them? And try to scare them off with threats of exposure of the contacts she has gained if need be? So, it is not impossible.
Mags
No Magsy. This is RUBBISH - from beginning to end. I went to some CONSIDERABLE trouble to advise ALL AND SUNDRY to check on his thread. Golly. It seems that even the history of my most ARDENT support for OU technology is now being bastardised. This is simply not the 'real truth'. :o Whatever next? I was delighted to discover this work. I was sorry to discover it didn't actually...work.
Rosie Pose
Admit it Rosemary, you are just a setup to discredit the free energy community. Nobody could possibly be that stupid, so it must be a setup.
@Mags... have you been "reading ahead" again?
;)
I see she is still havig difficulties reading a schematic of her own circuit, as per her response to .99.
And yet she actually must somehow believe herself qualified to discuss, rather, argue, the circuit's operation.
Sad really...
Quote from: MileHigh on July 01, 2012, 12:34:58 PM
Well I can see how Rosemary is still abusing the definition of the term "troll" and applies it to anybody that disagrees with her.
Quoting Rosemary:
What the hell does "energy efficient device" even mean?
You know all, it can be alleged that "Rosemary" is the real paid person here and she is being paid by the big oil companies. She is part of a fifth column and her mission is to discredit all free energy research. How could someone be so ridiculously stupid and ignorant about her own circuit? How can someone be so dense and be caught lying on multiple occasions? The reason is to cast doubt on all free energy researchers.
So it could be that "Rosemary" is all just a front. An actress portrayed Rosemary for the few times we saw her and heard her voice. But beyond that she is just a few psyops agents working hard to make the realm of free energy research look like a bunch of hapless amateurs that are so incredibly stupid that they stage a freak out when they are asked to do a serious power analysis of a single resistor connected to a single battery.
It's just impossible that a saga like this that has been going on for years and has been implicitly discrediting all free energy research can be anything else but a fifth column psyops operation. Can people be that stupid that they can't even understand how the MOSFETs are wired in their own circuit or they can't even understand the fact that current is flowing through the function generator?
I don't think so, the only reasonable explanation for this comedy of the absurd is that "Rosemary Ainslie" is a fifth column agent planted here to completely discredit all free energy research.
MileHigh
an example of a classic COINTELPRO tactic... you out yourself again milelow. ::)
Quote from: picowatt on July 01, 2012, 08:26:42 PM
She does it all to herself...
PW
then why are you here? ::)
Wilby, when people refuse to pay you in cash or barter with you to be a code monkey, do you resort to dumpster diving? lol
Quote from: picowatt on July 01, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
TK,
What?? No separate on/off time RC's in there?
Well, I wanted to make changes in steps, so I used the same charging resistor as the manual version did, for a quick charge up. But I did mention that the charging time could be regulated as well in the "description" to the video. I think I have another little trimpot I can put on the charging side.
Quote
I am going to have that stuck in my head the rest of the day...click, click, click, click, click...
Personally, I think your proposed ground rod demo was going a bit over the top with it all.
PW
Over the top and to the moon. I like the idea of nailing one end of the FG to the ground and letting the other end flap in the breeze. But of course it will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes of the willfully ignorant. Someone is watching, though .... These videos are getting several views before I even post the links to them.
And, just in passing, I have once again implemented yet another way of controlling pulsations and duty cycle of the TarBaby/NERD circuit that can be adapted to make the negative oscillations as well as the positive Q1 turn-ons (using a DPDT relay or other means), and... if one is as perceptive as Mags is... one can see that Ainslie's feedback oscillations are caused by the very same mechanism as what I've illustrated here, just happening a lot faster, with the stray inductances and the natural system capacitances playing the role of the relay and the extra trimpot and capacitor.
At least, I hope that the linear operation of the mosfet is now well - understood... click, click.... since it can be observed with every capacitor discharge, the light fading as the gate charge drains away and the gate field gradually closes the drain-source valve ... click, click......
Quote from: MileHigh on July 01, 2012, 08:59:56 PM
Wilby, when people refuse to pay you in cash or barter with you to be a code monkey, do you resort to dumpster diving? lol
more logical fallacies from milelow... imagine that! ::)
i like how you keep trying to drag this thread off topic whenever poynty tries to bring it back to topic... ::)
Quote from: picowatt on July 01, 2012, 08:52:33 PM
I see she is still havig difficulties reading a schematic of her own circuit, as per her response to .99.
And yet she actually must somehow believe herself qualified to discuss, rather, argue, the circuit's operation.
Sad really...
Sure. Look at this cartoon figure from the "paper 2" manuscript on Rossi's JNP. This is where she "explains" what is happening during the oscillations. Note where she has the Q1 and Q2 G, D, and S labels. This does not appear to correspond to ANY of the circuit schematics shown in any of the papers, but perhaps it does to the scribbled diagram "taking liberties" that we posted earlier.
Sorry Guys. I meant to post a link. :o Here it is
As this is still very topical I'm re-posting this...
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/02/261-much-needed.html
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2012, 09:39:31 PM
Sorry Guys. I meant to post a link. :o Here it is
As this is still very topical I'm re-posting this...
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/02/261-much-needed.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/02/261-much-needed.html)
Regards,
Rosemary
YEP .... more
topical BULL CRAP !!
OH ....
LOOK AT THE DATE .... :o
POST SOME LINKS TO ANY OF YOUR COP>INFINITY TEST DATA ROSEMARY .... SCHEMATIC USED, SCOPE SHOTS, DATA DUMPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS FOR A COMPLETE TEST, NOT JUST ONE CHERRY PICKED SCOPE SHOT WITH A MATH FUNCTION AS ALWAYS SHOWN FOR A COMPLETE EVALUATED TEST BY ONLY YOU AND NO ONE ELSE. :P
Hello Little TK
Lest you think I'm ignoring you... :o ... and to prove that you're very much on my mind - here's a very small tribute to a very small cause.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2455.html#msg2455 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2455.html#msg2455)
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
Hi Guys and Girls,
I've started a thread on our forum to answer little TK's allegations that he uses to misinform you all. I'll simply post the links as they're required. Do go and read there. It will be one way to ensure that those more 'flagrantly' incorrect posts of his, are actually addressed.
Here's the first such
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2461.html#msg2461 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2461.html#msg2461)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
More lies, Ainslie? That's what we expect from you and that's what we always get.
Why don't you answer the "allegations" here? There have been plenty of them that you have dodged.
What about .99's explanation of the function generator in your circuit? Can you now finally grasp that it is both a power supply that can be in series with your main battery, AND it passes current through itself? That's an allegation that you aren't going to be handling.
What about Brian Ahern's bad math and .99's correction of it? No comment from you? I allege that your conclusions are based on the same kind of bad math, and I've given examples of it that you STILL allow to stand, like the 5.9 megaJoules figure in your paper that is right now on Rossi's JNP. Are you going to be dealing with that allegation there, or here? No, you aren't.
What about the issue of AC vs. DC coupling that .99 has been discussing with you? Brushing that one under the rug too, I see.
And of course there is the continuing allegation that many of your scopeshots show a blown mosfet, invalidating your papers and experimental reports. Picowatt would like an explanation... and so would a lot of other people. Will you be explaining this issue? Perhaps you will reveal the schematic you REALLY used to make those scopeshots. Perhaps not.
And of course there is the continuing allegation that you have cherrypicked your data, selecting only that which supports your contention, and even the allegation that you no longer even HAVE your original data, since nobody has ever seen it but you. And your claimed co-authors, maybe, of course. Some of them.
Lots to deal with, should keep you busy for a while. But none of us are under any illusions that you will actually answer the questions, correct the mistakes, withdraw the false claims, and release your data. That would be out of character for you.
What you will do is SPIN, bloviate, insult and lie, misrepresent and misquote, and come to phony bogus paranoid conclusions, as you always have done and always will continue to do.
QuoteBTW - It's a pleasure to make a post and KNOW that it can't be followed by 6 or seven follow-up posts SCREAMING dissention or invective. What a pleasure.
Yes, copy-paste is quite challenging.
It will be funny to watch you turn on the people that are testing your circuit assuming that they know what they are doing. In your cover letter you make reference to two people, and I am almost wondering if you patched up your feud with some people down under. It would be hilarious if you ended up sending your setup to "A." and "A." because neither of them have the slightest clue what they are doing. There is a good chance that you would get a report endorsing your setup from them because they are just as hapless and clueless as you.
What a joke this whole thing has become. You are clearly pathologically obsessed with this and nothing will stop you. You refuse to listen to knowledgeable people when they tell you that you are wrong.
So you are either crazy or you are a fifth column psyops operation run by the government and Big Oil to discredit all free energy research. ha ha ha
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 02, 2012, 02:08:08 AM
Hi Guys and Girls,
I've started a thread on our forum to answer little TK's allegations that he uses to misinform you all. I'll simply post the links as they're required. Do go and read there. It will be one way to ensure that those more 'flagrantly' incorrect posts of his, are actually addressed.
Here's the first such
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2461.html#msg2461 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2461.html#msg2461)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Yep, 100 percent lies, just as I thought.
In the first place: Note the scopeshot below, showing the mosfet drain trace (the GREEN trace) going LOW during the Q1 ON time to exactly the level calculated by PW, about 1/5 of the total battery voltage when Q1 is ON, and when Q1 is OFF and the Q2s are oscillating, the oscillations bring the drain trace down even lower than that. Just as I and PW said... and also JUST AS AINSLIE SAID HERSELF in the blogpost that FTC quoted yesterday. An d I am not even talking about the BATTERY, as she claims in the post, I am talking about the MOSFET DRAIN(S), which she mistook for the battery signal and/or the "load" signal in the earlier work. Again she lies and misrepresents both my old work and my present words.
In the second place... she lies about my work with the earlier claim of COP>17. I most certainly did make the exact same oscillations, showed them on the exact same model oscilloscope, and I duplicated her load heat profiles. And I was, and still am, right about the duty cycle issue and the 555 timer functionality in the Quantum article. See the second image below for the very same oscillations, "random aperiodic Hartley resonance" or whatever she called them. If I didn't tell you, you would think this was one of hers, but it's not, it's from my work, which she lies about over and over, just as now. And I never mentioned Harvey, although I believe he did indeed reproduce the circuit. The problem was that he didn't wind up agreeing with Ainslie. Experimental aptitudes? I laugh at you, Ainslie, fumblefingered battery destroyer and liar.
And in the third place.... same as the first place, refuted by her own scopeshots and blog posts yet again. Ainslie is a liar and an ignoramus, cannot comprehend what she reads and so makes up her own fractured versions, and doesn't even understand her own circuit well enough to discuss it rationally.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 02, 2012, 02:30:22 AM
So you are either crazy or you are a fifth column psyops operation run by the government and Big Oil to discredit all free energy research. ha ha ha
another logical fallacy from milelow... ::) hey troll... see 'false dilemma' and educate yourself.
and quit trying to continually drag this thread off topic with your asinine logically fallacious accusations... idiot.
Wilby:
How about you quit trying to make other people miserable and unhappy as you slop and slosh your way around this web site looking for people to intimidate and play your silly games in logic with and show us that you know some phrases in Latin? You have some weird psychological compulsion? Can't you switch that compulsion over to basket weaving or something?
Making you unhappy makes Wilby happy. He is the ultimate one-monster web site party pooper.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 01, 2012, 09:39:31 PM
Sorry Guys. I meant to post a link. :o Here it is
As this is still very topical I'm re-posting this...
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/02/261-much-needed.html
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from link:
..."an oscillation that defies any known explanation within the standard model."
Quote from: picowatt on July 02, 2012, 07:57:28 AM
Quote from link:
..."an oscillation that defies any known explanation within the standard model."
That's one of the three perpetual standard lies from Ainslie.
1. She claims things like the above: "No known explanation within the standard model." This is absurd because in the first place she has no idea what the Standard Model of electronics physics really is: QED, Quantum electrodynamics, embodied in the full expression of Maxwell's Equations and other formalisations that Ainslie simply does not have the prerequisites to grasp, much less discuss coherently. Her absurd statement about the oscillations is refuted by her own data, the experience of many years of circuit designers who understand them perfectly well and know how to avoid them or produce them on demand, and even simulator programs which use nothing other than the "standard model" of physics and electronic components to make the same... ordinary.... feedback oscillations.
2. She claims repeatedly to use "Standard Measurement Protocols" when she does not, and apparently has no idea how to do so. Standard measurement protocols, for just one example, recognize the need for filtering noise out of measurements, whether systematic noise like Ainslie's or random noise like a scratchy pot makes. Standard measurement protocols to track time temperature profiles of a resistive load for the purposes of energy calculations would never just hang the load in ambient air and measure the temperature "over" it.
And standard measurement protocols do not include cherry-picking data, ill-formed hypotheses, and concealed and altered data. Again, she refuses to learn just how NOT standard her "protocols" are, nor to correct them and actually use industry-standard power and batttery measurement protocols like the various IEEE and NIST standard publications describe in detail, even though these have been pointed out to her many times.
3. And last but not least.... "DO THE MATH". Every time she utters that little catchphrase it has been followed by the most incredibly ignorant and ridiculously absurd "calculations" or claims based on such. She has the arrogance and temerity to tell Hard Scientists and Electrical Engineers to DO THE MATH.... when they have all of them suffered through mathematics classroom and home study for YEARS, including, for many of us, two or more years of Calculus, Differential Equations, and practical engineering mathematics, solving dozens of difficult problems, and being evaluated on them, every week for years of schooling. And also using the simpler of these calculations in our daily work and home life. Ainslie cannot even punch the right buttons on her calculator, does no checking or alternate solution methods, only seems multiply things together, neglects units and dimensional analysis (doesn't even grasp the meaning or importance of it, in spite of Groundloop's excellent example) and almost always gets the answer wrong, even if the equation itself might be correct. But usually it isn't....
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
The three Standard Lies of Rosemary Ainslie, the queen of disinformation, clearly a well-paid propagandist seeking to discredit the entire Free Energy research community.
@.99:
As far as I can determine, you were the first to notice and poynt out the backwards Gang of Four Q2s, in April of last year, over three weeks after the video demo was released.
I'd like to know the story... what prompted you to look so closely at the video, to be able to analyse the actual schematic in use?
The discussions up to that point in the thread -- and the sim efforts of yourself and humbugger/cheeseburger -- were based on the 5 mosfets being in strict parallel. Ainslie was an active participant in those discussions.
But when you poynted it out in the forum, Ainslie's response was apparently that she knew it all along, and that she was testing you somehow to see if you would "pick up on it".
Clearly, this statement of hers, IF TRUE, indicates egregious scientific and just plain misconduct and mendacity, to engage in deliberate discussions about a known _majorly_ incorrect schematic. And on the other hand... IF the statement that she knew about it all along is FALSE... well, then, a false statement is called a LIE in the Northern Hemisphere of Earth.
I've posted the image of her statement made in the old thread along with humbugger's comment about it, so the interested reader can decide: Three or more weeks of blatant scientific misconduct, OR... a simple outright lie, yet again, from Ainslie?
But still... I'd like to know exactly what prompted .99 to look so closely at the video, at that late date after she posted it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 08:46:07 PM
Guys - I've yet again been advised to stay away from this thread. It's really achieving absolutely NOTHING - and I know this.
In any event just let me explain this much. TK is WELL able to get that oscillation from Q2 with a CONTINUAL NEGATIVE SIGNAL applied to the gate. As are we And that's only with the use of Q2. IF there's a continual negative charge - and YET there's an oscillation - then he's yet to explain how the battery discharges current NOTWITHSTANDING the restriction imposed at the gate of the transistor - from that negative voltage signal applied. Remember that each positive half of each of those oscillations represents the current flow from the battery supply. So. Where is the path for that? Certainly not across that gate.
It's absurd that they pretend to have the answers. They're nowhere near. Nor are we. But we at least have a consistent argument proposed for consideration.
Regards,
Rosemary
Let me add this while I can still modify this post. I'm referring to the circuit that he uses with just one MOSFET. Hope that's clearer.
Again
R
I want you to justify this claim. Show me where, exactly, in the "circuit that I use with just one MOSFET" that a negative signal is ever applied to the gate of that mosfet. You are here making a false claim about a circuit that you do not understand. And you are once again misrepresenting my work, drawing conclusions based on your exact backwards misrepresentation, and blathering those false conclusions and false claims on the public Internet.
You must either justify it and prove that it is true, or ADMIT THAT IT IS A LIE, or at least an ignorant mistake.
Attached below are an image of the Altoid, with the scope probe hooked up to the 2n7000 mosfet's GATE and the case ground, running on a CAPACITOR bank only, charged to 5.5 Volts, making oscillations, lighting an LED load and making a negative mean power product.
And a scopeshot of the GATE signal provided to the mosfet by the circuit, at 2 volts per division, with the ZERO BASELINE indicated in red.
Now, Ainslie.... you are wrong, so you must either admit it and publicly retract the claims based on your "error"... or continue to demonstrate that you are both a miserable liar and too ignorant to understand the workings of a simple circuit with five components.
What you continue to fail to understand is that this mosfet, like yours, is oscillating because of a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE APPLIED TO ITS
SOURCE, along with the various inductances and capacitances involved.
Hey, PW and .99-- remember the discussion about whether or not the areas of the current curve above and below the zero marker were equal or whether one or the other side would be greater, indicating net current flow in the greater direction? We did some analyses based on colored pixels that weren't very precise or definitive.
But how about this for an oddball idea: Compare the Current trace, AC coupled vs. DC coupled. In other words, display the current trace accurately using DC coupling, then, without changing anything switch the channel to AC coupling. The integrating and coupling capacitor will move the trace either up or down.... until the areas above and below the baseline are equal. Or does it simply move the trace until the baseline is at the middle of the p-p voltage excursion?
Either way, the direction the AC coupled trace moves, either up or down, will be a good bit of information to have, because it will be another "check on the balance" of the sign of the current trace mean.
Just a random thought before sufficient coffee, so I will not be surprised if you both find it incoherent.
I haven't got much time right now, on my way to a BBQ, but to quickly answer the AC/DC question; when switching from DC to AC, the trace will move either up or down until the AVERAGE of the wave form sits firmly on the zero reference line of the scope. This would equate to equal areas above and below the reference line.
I'll get to the "miswiring discovery" later. ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on July 02, 2012, 06:12:23 PM
I haven't got much time right now, on my way to a BBQ, but to quickly answer the AC/DC question; when switching from DC to AC, the trace will move either up or down until the AVERAGE of the wave form sits firmly on the zero reference line of the scope. This would equate to equal areas above and below the reference line.
I'll get to the "miswiring discovery" later. ;)
Right. So if one looked at the trace DC coupled, and then switched to AC coupled, the trace will appear to move either UP, DOWN or not at all wrt the zero baseline. If it doesn't move, then it was symmetrical in the first place: Average positive equals average negative.
If the trace moves DOWN when AC coupled, then the POSITIVE average was greater than the negative average when DC coupled.
And if the trace moves UP when AC coupled, then the NEGATIVE average was greater than the positive average when DC coupled.
So the AC/DC coupling feature could be used, as I thought, to see just that: whether the positive average is greater, less than or equal to the negative average.
Right? I mean I know this is unorthodox, but is it basically reasonable, and would it give a meaningful result? (This is one measurement where precise scope calibration would indeed be an asset. I don't really trust the 40 year old capacitors in the HP180 completely.)
TK,
You could use the scope to roughly determine the average, OR, you could just connect your DMM on DC volts like I said almost two years ago, and get an accurate reading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KhGpmXPjc&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KhGpmXPjc&feature=plcp)
Hey PW,
Look what I found while browsing some old posts:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg11160#msg11160
TK,
Regarding the "miswiring discovery":
I was looking over the old posts at OUR and saw that I was being asked by Rosemary to comment on her demo results. I was not 100% confident in commenting because things weren't adding up. Humbugger and I were doing simulations at the time in an effort to duplicate their wave forms, but they weren't coming out quite right. There was also the issue of no current shown on the CSR when the MOSFET should have been ON. I suspected the probes may not have been placed in the correct locations.
I wanted to gain some insight into these questions so I took a snapshot of the video where the underside of the peg board was shown, and I spent some time and carefully traced out the entire circuit referencing both the top and bottom views. That's when I discovered the "oooooops" in the MOSFET hookup. It also became evident at that time, that the CSR was in the wrong location.
After I made the appropriate "adjustment" in the simulation, the wave forms replicated almost perfectly. At that point, the rest became relatively easy.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2012, 12:40:38 AM
TK,
Regarding the "miswiring discovery":
I was looking over the old posts at OUR and saw that I was being asked by Rosemary to comment on her demo results. I was not 100% confident in commenting because things weren't adding up. Humbugger and I were doing simulations at the time in an effort to duplicate their wave forms, but they weren't coming out quite right. There was also the issue of no current shown on the CSR when the MOSFET should have been ON. I suspected the probes may not have been placed in the correct locations.
I wanted to gain some insight into these questions so I took a snapshot of the video where the underside of the peg board was shown, and I spent some time and carefully traced out the entire circuit referencing both the top and bottom views. That's when I discovered the "oooooops" in the MOSFET hookup. It also became evident at that time, that the CSR was in the wrong location.
After I made the appropriate "adjustment" in the simulation, the wave forms replicated almost perfectly. At that point, the rest became relatively easy.
Thanks, that is pretty much what I recalled. I appreciate you explaining it again, though.
So, when you made your "this is embarassing" (you meant for the NERDs of course) post on April 19 2011, and Ainslie replied as she did, as reproduced in the image I posted of cheesburger's post where he quoted it ... what did you think? Almost a month of discussion-- over 450 comment posts -- since the March 22 uploading of the video demo to YouTube by user "dooziedont"--- Rosemary Ainslie. All about a circuit that was not used, apparently ever, for any of the data or demonstrations or the "experiments" in the manuscripts.
In the reply she says "we made full disclosure". What does she mean by that? Is there a posting somewhere of the correct version used, before your April 19 post?
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094
I have some schematics files from Fuzzy that have "March 12" in the filename that show the single mosfet "before" March 12 and the "correct" Q1-Q2 version "after" March 12. The date of the demo was March 12 2011, and the video was posted on March 22. But was that "correct" schematic available anywhere before April 19th? Or any other "full disclosure" of the true circuit demonstrated?
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2012, 12:14:03 AM
Hey PW,
Look what I found while browsing some old posts:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg11160#msg11160
.99.
I have seen that capture before, I believe TK posted it not too long ago. As I said when I first saw it, the FG trace looks cap coupled. Possibly Rgen in the FG was cooked or there was a bad clip lead or connection. Who knows? (Do we even know what the schematic truly was at that time?) But I see several others "poynted" this out way back then as well. Q1 must be a magical MOSFET that only functions properly in some captures, and not so much in others.
It is amazing to read on from that post a bit. It sounds like "current events". At least the inability or unwillingless to learn appears to be something "perpetual".
I cannot fathom how anyone with even the slightest understanding of electronics can look at your very clear depiction of the FG output stage connected to the NERD circuit and continue to claim/believe that there is no path for current to flow from the Q2 source terminal to the batt negative thru the FG, or not see how a negative voltage applied to the source of Q2 by the FG turns Q2 on.
If she could ever get a grip on how Q2 is biased on and how its DC current is limited by Rgen and Vgs(on), possibly then she could move on to the major AC current path, which she also denies exists (AC current does flow thru the FG as well, but is also limited by Rgen)
If you drew in a 10,000pF capacitor across the FG terminals in your drawing, to depict how all the Ciss of the MOSFETs are effectively connected, that would better show the major AC current path that can flow around the FG via all the Ciss capacitance (note that all five of the MOSFET's Ciss, are effectively in parallel across the FG terminals in the NERD circuit and the total capacitance is likely closer to 12.5nF (5X2.5nF) ).
I have doubts as to whether it will be possible for her to ever grasp, or allow herself to grasp, the DC conditions when Q2 is biased on, let alone additional feedback mechanisms involved in the AC analysis of the circuit.
But hey, miracles do happen...
PW
Scoposcopy: Using AC coupling to display a small varying signal "riding on top" of a much larger constant DC level.
http://youtu.be/ykX4nZglnGE
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2012, 12:40:38 AM
TK,
Regarding the "miswiring discovery":
I was looking over the old posts at OUR and saw that I was being asked by Rosemary to comment on her demo results. I was not 100% confident in commenting because things weren't adding up. Humbugger and I were doing simulations at the time in an effort to duplicate their wave forms, but they weren't coming out quite right. There was also the issue of no current shown on the CSR when the MOSFET should have been ON. I suspected the probes may not have been placed in the correct locations.
I wanted to gain some insight into these questions so I took a snapshot of the video where the underside of the peg board was shown, and I spent some time and carefully traced out the entire circuit referencing both the top and bottom views. That's when I discovered the "oooooops" in the MOSFET hookup. It also became evident at that time, that the CSR was in the wrong location.
After I made the appropriate "adjustment" in the simulation, the wave forms replicated almost perfectly. At that point, the rest became relatively easy.
Howdy all,
Here is the COP>INFINITY YouTube video http://youtu.be/fyOmoGluMCc ( Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 March 2011 ) still images that were made by poynt99 including the device schematic that was in question.
cheers,
Fuzzy
;)
.99,
That was some really good detective work you did there deciphering the true schematic.
Way to go!
If she thought all five were in parallel as per Q1, then yes, one might be amazed at why the circuit oscillated with all the MOSFET's turned off. That probably explains how her "Q2 is disconnected from the battery during the osc phase" myth got started.
PW
Guys I've answered TK at the usual address.
Here's the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2463.html#msg2463
Regards,
Rosie
:)
Here's another reply
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2464.html#msg2464
Again,
Rosemary
And this one wraps it up. TK HEAVILY depends on those multiple posters who DISCLAIM everything - somewhat neurotically and CERTAINLY hysterically - when he promulgates his APPALLING misdirections... the minute I make a reply. That way they can drown out the 'real truth'. LOL. 8) :o :)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2465.html#msg2465
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
How about replying here, instead of on your honeypot tracking forum, you cowardly and devious she-snake.
The fact remains: Either you were lying for a month or even more, while you knew your true schematic but were discussing it with people who did not, OR you were lying when you told .99 that you "made full disclosure" and already knew before he posted it. Either way... you lie, and both ways are pretty damning for you, Ainslie. There is no imaginable way for you to weasel out of that one, spin as you might.
Personally, I think you had no clue, had to ask your "advisors" who explained .99's discovery to you, and then you were forced to try and save face by claiming to have known all along-- what seemed to you to be the lesser of two evils -- instead of being outed, yet again, as a totally incompetent fumblefingered tinkerer without the most basic error checking or 3-d imagination skills. But scientific misconduct is not the lesser of those two evils, Ainslie. You should just admit that your post to .99 was a lying attempt to save face and that you were totally ignorant, because the reason that you did give is a frank admission of scientific misconduct bordering on outright fraud.
Look at this garbage bunch of lies.
AINSLIE, you lie again and again. NOBODY BUT YOU has ever said anything about the FG passing the huge current YOU are misrepresenting me to have claimed.
WE HERE HAVE REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED AND SIMULATED AND MEASURED up to 200 MILLIAMPERES or so of current passing through the Function Generator as the bias source.
200 milliamps, AINSLIAR, and I've illustrated that very same current MANY TIMES IN MY VIDEOS. I generally run at 150-180 mA, AS ANYONE CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES BY LOOKING AT THE VIDEOS OR BY DOING IT THEMSELVES. Even you, probably, could manage to put an ammeter in series with your function generator and SEE FOR YOURSELF what it reads. Complain about frequency response? THEN DO WHAT I DID: PUT A CVR IN THAT PART OF THE CIRCUIT AND SCOPE IT. You idiot.
Now, I DEMAND that you remove and retract the LIES that you are telling about me and my work. I NEVER CLAIMED NOR IMPLIED WHAT YOU ALLEGE IN THE "REPLY" THAT I HAVE IMAGED BELOW.
And look at the crazy paranoid allegations. Rifled directly off her flash drive. That, my dear, is an accusation of a crime, and therefore it is ACTIONABLE, and I've preserved it for the imaginary lawyers to look at. YOU POSTED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ITEMS PUBLICLY and that is where I got them, Ainslie, you paranoid lying silly old woman who cannot even control her own data.
AND YOU CANNOT REFERENCE A SINGLE "MATH GLITCH" IN MY WORK, not one. I check my math over and over and if anyone corrects me RIGHTLY I immediatly post a correction/retraction IF NECESSARY... which it has not been in recent memory. AND FURTHERMORE anyone with the brains to look at my spreadsheet, posted here repeatedly, can see that I indeed used the inductive reactance of the CVR in my calculations, several different values for it, in fact... so AGAIN SHE LIES and misrepresents my work out of sheer overweening arrogance and ignorance... because she doesn't even grasp or understand what my work even IS or SHOWS.
I am truly disgusted by this miserable lying mendacious ignorant bloviating fool of an old wench. She probably can't even cook.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2012, 02:51:25 AM
And this one wraps it up. TK HEAVILY depends on those multiple posters who DISCLAIM everything - somewhat neurotically and CERTAINLY hysterically - when he promulgates his APPALLING misdirections... the minute I make a reply. That way they can drown out the 'real truth'. LOL. 8) :o :)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2465.html#msg2465 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2465.html#msg2465)
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
You are a lying hypocritical idiot, not deserving of the least respect. You constantly misrepresent the work of others, as is perfectly clear every day from your posts. Not just mine, but EVERYBODY's work that you talk about, you get wrong, and you make conclusions based on your wrongness. It's crazy.
Bearing that in mind, why would ANYONE trust your reports of your own work? Why should they?
They should not, since your original data cannot be examined, and you continually are proven to lie about everybody else's work.
You have been relegated to the status of the boy who cried wolf. Even when you might discover something that is significant, nobody will pay any attention to you since you are known to be such a miserable blatant liar. So you'll wind up getting eaten.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 01:37:11 AM
Scoposcopy: Using AC coupling to display a small varying signal "riding on top" of a much larger constant DC level.
http://youtu.be/ykX4nZglnGE (http://youtu.be/ykX4nZglnGE)
S'matter, Ainslie, too much to handle?
And Guys,
Here's yet another answer. This time related to our 'schematic' which MOST ASSUREDLY was NOT correct. But there is nothing in the history of these threads of mine or threads about me and our work - that requires the KIND of disclosure that TK seems to think that I am beholden to given him. Frankly - neither he nor anyone of those who contribute so diligently here - can demand ANYTHING AT ALL of me in the light of their multiple and legal abuses of calumny malice and slander.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2466.html#msg2466
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Howdy members and guests,
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2012, 04:21:40 AM
And Guys,
Here's yet another answer. This time related to our 'schematic' which MOST ASSUREDLY was NOT correct. But there is nothing in the history of these threads of mine or threads about me and our work - that requires the KIND of disclosure that TK seems to think that I am beholden to given him. Frankly - neither he nor anyone of those who contribute so diligently here - can demand ANYTHING AT ALL of me in the light of their multiple and legal abuses of calumny malice and slander.
..... snip rubbish .....
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Here is the posting from poynt99 with the confrontation on the claimed
COP>INFINITY device operation schematic with the shown as built.
Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011Quote from: poynt99
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094 Reply #682 on: April 19, 2011, 08:01:26 AM
Well, this is terribly embarrassing; According to their published circuit diagram, simulation diagram, and the demonstration video, Rosie-posie and her team of "experts" has not only incorrectly labeled two of the nodes on the prototype board (the F and C are incorrectly swapped), but they have connected mosfets 2-5 incorrectly as well (the Gate and Source pins are incorrectly swapped, but M1 is all correct). It is not surprising however that her "experts" didn't catch this big "OOOPS" when they were repairing the unit.
This would explain the somewhat funky wave forms, and why the simulation results look slightly different.
This sure doesn't instill much confidence in anyone following along with this travesty, especially when considering the entire project is already teetering on the brink of self-destruction. A rhetorical question or two; So what are we now to make of all those posted wave forms and so-called measurements? Are the probes even displaying the circuit nodes we have been led to believe they are displaying?
That aside, as a gesture of good faith Rosie-posie, may the world please see that properly-conducted continuous operation test? I'm afraid it's the only way you're going to prove to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that your claims are true.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282102/#msg282102 Reply #685 on: April 19, 2011, 09:05:14 AM
You've got a long wait Poynty Point. LOL. All I concede is that there is - indeed - a modification to the positioning of the Gate and Source pins. We made full disclosure - but I was rather hoping you'd try those replications - and then explain what was required. It would have been a delicious opportunity to 'teach' you as I'm rather sick of being 'taught'. But be that as it may. The results persist. It's an advantageous arrangement - AND - you see for yourself - it gives us an oscillation that is EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL. That's all that matters.
I will admit that I did not expect you to pick up on this. LOL. I just wondered how you managed all those Spice replications. I had an idea you must have seen this then.
Take care Poynty. I admit to being trumped.
Rosie-posie.
Rosemary's quote of
"We made full disclosure"was never done and no link providing
proof has been provided by Rosemary prior to the above posting by poynt99 on April 19, 2011
After the proof in the above postings what Rosemary did isn't scientific misconduct bordering on outright fraud, in my opinion it's crossed that boundary.
FTC
???
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2012, 04:21:40 AM
And Guys,
Here's yet another answer. This time related to our 'schematic' which MOST ASSUREDLY was NOT correct. But there is nothing in the history of these threads of mine or threads about me and our work - that requires the KIND of disclosure that TK seems to think that I am beholden to given him. Frankly - neither he nor anyone of those who contribute so diligently here - can demand ANYTHING AT ALL of me in the light of their multiple and legal abuses of calumny malice and slander.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2466.html#msg2466 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2466.html#msg2466)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Wow, so she is now saying that these circuits are not correct? Circuits that she has argued on her behalf? This just gets weird.
Mags
This is a quote from her in response to TK asking about .99's drawing depicting an FG output connected to the NERD circuit:
"On the whole I agree with this. But there's a small distinction. The function generator can ONLY pass current to and from the plug that powers it. It can only INDUCE current elsewhere. The distinction is critical. Our oscillation is able to induce upwards of 8 amps. There are at LEAST R50 Ohms in series with its probe and terminal. Therefore. In order to deliver 8 amps the function generator would need to find that energy from a voltage upwards of 400 volts. Frankly if any function generator delivered even half that amount of energy it would be deemed to be catastrophically compromised and would be sent off for repair. It's ABSURD to suggest that the function generator is responsible for that level of current flow. And its absurdity is ever greater as we can only measure a maximum of 6 volts AC from its signal. Therefore not only is the proposal that the function generator is responsible for this extra energy - theoretically IMPROBABLE - it is also lacking in MEASURABLE EVIDENCE"
It is, as usual, dificult to understand what she is attempting to say regarding some distinction she is trying to make about an FG's ability to only INDUCE current elsewhere.
Referring to .99's depiction of the FG output, the FG power supply is _identical_ to two batteries connected so that the FG output transistors can alternately select between connecting the "upper" battery to the output or the "bottom" battery to the output. This allows the FG to output a positive voltage or negative voltage relative to its signal ground when the upper or lower output transistor is turned on. The FG acts identically to a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor, and the polarity of that "battery" is determined by which transistor is turned on in the FG output stage. The only true difference between a "real" battery and those represented as being contained in the FG power supply, is that the FG power supply constantly "recharges" the "batteries" depicted in the .99's FG drawing. Obviously, a battery operated FG would draw from its batteries and not be recharged.
When the FG in .99's drawing is set to full positive offset, its output will be approx +14 volts. That is, the upper transistor will be turned on and the FG's internal positive "battery" is connected to the FG output (the output transistors have an inherent voltage drop when they are turned on so only 14 volts or so will be output instead of the full 15.5 volts of the supply).
When the +14 volts is connected to the NERD circuit, +14 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 and source of Q2. Q1 turns on and Q2, being reverse biased, remains off. The only current flow thru the FG under these condicitons is Q1 and Q2 leakage current, which is very low, typically a few nanoamps or less. Due to this very small current flow thru the FG, there is very little voltage drop observed across the FG's internal 50 ohm resistor (i.e., the Vdrop across Rgen is .5uV or less).
When the FG in .99's drawing is set to its full negative offset, that is the lower transistor turned on and the negative oriented (lower) battery connected to the FG output, it is a bit more complicated than the positive instance. If the FG is disconnected from the circuit, that is, measured "open circuit", there would be approximately -14 volts measured at its output. When this -14volts from the FG is connected to the circuit, the negative voltage applied to the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 causes Q2 to turn on and Q1 to turn off.
However, when Q2 turns on, significant current flows thru the FG's 50 ohm resistor and because of this, a voltage drop is observed across the 50 ohm resistor. It takes around -4 volts applied to the source of Q2 to begin to turn Q2 on significantly. Q2 cannot, however, turn completely on as the voltage drop across the 50 ohm FG resistor due to Q2 current flow causes the voltage applied to the source of Q2 to decrease.
As Q2 attempts to draw more current, the voltage drop across the FG's 50 ohm resistor increases and therefore the negative voltage applied to the source of Q2 decreases. This action is very similar to that of a current limiter and, therefore, the current flowing thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is negative voltage, will be determined by the Vgs(on) of the MOSFET, the 50 ohm FG resistor, and the open circuit voltage of the FG.
In the above example, with the FG set to an open circuit voltage of -14 volts and a MOSFET Vgs(on) of -4 volts, there will be 10 volts of voltage drop across the 50 ohm resistor. Using Ohm's law, we can see that 10V/50R=.2 amps, or 200 milliamps. Therefore it can be predicted that when the FG is set to its full negative offset, there will be approximately 200milliamps flowing thru Q2 and the FG to the CSR. This 200milliamps of current flow is referred to as "bias current", or simply Ibias.
It must be stated that the predicted bias current under the above conditions is only approximate, as the turn on characteristics of a MOSFET are quite variable, varying between devices and with temperature. But regardless of the amount of negative voltage the FG is set to output, once the negative voltage from the FG exceeds the Q2 threshold voltage, there will be little further change in the voltage measured at the source of Q2, it will always be very close to -4volts within +/- 1volt.
If the FG is set to produce -10 volts open circuit, again, the measured voltage at the source of Q2 will remain close to -4 volts, and 6 volts will be dropped across the FG's 50 ohm resistor due to Q2 current flowing thru it, and again, using Ohm's law, we can predict the bias current to be 6V/50R=.120 amps, or 120 milliamps under these conditions.
It should therefore be appreciated that once the FG's output exceeds -Vth, or approximately -4 volts, the voltage at the source of Q2 will change very little, and only the bias current flowing thru Q2 and the FG will increase as the FG output is made more negative.
This voltage clamping action predicted at the source of Q2 is readily apparent in all of the provided captures, and it has been simulated as well as empirically observed and measured.
In all the captures she has provided, it can be readily seen that during the portion of FG cycle wherein the FG output is a negative voltage, the voltage indicated by the FG trace never exceeds Vgs(on), or about -4 volts and is direct evidence and proof of current flow thru Q2 and the FG to the CSR.
(assuming of course that the FG common is connected to the CSR and not the battery negative. If the FG common is connected to the battery negative terminal instead of the FG, the Q2 bias current will bypass the CSR and flow diretly to the battery negative terminal)
ADDED: It should be noted that if a low impedance tweve volt battery (such as a lead acid battery) were connected so that its positive terminal were connected to the NERD battery ground and its negative terminal connected directly to the gate of Q1 and source of Q2, without a series current limiting resistor, Q2 would turn fully on. There would be no oscillations, but the observed DC current flow would exceed the maximum Q1 current when it is on, as Q2 is actually 4 MOSFETs in parallel and their combined Rds(on) would be 4 times less (approx .5 ohms). In this "fully on" condition, Q2 would now be acting as a switch and would not be biased into linear operation as an amplifier as happens when the 50 ohm series resistor is present.
And in continuation, again here is her quoted response:
"On the whole I agree with this. But there's a small distinction. The function generator can ONLY pass current to and from the plug that powers it. It can only INDUCE current elsewhere. The distinction is critical. Our oscillation is able to induce upwards of 8 amps. There are at LEAST R50 Ohms in series with its probe and terminal. Therefore. In order to deliver 8 amps the function generator would need to find that energy from a voltage upwards of 400 volts. Frankly if any function generator delivered even half that amount of energy it would be deemed to be catastrophically compromised and would be sent off for repair. It's ABSURD to suggest that the function generator is responsible for that level of current flow. And its absurdity is ever greater as we can only measure a maximum of 6 volts AC from its signal. Therefore not only is the proposal that the function generator is responsible for this extra energy - theoretically IMPROBABLE - it is also lacking in MEASURABLE EVIDENCE."
Her argument that the FG cannot pass all of the observed AC current is quite sound. Any DC or AC current flow thru the FG to the CSR will be limited by the 50 ohm resistor in the FG's output path.
But, as I am apparently psychic, I explained the major AC curret path in my reply #3573.
There is approximately 2000 to 2500pF of capacitance between the gate and source of an IRFPG50 MOSFET. If one looks carefully at the circuit schematic, it will be apparent that all 5 of the MOSFET's gate to source capacitances are electrically connected in parallel and provide a path for AC current flow directly to the CSR.
These 5 parallel gate to source capacitances, totaling 10,000 to 12,500uF (10 to 12.5nF) provide an AC current path directly across the FG's output terminals allowing AC current to bypass the FG.
(If you draw in an 8000pF cap between the source and gate of Q2, and another 2000pF cap betwee the source and gate of Q1, representing the MOSFET gate to source capacitances, this will be more easily visualized in the schematic)
If the oscillation were a pure sine wave, this 10nF or so of capacitance has a reactance at 1.5MHz of approximately 10 ohms. This means that not only is there an AC/DC path of 50 ohms thru the FG, there is also an AC only path in parallel with the FG output terminals equal to 10 ohms.
So, for AC currents at 1.5MHz (of a pure sine), there is a 50 ohm path in parallel with a 10 ohm path, or approximately an 8 ohm path, from the source of Q2 to the CSR.
It must be noted that the observed oscillation is not a pure sine. Although its fundamental may be approximately 1.5MHz, there is a large amount of observed harmonic distortion. An FFT of the oscillation signal would show that there is a substantial amount of even and odd harmonics present, with the third harmonic likely being the most significant. These harmonics are higher in frequency than the fundamental (they are, afterall, "harmonics") and to these harmonics, the 10nF effective capacitance across the FG terminals represents a much lower impedance path to the CSR than it does at the fundamental frequency.
Any second harmonic present in the oscillation waveform will see the reactance of the 10nF capacitance across the FG terminals as though it were a 5 ohm resistor. For any third harmonic present, this path would equate to a 3.3 ohm resistor.
It should be appreciated, therefore, that although the DC and AC current that can flow thru Q2 and the FG is limited by the FG's internal 50 ohm resistor, the gate to source capacitance of the five MOSFET's, being electrically connected in parallel across the FG output terminals, provides a very significant low impedance path for AC current flow thru Q2 to the CSR.
Thanks for that excellent analysys, PW. (Crossed posts, I am mostly referring to the first part of your analysis)
That last point -- about the FG's black lead location -- is particularly important as it affects the data taken. In the Video Demo, and presumably in the experiments described in the "papers" -- since they were done with the demo apparatus but BEFORE the true schematic was revealed by .99 -- the FG's black clip was connected to the common ground bus on the pegboard, connected directly to the battery negative.
However, after some discussion of the issue it was decided that the CVR "should" be first, and that the FG's black clip should be connected between the CVR and the transistors, to put the CVR into the FG's current loop.
And magically.... the new diagrams in the papers reflected this correct location -- when at the time the experiments were performed she did not know the true schematic at all ... or did she? ..... Well, what did she know and when did she know it?
Were the experiments done that correct way, or the way the demo was done? I think I know.
So the FG connection in the video wasn't a "one time error", was it. I think it was the way all the experiments reported in the papers were done as well: in other words, the schematic given in the papers is STILL A LIE in that it does not reflect the true location of the FG's black clip connection during the performance of the trials reported, and all the Current data are IN ERROR because they do not include this FG bias source current flow which is ultimately part of the current flowing in the load. And of course conclusions based on erroneous, false or incorrectly obtained data are not valid.
Presently, she apparently has still not watched my FG passing current videos to see that in a single series loop, the external battery's full voltage is indeed passed along through the FG to run small loads in perfect conformance with Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's circuit rules. Or perhaps she has and is attempting to understand their application to her problem.
Perhaps... due to her lack of careful thought and general rush-to-judgment, coupled with her continued profound lack of understanding of her own circuit... she believes that I am suggesting that the ENTIRE BATTERY CURRENT must flow through the FG IN HER CIRCUIT.... which of course contains two parallel current loops, not one. MileHigh has, I believe, detailed these current loops quite well in various drawings that Ainslie ignores or fails to comprehend. Of course I am not and have never suggested that at all, under the normal operation of the circuit.
When Q1 is OFF there is only the small current being passed by the Q2 oscillations going through the FG. When Q1 is ON its low-impedance drain-source channel conducts the large nonoscillating DC current. Only if one or more Q2s are shorted D-S (or deliberately turned on) will the FG be in a low impedance path directly in series with the battery. And even then it is difficult to come up with the current values Ainslie arrives at. Say my F43 is putting out, or trying to, its full -20 volts, but the voltage clamp keeps the voltage at -4 and the FG is sourcing considerable current for the oscillations, and is in series with the main battery. SO the total voltage between the Q2 source and drain is 72+20 = 92 volts, or would be if the circuit was open. Now short-circuit the Q2. We still have the 50R series impedance of the FG and the 11R of the load, so the most current that will flow through the FG is still 92/61 = quite a bit less than 2 amps.
Now...of course.... when I was driving a load with essentially zero resistance and a lot of inductive reactance with her circuit and the mosfets shorted from reflected power.... THEN my FG WAS placed in the primary current loop and the full 72 volts of the battery supply I was using was placed across the FG's output without the restriction of a load resistance ... briefly. And the expected result resulted as expected. Unfortunately this fast voltage rise and current surge exceeds the power dissipation ratings of my F43's output transistors, which as .99 has shown, are also in this FG output loop. Therefore they (or rather one of them) failed, causing the FG's line fuse to blow.
However this mode of "operation" has not ... except for one time that we know about ... been applied by Ainslie to her circuit. (Remember the cluster of reports "batteries catch fire", "apparatus still not working", "function generator replaced", "two mosfets replaced" etc.)
Interestingly, in my recent AC/DC coupling demonstration, one can see the very same voltage floor effect happening. The supply voltage is 12 volts, but the gate never goes more than half a volt on either side of +4 volts. (Or, to put it another way, the _source_ voltage varies by half a volt around -4 volts wrt the gate.) The gate charge reservoir capacitor cannot charge much over 4 volts before the relay actuates and removes the charge path and establishes the discharge path... and when the cap voltage drops a bit below 4 volts and the mosfet, falling through its linear conductance region, turns off and the relay relaxes, the charge path is reestablished and the voltage rises to just over 4 volts and the mosfet turns on again and the relay actuates...... The oscillation mechanism is essentially the same as in the Ainslie circuit, just in the NERD circuit the capacitances are much much lower (therefore things happen faster). The important point is that the gate-source voltage difference cannot go far from 4 volts, even though the supply is 12 volts--- or 24 or 48, etc. because when the mosfet turns on the gate voltage falls below 4 v and the mosfet turns off again allowing the gate voltage to rise above 4 v .....
TK,
Possibly we were cross posting. My second post explains the AC current path...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 03, 2012, 11:45:18 AM
TK,
Possibly we were cross posting. My second post explains the AC current path...
PW
Yep.
I've avoided discussion of the capacitances passing the AC-- because Ainslie has absolutely NO understanding of capacitors, what they are, how they work, or how they are used in a circuit. She grasps -- barely -- that they are energy storage devices and can be used like a battery... but as far as storage of energy in electric fields, displacement currents, AC passing and DC blocking.... filtering, RLC circuits, all of that..... she wasn't in school the month they covered capacitors in her "circuits devices and systems" class.
If you think the operation of transistors and inductors and test equipment gets mangled by the Ainslie shredder brain, wait until you start trying to discuss capacitors and capacitance with her. She does not even grasp DC circuit behavior with a single loop and only a resistor, much less AC with capacitors and multiple paths.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 11:52:22 AM
Yep.
I've avoided discussion of the capacitances passing the AC-- because Ainslie has absolutely NO understanding of capacitors, what they are, how they work, or how they are used in a circuit. She grasps -- barely -- that they are energy storage devices and can be used like a battery... but as far as storage of energy in electric fields, displacement currents, AC passing and DC blocking.... filtering, RLC circuits, all of that..... she wasn't in school the month they covered capacitors in her "circuits devices and systems" class.
If you think the operation of transistors and inductors and test equipment gets mangled by the Ainslie shredder brain, wait until you start trying to discuss capacitors and capacitance with her. She does not even grasp DC circuit behavior with a single loop and only a resistor, much less AC with capacitors and multiple paths.
TK,
Yes, as I said in an earlier post, I doubt she will allow herself to ever grasp the DC conditions when Q2 is turned on, let alone understand the AC conditions. However, as one of the posters "over there" asked a question regarding how it is possible she can claim Q2 is somehow floating or disconnected from the battery during the oscillations, I thought any readers from "over there" might appreciate an explanation of the "mysterious" AC and DC current paths.
Possibly .99 could post the explanations over there for Greg, with any modifications he deems appropriate.
PW
Ah yes, the first chink in the armour appears: Ainslie claims the Q2 source is "floating" without understanding that that term has a precise technical meaning which she is not respecting, or, if she IS using it in its precise technical meaning, is simply WRONG yet again.
And her current builder is asking questions about it and challenging her on it.
And there will be more questions as his work continues. I can't wait to see what happens when he tries to repeat that 12 volts to the gate of Q1 without having any current flowing through it.
Here is the schematic for "Manny" the manual mosfet relay driver/oscillator, so far, as developed and demonstrated in the last several videos. I am really lousy at schematic layout; it is really not as complicated as it looks. I hope I've drawn it out correctly, at least.
I hope it is clear to the readers what I am doing here.
By using a double-pole double throw relay and the correct reservoir capacitor and charging-discharging trimpots, one can use this circuit to control another circuit that requires alternate application of voltages at long arbitrary duty cycles.
In other words, I have again implemented one of the suggested means of driving the NERD circuit without the use of an expensive and delicate FG or even a mysterious 555 timer, to produce both the Q1 ON high heat mode and the Q2 magic oscillation modes of operation, with virtually any duty cycle desired, for about 12 dollars in parts. That is, I am still doing the NERD "team's" homework for them and publishing it freely as it happens.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 03:06:33 PM
Here is the schematic for "Manny" the manual mosfet relay driver/oscillator, so far, as developed and demonstrated in the last several videos. I am really lousy at schematic layout; it is really not as complicated as it looks. I hope I've drawn it out correctly, at least.
I hope it is clear to the readers what I am doing here.
By using a double-pole double throw relay and the correct reservoir capacitor and charging-discharging trimpots, one can use this circuit to control another circuit that requires alternate application of voltages at long arbitrary duty cycles.
In other words, I have again implemented one of the suggested means of driving the NERD circuit without the use of an expensive and delicate FG or even a mysterious 555 timer, to produce both the Q1 ON high heat mode and the Q2 magic oscillation modes of operation, with virtually any duty cycle desired, for about 12 dollars in parts. That is, I am still doing the NERD "team's" homework for them and publishing it freely as it happens.
Hi TK,
The relay your showing as a SPDT is that correct ? Most have c-face (common) NO NC contacts .... I could be wrong though ;)
Fuzzy
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 03, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
Hi TK,
The relay your showing as a SPDT is that correct ? Most have c-face (common) NO NC contacts .... I could be wrong though ;)
Fuzzy
Yes, the relay that is controlling the charge, discharge cycle is SPDT, with the NO contact the discharge and the NC contact the charge. I know this makes the relay coil active most of the time and "off" in very short bursts as the cap charges quickly, and that wastes power, but it is the simplest way to do it. If I were building this for an application I'd invert the signal to the relay coil with a 2n2222a and swap the ch-disch contacts around; that way the relay coil would be OFF most of the time and save power.
I may try that anyway on the board if there is room.
ETA: I meant that to control the NERD circuit, you'd put another relay in with a DPDT contact set, or use a TPDT relay in the first place, with one pole doing the feedback switching and the other two controlling the NERD circuit.
Like this:
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 03:57:45 PM
Yes, the relay that is controlling the charge, discharge cycle is SPDT, with the NO contact the discharge and the NC contact the charge. I know this makes the relay coil active most of the time and "off" in very short bursts as the cap charges quickly, and that wastes power, but it is the simplest way to do it. If I were building this for an application I'd invert the signal to the relay coil with a 2n2222a and swap the ch-disch contacts around; that way the relay coil would be OFF most of the time and save power.
I may try that anyway on the board if there is room.
ETA: I meant that to control the NERD circuit, you'd put another relay in with a DPDT contact set, or use a TPDT relay in the first place, with one pole doing the feedback switching and the other two controlling the NERD circuit.
Like this:
I took the liberties to modify your schematic to what I think you are doing ..... it's early and I need more coffee ::)
Using the output from a power mosfet to switch a 2n2222a is not the silliest thing I've thought of today, but it's close. I'll see if I can get it to work just for the lulz.
:P
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 03, 2012, 04:24:39 PM
I took the liberties to modify your schematic to what I think you are doing ..... it's early and I need more coffee ::)
Not quite, but almost.
The C or movable contact of the relay is connected to the 33 uf Cap, and the NC contact is connected to the charging trimpot. In other words, you have the head of the arrow on the wrong end of the line.
Sorry I'm such a lousy sketcher.
Have another cup of coffee, on me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 04:28:56 PM
Not quite, but almost.
The C or movable contact of the relay is connected to the 33 uf Cap, and the NC contact is connected to the charging trimpot. In other words, you have the head of the arrow on the wrong end of the line.
Sorry I'm such a lousy sketcher.
Have another cup of coffee, on me.
It's not so bad .... just confused me for a second ..... maybe longer ;)
You got it now.
Just to be clear, in the picture, there is no connection of the red wire from the CHG trimpot directly to the green Gate wire that winds around the top of the relay. It's just an illusion of perspective; the green gate wire is well below the red wire connected to the NC relay contact up top.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 03, 2012, 09:39:18 AM
Wow, so she is now saying that these circuits are not correct? Circuits that she has argued on her behalf? This just gets weird.
Mags
Like fishing for eels with a coarse net, Magsy.
It is impossible for her to say, " I knew about the Q1-Q2 difference on xx date" and prove it. The only proof we have is that she DID know about it after April 19th.
And yet another quote of hers taken from "over there":
"I am not altogether sure that picowatt has proved anything at all. He's alleged that our MOSFET's are BLOWN. We PROVE that they're not. Our little TK's argument DEPENDS on pure ALLEGATION. Which at best is irrelevant. Certainly it's a contemptible practice when it's applied to SCIENCE."
You PROVE nothing. This is not an allegation. It is an obvious fact. Something is amiss with Q1 in FIG3 and FIG7.
In FIG 3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the FG channel is indicating that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on. However, during that same portion of the cycle, no significant current flow is indicated by the CSR trace as one would expect if Q1 were turned on.
This can only mean that Q1 is defective, is disconnected, or is not connected as per the provided schematic.
As well, in FIG 7, during the same positive portion of the FG cycle, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn on Q1, and again, no expected current flow is observed at the CSR.
In FIG 5, only +5 volts or so is being applied to the gate of Q1, yet, as one would expect, there is substantial current flow indicated by the CSR. All is just as would be expected if Q1 is functioning and connected as per the schematic.
So why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?
Defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic, those are the ONLY possible explanations as to why no expected current flow thru Q1 is observed in FIG3 and FIG7.
The reader must choose which possibility is most likely, as the author of the paper refuses to even acknowledge the issue, let alone respond intelligently to it. To date she refuses to even accept the gate voltage reading provided by her own 'scope.
Heh... I see that I have a 10V tantalum in Manny instead of a 25V.
That's because I like to live dangerously. Anyone else should use a 25 volt tantalum here, just in case.
8)
@PW: it all depends on which schematic is "the" schematic, doesn't it? Eels in a net.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 05:28:33 PM
Heh... I see that I have a 10V tantalum in Manny instead of a 25V.
That's because I like to live dangerously. Anyone else should use a 25 volt tantalum here, just in case.
8)
When tants go bang, they make an ugly dark black skinny trail of smoke like "stuff" that rises upwards.
Tants are VERY sensitive to overvoltage...
PW
Howdy members and guests,
There are some things that some of you might have missed here for the
"FULL" picture of which schematic was used where and the ramifications of the YouTube video made ......
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 03, 2012, 05:15:20 AM
Howdy members and guests,
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2012, 04:21:40 AM
And Guys,
Here's yet another answer. This time related to our 'schematic' which MOST ASSUREDLY was NOT correct. But there is nothing in the history of these threads of mine or threads about me and our work - that requires the KIND of disclosure that TK seems to think that I am beholden to given him. Frankly - neither he nor anyone of those who contribute so diligently here - can demand ANYTHING AT ALL of me in the light of their multiple and legal abuses of calumny malice and slander.
..... snip rubbish .....
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Here is the posting from poynt99 with the confrontation on the claimed COP>INFINITY device operation schematic with the shown as built.
Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Quote from: poynt99
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094) Reply #682 on: April 19, 2011, 08:01:26 AM
Well, this is terribly embarrassing; According to their published circuit diagram, simulation diagram, and the demonstration video, Rosie-posie and her team of "experts" has not only incorrectly labeled two of the nodes on the prototype board (the F and C are incorrectly swapped), but they have connected mosfets 2-5 incorrectly as well (the Gate and Source pins are incorrectly swapped, but M1 is all correct). It is not surprising however that her "experts" didn't catch this big "OOOPS" when they were repairing the unit.
This would explain the somewhat funky wave forms, and why the simulation results look slightly different.
This sure doesn't instill much confidence in anyone following along with this travesty, especially when considering the entire project is already teetering on the brink of self-destruction. A rhetorical question or two; So what are we now to make of all those posted wave forms and so-called measurements? Are the probes even displaying the circuit nodes we have been led to believe they are displaying?
That aside, as a gesture of good faith Rosie-posie, may the world please see that properly-conducted continuous operation test? I'm afraid it's the only way you're going to prove to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that your claims are true.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282102/#msg282102 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282102/#msg282102) Reply #685 on: April 19, 2011, 09:05:14 AM
You've got a long wait Poynty Point. LOL. All I concede is that there is - indeed - a modification to the positioning of the Gate and Source pins. We made full disclosure - but I was rather hoping you'd try those replications - and then explain what was required. It would have been a delicious opportunity to 'teach' you as I'm rather sick of being 'taught'. But be that as it may. The results persist. It's an advantageous arrangement - AND - you see for yourself - it gives us an oscillation that is EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL. That's all that matters.
I will admit that I did not expect you to pick up on this. LOL. I just wondered how you managed all those Spice replications. I had an idea you must have seen this then.
Take care Poynty. I admit to being trumped.
Rosie-posie.
Rosemary's quote of "We made full disclosure"was never done and no link providing proof has been provided by Rosemary prior to the above posting by poynt99 on April 19, 2011
After the proof in the above postings what Rosemary did isn't scientific misconduct bordering on outright fraud, in my opinion it's crossed that boundary.
FTC
Please see the attached postings of Rosemary and "NOTE" the date ....... March 18, 2011
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271) Reply #124 on: March 18, 2011, 09:56:29 AM
Quote from: neptune
Hi Rosemary , your eyesight sounds no better than mine . I have only one eye that works , and last week while mending a puncture in my bike , I managed to Glue it shut! All sorted now . There was a a couple of things you said in your last reply that I did not understand . You said "there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor ." I take it you mean the load resistor , but I thought it was nickle chromium wire on a glass or ceramic core . Are you now saying it has an iron core? Also , not sure what you meant by "try to keep a threaded rod of sorts " Please tell me if and when you have time . Looking forward to the video on Monday , or whenever .
Just a small point from the demo report on your blog .At the lowest driver frequency , you talk about the gate being Negative for 2.7 minutes . If we assume a low duty cycle of , say ,10% on , that means the actual switching frequency is one cycle every2.97 minutes .I know that you said that the effect is not frequency dependent but , boy , is that slow!
Hi Neptune. We have a standard immersion heater type element. I'll try and get a photo of this from my early shots. The wire is threaded inside the rod.
Regarding the frequency. We have some variation when we go into 'heavy duty mode' with the frequency. But that zero discharge number from the batteries - that is as steady as a rock at just about any and every frequency. We took it to its slowest possible to test this. And yes - it oscillates without any evident variation for 3 minutes. I agree. It's wierd.
Kindest
Rosemary
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/ (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/) ( th_DSC00173-1.jpg )
And this one dated ..... April 18, 2011
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282023/#msg282023 (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282023/#msg282023) Reply #673 on: April 18, 2011, 10:03:06 AM
Quote from: happyfunball
What was in the canister? A powered heating element, or was it simply siphoning off heat, and was it submerged? If so, was the water temperature shown in the video? I see a fluke measuring resistor temperature, are they related? Kind of confusing.
Happy read the report. I'll post a link again. I'll also try and find a picture of that element resistor. It was not in water. It was in the canister to conform to the control tests.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html)
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/52167/ (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/52167/) ( DSC00173-1.jpg )
Please, now look at the attached photographic images that were referenced in the two postings of Rosemary's ......
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/ (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/) ( th_DSC00173-1.jpg ) March 18, 2011
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/52167/ (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/52167/) ( DSC00173-1.jpg ) April 18, 2011
Please, now look at Rosemary's Blog site referenced in the "first" posting the day after the COP>INFINITY circuit demonstration 12 March 2011 ......
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html) " #89 - report on the tests for the demo held today " Sunday, March 13, 2011 at 12:50 AM
Please, now look at the YouTube video http://youtu.be/fyOmoGluMCc (http://youtu.be/fyOmoGluMCc) " of the COP>INFINITY "Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 March 2011" the video device doesn't match the photographic images posted by Rosemary on March 18th or April 18th or match the description at the Blog site posted on March 13th. There is also no mention of any changes to the COP>INFINITY device in any of the postings I refer to directly from Rosemary.
I repeat my observations what Rosemary did isn't scientific misconduct bordering on outright fraud, in my opinion it's crossed way over that boundary.
FTC
???
Well, to be completely fair... for there to be scientific misconduct, Science has to be involved somewhere. I don't believe what Ainslie has presented quite qualifies.
Is there such a thing as pseudoscientific misconduct? If so, Ainslie has committed it.
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker.... I did it, I went ahead and added a 2n2222a inverter relay driver stage and swapped the relay function NC and NO leads, so now the relay is only pulled in (coil actuated) during the charge time, not the discharge time, and with the time constants I'm using that is much more efficient, as the charge portion is very short, in the "fixed" position of S1. When S1 is in the L position the pot with the knob controls both charge and discharge rates as usual.
So now Manny has a power mosfet driving an NPN transistor stage driving a relay driving the power mosfet, in a three-element feedback loop.
:P
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 09:00:28 PM
Well, to be completely fair... for there to be scientific misconduct, Science has to be involved somewhere. I don't believe what Ainslie has presented quite qualifies.
Is there such a thing as pseudoscientific misconduct? If so, Ainslie has committed it.
:P
Yep .... your right and I had to much coffee to make a proper judgement in the applicable required mandatory terminology that suites this situation, yours is much better ;)
Hi Guys and guests,
Here's a little challenge for our little TK,
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2480.html#msg2480
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 01:44:58 AM
Hi Guys and guests,
Here's a little challenge for our little TK,
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2480.html#msg2480 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2480.html#msg2480)
Regards,
Rosemary
Little Miss Mosfet, you are getting far behind on the little challenges. You have been prevaricating for far too long. When are you going to deal with the issues, like the lies you have been posting about my work lately: the false claim that I ever implied that 400 volts or 8 amps would have to pass through your function generator, and the false claim that I used "negative voltage to the gate" of the Altoid single mosfet circuit. What about it, Ainslie, you cannot just make false claims like that and get away with it.
You also are continuing to make false claims in your posted "publication" and you are continuing to mislead your builder as to the true nature of affairs regarding your experimental procedures and circuit performance.
And you have yet to deal with the issue that PW is raising, and that .99 raised as well so long ago:
In PW's words
Quote
In FIG 3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the FG channel is indicating that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on. However, during that same portion of the cycle, no significant current flow is indicated by the CSR trace as one would expect if Q1 were turned on.
This can only mean that Q1 is defective, is disconnected, or is not connected as per the provided schematic.
As well, in FIG 7, during the same positive portion of the FG cycle, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn on Q1, and again, no expected current flow is observed at the CSR.
In FIG 5, only +5 volts or so is being applied to the gate of Q1, yet, as one would expect, there is substantial current flow indicated by the CSR. All is just as would be expected if Q1 is functioning and connected as per the schematic.
So why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?
Defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic, those are the ONLY possible explanations as to why no expected current flow thru Q1 is observed in FIG3 and FIG7.
The reader must choose which possibility is most likely, as the author of the paper refuses to even acknowledge the issue, let alone respond intelligently to it. To date she refuses to even accept the gate voltage reading provided by her own 'scope.
Challenge, Ainslie? You are far FAR behind, while I've been doing your homework for you for the past several months. Look at all the things I've accomplished that you SHOULD HAVE DONE LONG AGO, like gathering all your scopeshots together and making them available in one place, or like developing the 555 timer version, the continuous oscillation version, the battery bias version, done capacitor tests, battery trials, ENERGY INTEGRALS, all of it, and you've done NOTHING but bloviate and lie and mislead, strewing about multiple different versions of circuits, failing to correct and retract errors, and finally SENDING OFF YOUR APPARATUS to parts unknown... and you expect it back in four days.
You are challenged, all right, mentally and physically, and you aren't up to competing in the real world at all.
Because, you see, what you ask for in your "little challenge" has already been done, many times, in my videos and demonstrations, by .99 in his simulations, and can be done by anyone who tries for themselves. Not the ridiculous 8 amps that you CLAIM falsely, but the normal up to 200 mA or so that we have always been telling you about. It's been done with digital meters, an analog moving coil meter, and by viewing the voltage drop across a CVR in series with the FG's output, and also by using the sim scope current monitor. You are simply wrong in your assertion and your "challenge" is as dried up and out of date as you and your moldy old cheese.
Hi Little TK
Here's another answer for you.
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2484.html#msg2484
And yet another quote from her:
"You will recall that both TK AND picowatt CLAIMED that the function generator was responsible for supplying all that extra energy to the circuit?"
And yet again she demonstrates either ignorance, her inability to read, or her desire to apply her "spin" to what others write.
First, what "extra energy" is she talking about? Second, anyone would be hard pressed to find any instance where I claimed that the function generator was responsible for "all that extra energy to the circuit".
She is very good about complaining about others not providing complete quotes of hers when they are being discussed, while she herself continues to just make things up about what others say.
.
Interesting reading:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
A quote from the above link:
"Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.
It differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ â€" which just means that one is unaware of something â€" in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them. Indeed, calling someone “ignorant†shouldn’t really be a pejorative, but intentional and willful ignorance is an entirely different matter.
In practice though, the word “ignorance†has often come to mean “willfull ignoranceâ€, and indeed, in many non-English languages, the word based on the same stem actually mean “willfull ignoranceâ€.)
Depending on the nature and strength of an individual’s pre-existing beliefs, willful ignorance can manifest itself in different ways. The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and/or reasonable opinions if they fail to meet one’s expectations. Often excuses will be made, stating that the source is unreliable, that the experiment was flawed or the opinion is too biased. More often than not this is simple circular reasoning; “I cannot agree with that source because it is untrustworthy because it disagrees with meâ€.
In other cases, slightly more extreme cases, willful ignorance can involve outright refusal to read, hear or study in any way anything that does not conform to the person’s worldview. With regard to oneself, this can ever extend to fake locked-in syndrome with complete unresponsiveness. Or with regard to others, to outright censorship of the material from others. "
Hi Guys,
I've answered picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 03:28:49 AM
And yet another quote from her:
"You will recall that both TK AND picowatt CLAIMED that the function generator was responsible for supplying all that extra energy to the circuit?"
And yet again she either demonstrates either her ignorance, her inability to read, or her desire to apply her "spin" to what others write.
First, what "extra energy" is she talking about? Second, anyone would be hard pressed to find any instance where I claimed that the function generator was responsible for "all that extra energy to the circuit".
She is very good about complaining about others not providing complete quotes of hers when they are being discussed, while she herself continues to just make things up about what others say.
And now she claims that zippons are actually Higgs bosons and that she feels that she was way ahead of CERN in proving their existence.
...here
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2485.html#msg2485
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 03:39:59 AM
Hi Guys,
I've answered picowatt
...here
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2485.html#msg2485
In a very similar fashion as to how you make things up as to what I claim...
Just as I cannot find a quote where you made that claim, you cannot find a quote where I made the claim you attribute to me in your recent post.
And note, as I actually have a conscious that dictates ethical behaviour, and even though I thought "making up" the claim about you stating "zippons were actually Higgs bosons" was rather humorous, I had to delete it. Unlike you, misquoting or misrepresenting what other say goes against my upbringing...
So, how are your retractions/corrections regarding your Q1 not functioning or being wired as per the schematic in FIG3 and FIG7 coming along?
Have you had a chance to read my posts discussing Q2 bias current and how AC current flows in your circuit?
Are you able to grasp any of it?
Howdy members and guests,
It appears that Rosemary maybe adding wording to your postings that isn't your words and are hers, please see the unedited quote below.
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 03:28:49 AM
And yet another quote from her:
"You will recall that both TK AND picowatt CLAIMED that the function generator was responsible for supplying all that extra energy to the circuit?"
And yet again she demonstrates either ignorance, her inability to read, or her desire to apply her "spin" to what others write.
First, what "extra energy" is she talking about? Second, anyone would be hard pressed to find any instance where I claimed that the function generator was responsible for "all that extra energy to the circuit".
She is very good about complaining about others not providing complete quotes of hers when they are being discussed, while she herself continues to just make things up about what others say.
.
The attached image has a statement outlined in red that possibly was added is " And now she claims that zippons are actually Higgs bosons and that she feels that she was way ahead of CERN in proving their existence." ???
The adding of wording to postings from Rosemary is from sheer desperation of failure and has happened to me several times thats why I take "screen shot" images of my postings just because of what shes done to me by adding or changing my posted words. >:(
BEWARE !!!!FTC
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 04, 2012, 04:40:19 AM
Howdy members and guests,
It appears that Rosemary maybe adding wording to your postings that isn't your words and are hers, please see the unedited quote below.
The attached image has a statement outlined in red that possibly was added is " And now she claims that zippons are actually Higgs bosons and that she feels that she was way ahead of CERN in proving their existence." ???
The adding of wording to postings from Rosemary is from sheer desperation of failure and has happened to me several times thats why I take "screen shot" images of my postings just because of what shes done to me by adding or changing my posted words. >:(
BEWARE !!!!
FTC
Not at all FTC, I did indeed have that quote up for a few minutes. I was attempting to humorously demonstrate how it feels to be misquoted or misrepresented.
But, as I said in my following post, I just couldn't do it. It felt too much like stooping to her level.
Besides, she has now thanked me for pointing out the Higgs boson to her and is apparently going to run with it as part of her thesis...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 04:50:48 AM
Not at all FTC, I did indeed have that quote up for a few minutes. I was attempting to humorously demonstrate how it feels to be misquoted or misrepresented.
But, as I said in my following post, I just couldn't do it. It felt too much like stooping to her level.
Besides, she has now thanked me for pointing out the Higgs boson to her and is apparently going to run with it as part of her thesis...
PW
Sorry, I get very touchy when I see wording from someone else's that was there, changed or missing.
As I posted this happened to me before from Rosemary and others.
FTC
;)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 04, 2012, 05:03:11 AM
Sorry, I get very touchy when I see wording from someone else's that was there, changed or missing.
As I posted this happened to me before from Rosemary and others.
FTC
;)
FTC,
Yes, that seems to be her SOP... misquote or misrepresent what others say.
Just as she got on you the other day for not putting up a full quote of her's or some such thing, when, afterall, you even posted a link to the full text from which you took the quote.
She, on the other hand, feels free to make wildly false claims of statements or assertions by others with no quote or source info whatsoever.
And, by the way, after reading her blog #89 that you put up and referenced a few posts back, I do not believe her story regarding the true schematic for the March demo. After reading that blog post, I do not think they realized the MOSFETs were wired incorrectly. Her story after .99 called her on it seems like she was just in "cover your ass" mode.
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 03:39:59 AM
Hi Guys,
I've answered picowatt
...here
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2485.html#msg2485
And for the record, you answer nothing.
For going on four months I have been asking why is Q1 not turnng on in FIG3 and FIG7. You have never even answered this simple and obvious question, that all who look at those figures should ask.
In FIG3, for example, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, +12 volts IS indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. Yet the CSR trace does not indicate the current flow expected if Q1 were turned on. A similar observation can be made from FIG 7.
In FIG5, all is as it should be, Q1 turns on when the FG output is +5 volts or so.
Q1 must be defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic in FIG3 and FIG7. There can be no other possible explanation.
Note that the mean for FIG5 is not negative, but it is for FIG3 and FIG7. From this, one might even be led to believe Q1 was intentionally disconnected, particularly in light of your refusal to address the issue.
You will not even take the time to verify the reading on your 'scope with LeCroy, as it would negate your argument regarding the 'scope being read incorrectly.
So, what is YOUR answer to the question, "why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3 and FIG7?"
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 05:46:43 AM
FTC,
Yes, that seems to be her SOP... misquote or misrepresent what others say.
Just as she got on you the other day for not putting up a full quote of her's or some such thing, when, afterall, you even posted a link to the full text from which you took the quote.
She, on the other hand, feels free to make wildly false claims of statements or assertions by others with no quote or source info whatsoever.
And, by the way, after reading her blog #89 that you put up and referenced a few posts back, I do not believe her story regarding the true schematic for the March demo. After reading that blog post, I do not think they realized the MOSFETs were wired incorrectly. Her story after .99 called her on it seems like she was just in "cover your ass" mode.
PW
Talk about CYA and spin.... now she's got Yet Another Rationalization for her egregious misconduct around the circuit and the discussions.... 450 or more comments between 22 March and 18 April 2011 ... that took place concerning the WRONG, significantly wrong, schematics that had been claimed at that time.
Take a look at this bunch of mendacity and spin:
Ainslie said,
QuoteHi Guys,
It seems that apart from the usual invective and bluster our Little TK has NO ANSWER? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?
Lie, Lie, Lie, but never notice that you have indeed been answered and your little bogus "challenge" has been met many times long ago over and over by many people using multiple hardware methods and instruments and even simulations. You lie when you claim that I have no answer; the answer has been given. YOU, however, lying Little Miss Mendacious Mosfet, have NO ANSWERS for the many important questions that have been asked of you lately... and for the past decade or more.
Quote
He DENIES that he ever claimed that the function generator was responsible for all that energy.
That is right, Ainslie, I deny that I ever claimed that. And you cannot CITE ANY PLACE WHERE I DID. So you are lying, yet again, with every post you make.
"All that energy".... all WHAT energy? You have energy from your battery, and you have energy from the function generator during the oscillations. Neither of them is "all that", that YOU have claimed. You don't know what you are talking about.
Quote
He CLAIMS that I EVER referred to what he calls his ALTOID test. (That name's to shake loose from the stigma of 'The Tar Baby)
First, TAR BABY and ALTOID are separate creations. TAR BABY is a duplicate of your OWN NERD CIRCUIT. There is no STIGMA attached to Tar Baby or the name itself, except that it shows that you are a racist and an ignorant fool.
Second, Altoid is the ONLY "single mosfet" circuit that I have worked with, and to which you HAVE INDEED referred many times. YOU LIE AGAIN, Ainslie, Liar. YOU CLAIMED IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT I USED NEGATIVE GATE SIGNAL TO MAKE THE OSCILLATIONS IN THE SINGLE MOSFET CIRCUIT: ALTOID. That was a lie that I have refuted with a scopeshot PROVING your lie, and you just brush it off, never mentioning it again.
You are such a baldfaced liar that you even LIE ABOUT YOUR LIES.
Quote
He ALLEGES that we made false claims in our published papers.
5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours, Ainslie. Boiling water, Ainslie. Those are just two; there are many many more. If you wish to dispute the "allegations" that those claims are false... then DO SO, with facts and outside references. YOU CANNOT. You have indeed made many false claims AND I CAN PROVE IT, and have done so over and over. Your bogus calculations are everywhere. The "no energy discharged from the battery" when your own scope shots show a decrease in battery voltage and a large current flow.... your continuing lies run throughout your "papers".
Quote
He ALLEGES that we're misleading our members.
And so you are, by, for example, that very post, and others, where you MISREPRESENT the work that I am doing and you MISREPRESENT AND LIE about the comments that others, like PW are making. IN addition, your claims about running your circuit on a 555 timer and making the oscillations are also outright lies.
Quote
He ALLEGES that there are still unanswered questions raised by picowatt and Poynty Point.
Also a very true allegation. There certainly are MANY unanswered questions that you continue to dodge from both of those persons, as well as from me. Why don't you ANSWER? It is because you cannot, without admitting that you have nothing and are nothing.
Quote
He ALLEGES that he's found nothing of interest in any replications and circuit variants other than the miracle of his messy builds.
You are indeed an idiot. The only thing of real scientific interest in this whole affair is the remarkable depth and development of your delusional system and your textbook presentation of the Dunning - Kruger syndrome. And the "messy build", AINSLIE, is what makes your "oscillations" possible in the first place. A properly laid out power mosfet arrangement WILL NOT OSCILLATE, you insulting idiot with no technical skills at all.
Quote
And FINALLY he ALLEGES that I keep mouldy old cheese. LOL. Not sure that's entirely relevant - but he's right. I do. I LOVE mature cheeses.
Actually I am ALLEGING that YOU ARE a moldy old cheese, Ainslie, all dried out cracked and withered with your sour bitterness and mendacious stench.
Quote
Anyway. And so it goes. Spin, and more spin and yet more spin. The poor readers there are mesmerised by the sheer confusion of his argument. And they keep hoping - somewhat absurdly - that TK is ACTUALLY supporting over unity. It's comical. And it's sad. Both. Meanwhile, for the record - there was an UNEQUIVOCAL ALLEGATION by picowatt (the picointellect with picoaccrditation) and by TK (the pickle of no mean dimensions) that energy was discharged from the battery through the Gate of Q1 to the Source Leg of Q2 - alternatively from the Source leg of Q2 to the Gate Leg of Q1 - on numerous occasions.
THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
GIVE THE REFERENCE AINSLIE. POST A LINK TO THE PLACE WHERE EITHER OF US SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Of course the AC can pass the gate capacitance but that is not what you are talking about, you are simply misquoting and LYING about it again, responding to your hallucinations and your shallow lack of understanding of what is going on. You have no idea what you are talking about and since you DON'T BOTHER TO READ THE WORDS, you just look at the shapes, it's no wonder that you remain so willfully ignorant.
QuoteAnd the former 'path' enabled through the terminal and probe of our function generators. LOL. For some reason he's no longer arguing this. Can't think why. It dominated whole chapters of his absurd thread.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
What are you talking about, you confused hallucinator? My argument re the FG has NOT CHANGED, neither, as far as I can see has PWs. YOU LIE AGAIN.
Notice that Ainslie NEVER provides references for any of the outrageous claims and misquotes and misrepresentations of the statements and work of others. It is because SHE CANNOT SUPPORT HER ALLEGATIONS, they are simply sheer lies.
Hi Guys,
Please refer to this link written in answer to picowatt's last post.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2487.html#msg2487
Regards,
Rosemary
Ainslie said,
QuoteHe CLAIMS that I EVER referred to what he calls his ALTOID test. (That name's to shake loose from the stigma of 'The Tar Baby)
Yes, that's right, Ainslie. I CLAIM YOU DID REFER TO THE ALTOID, and not only that you LIED ABOUT IT to your readers and have not corrected your lies.
To wit, you twit:
QuoteGuys - I've yet again been advised to stay away from this thread. It's really achieving absolutely NOTHING - and I know this.
In any event just let me explain this much. TK is WELL able to get that oscillation from Q2 with a CONTINUAL NEGATIVE SIGNAL applied to the gate. As are we And that's only with the use of Q2. IF there's a continual negative charge - and YET there's an oscillation - then he's yet to explain how the battery discharges current NOTWITHSTANDING the restriction imposed at the gate of the transistor - from that negative voltage signal applied. Remember that each positive half of each of those oscillations represents the current flow from the battery supply. So. Where is the path for that? Certainly not across that gate.
It's absurd that they pretend to have the answers. They're nowhere near. Nor are we. But we at least have a consistent argument proposed for consideration.
Regards,
Rosemary
Let me add this while I can still modify this post. I'm referring to the circuit that he uses with just one MOSFET. Hope that's clearer.
Again
R
Emphasis in the original, actually, Ainslie: You are talking about ALTOID.
Yes, Ainslie, liar, it is clear that you are referring to the only circuit I've shown that uses just one mosfet and that makes your oscillations. But it doesn't do it the way you MENDACIOUSLY CLAIM that it does, as I have proven with the scopeshot.
NOW, you liar, I Again demand that you retract this claim and correct it ON YOUR FORUM so that your builders can know the truth and so that you do not continue to MISLEAD THEM with your lies and false claims.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
Hi Guys,
Please refer to this link written in answer to picowatt's last post.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2487.html#msg2487
Regards,
Rosemary
Silly me, I actually thought you were finally going to answer just about the very first question I ever asked you, which is "why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?".
But instead, just more childish gibberish. You sully Rossi's work by association.
This is pointless. You either refuse to learn, are unable to learn, or are textbook "willfully ignorant". These are the only options I can derive from your responses. Again, the reader will have to choose which is most likely.
Hopefully, by now, you have attracted enough attention to this thread from your posts over there that the readers there have visited here and acquired a better understanding of how both you, and your circuit, actually operate.
Ainslie said, lying:
QuoteMeanwhile, for the record - there was an UNEQUIVOCAL ALLEGATION by picowatt (the picointellect with picoaccrditation) and by TK (the pickle of no mean dimensions) that energy was discharged from the battery through the Gate of Q1 to the Source Leg of Q2 - alternatively from the Source leg of Q2 to the Gate Leg of Q1 - on numerous occasions.
Not ACTUALLY, Ainslie, you blind bloviating idiot. You are once again posting nonsense and lies.
What is UNEQUIVOCALLY TRUE is that the "Gate of Q1 to the Source Leg of Q2" are PHYSICALLY CONNECTED BY WIRES, and that the "Source leg of Q2 to the Gate Leg of Q1" are the SAME WIRES in the other direction.
When, for goodness sakes, will you EVER learn to read a simple circuit diagram?
Or are you now CHANGING THE SCHEMATIC YET AGAIN without telling anyone? That would explain a lot.... and it would also continue to illustrate your boundless mendacity.
Ainslie said,
QuoteTK (the pickle of no mean dimensions)
Well... since Ainslie is so obsessed with the dimensions of my pickle, I'll let her have this closeup image of my pickle of no mean dimensions.
I wear size 12 shoes, and my glove size is Extra Large, and my hat size is 7 3/4, and I weigh 182 pounds.
Are there any other of my dimensions that you wonder about, in the sweltering South African nights when you can't sleep, Ainslie?
QuoteWhat is UNEQUIVOCALLY TRUE is that the "Gate of Q1 to the Source Leg of Q2" are PHYSICALLY CONNECTED BY WIRES, and that the "Source leg of Q2 to the Gate Leg of Q1" are the SAME WIRES in the other direction.
Laugh or cry?
One thing for certain, is that for months and months Rosemary has been unable to compose a few sentences that make sense when she tries to discuss the gates and sources of Q1 and the Q2 array and mysterious interconnection between the two. It's like it's a mental block or something. Does not compute.
Blame it on the INDUCTIVE LAWS or the zipon-synapse interactions or Rosemary's Uncertainty Principle.
You may have seen the Johnny Depp movie Ed Wood. There is something Ed Woodsian about the whole thing. Surrealistic zipon.
Go ask Rosie, when she's ten feet tall.
MileHigh
Laugh, I think. She is a laughingstock and doesn't even realise it.
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker.....
I believe it was PW who most recently pointed out that the input capacitance Ciss of an IRFPG50 mosfet is 2800 picoFarads, according to the data sheet. So four of them in parallel would have a total Ciss of 11,200 picoFarads. That's not chopped liver; rather it is a relatively substantial capacitance.
And of course "everybody" knows, don't they, that capacitors block DC but "allow" AC to pass. At least perhaps they have heard this rumored, even if they didn't believe it. Perhaps they even have a cloudy idea of just what "AC" really is, that prevents them from being able to understand concepts that require a CLEAR understanding of AC currents and the changing voltages from which they arise.
And perhaps some of these people are still in denial about the capabilities and functions of a function generator, or its role in the Ainslie NERD circuit, or the consequences of that role.
Some might consider that the following little video addresses some of these issues, and in fact soundly refutes some contentions, once again, that Ainslie has made about her circuit, about mosfet capacitances, about function generators, about AC power, and about my work.
And some might just bloviate with pages of irrelevancies, seeking to bury this little video under the usual pile of Ainslies.
Capacitors.... How do THEY work ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-5UPbSrv8
Rose said, "Guys - I've yet again been advised to stay away from this thread. It's really achieving absolutely NOTHING - and I know this.
Well she certainly doesnt listen to her "advisers" ;] Why would she listen to the likes of us. And she says she knows it is really achieving absolutely nothing, yet the continued posting shows otherwise. ;] She doesnt even follow what she really knows.
Oh, she must have not used the spell check again, " picoaccrditation"
Has she shown her own "accrditation"'s? ;]
Mags
TK,
As you can see from a repeat of my earlier post below, I was generous and only used 2000pF per MOSFET as the gate to source capacitance. This varies with applied voltage a bit, but 2000pF is probably close to or less than the actual amount.
It is not just 4 MOSFET capacitances in parallel, it is all 5. Draw two caps onto the NERD circuit. One is a 2000pF cap between Q1's gate and source. The second cap is an 8000pF cap (4X2000pF) drawn between Q2's gate and source.
If you now look at the NERD schematic with these two caps drawn in, you will see that both caps are in parallel with the FG terminals, allowing AC current to flow directly to the CSR via the MOSFET capacitances, which total 10,000pF in this instance, and possibly as much as 12.5nF or even a bit more).
As I say below, at 1.5MHz, the reactance of 10nF (10,000pF) is approx. 10 ohms. So this represents a 10 ohm path for AC currents from the Q2 source directly to the CSR. The harmonics of the oscillation will, of course, see an even lower impedance path. The second will see 5 ohms, the third 3.3 ohms, etc.
(If 2.8nF per MOSFET is used, these numbers drop to fundamental=7.5ohms, second=3.8ohms, third=2.5 ohms)
When Q2 is biased on, its DC bias current flows ONLY thru the FG, the CSR and to the battery negative.
AC current, when Q2 is oscillating, flows thru BOTH the FG and thru the MOSFET capacitances, with the MOSFET capacitances being the lower impedance path of the two. Both paths then flow thru the CSR and to the battery negative.
(The above assumes the FG common is actually connected to the CSR as per the paper's schematic and not to the battery negative)
So, as you can see, there is no mystery at all as to how more AC current is able to flow than one would expect if only the Rgen=50R path is considered. There are two paths for AC. The FG AND the MOSFET gate to source capacitances.
Once this is accepted, then Coss must as well be considered. But that can come later.
PW
(And no, this is not a new position, I stated this way back in the locked thread. But then, as now, it fell on her deaf ears.)
Quote from: picowatt on July 03, 2012, 10:47:21 AM
And in continuation, again here is her quoted response:
"On the whole I agree with this. But there's a small distinction. The function generator can ONLY pass current to and from the plug that powers it. It can only INDUCE current elsewhere. The distinction is critical. Our oscillation is able to induce upwards of 8 amps. There are at LEAST R50 Ohms in series with its probe and terminal. Therefore. In order to deliver 8 amps the function generator would need to find that energy from a voltage upwards of 400 volts. Frankly if any function generator delivered even half that amount of energy it would be deemed to be catastrophically compromised and would be sent off for repair. It's ABSURD to suggest that the function generator is responsible for that level of current flow. And its absurdity is ever greater as we can only measure a maximum of 6 volts AC from its signal. Therefore not only is the proposal that the function generator is responsible for this extra energy - theoretically IMPROBABLE - it is also lacking in MEASURABLE EVIDENCE."
Her argument that the FG cannot pass all of the observed AC current is quite sound. Any DC or AC current flow thru the FG to the CSR will be limited by the 50 ohm resistor in the FG's output path.
But, as I am apparently psychic, I explained the major AC curret path in my reply #3573.
There is approximately 2000 to 2500pF of capacitance between the gate and source of an IRFPG50 MOSFET. If one looks carefully at the circuit schematic, it will be apparent that all 5 of the MOSFET's gate to source capacitances are electrically connected in parallel and provide a path for AC current flow directly to the CSR.
These 5 parallel gate to source capacitances, totaling 10,000 to 12,500uF (10 to 12.5nF) provide an AC current path directly across the FG's output terminals allowing AC current to bypass the FG.
(If you draw in an 8000pF cap between the source and gate of Q2, and another 2000pF cap betwee the source and gate of Q1, representing the MOSFET gate to source capacitances, this will be more easily visualized in the schematic)
If the oscillation were a pure sine wave, this 10nF or so of capacitance has a reactance at 1.5MHz of approximately 10 ohms. This means that not only is there an AC/DC path of 50 ohms thru the FG, there is also an AC only path in parallel with the FG output terminals equal to 10 ohms.
So, for AC currents at 1.5MHz (of a pure sine), there is a 50 ohm path in parallel with a 10 ohm path, or approximately an 8 ohm path, from the source of Q2 to the CSR.
It must be noted that the observed oscillation is not a pure sine. Although its fundamental may be approximately 1.5MHz, there is a large amount of observed harmonic distortion. An FFT of the oscillation signal would show that there is a substantial amount of even and odd harmonics present, with the third harmonic likely being the most significant. These harmonics are higher in frequency than the fundamental (they are, afterall, "harmonics") and to these harmonics, the 10nF effective capacitance across the FG terminals represents a much lower impedance path to the CSR than it does at the fundamental frequency.
Any second harmonic present in the oscillation waveform will see the reactance of the 10nF capacitance across the FG terminals as though it were a 5 ohm resistor. For any third harmonic present, this path would equate to a 3.3 ohm resistor.
It should be appreciated, therefore, that although the DC and AC current that can flow thru Q2 and the FG is limited by the FG's internal 50 ohm resistor, the gate to source capacitance of the five MOSFET's, being electrically connected in parallel across the FG output terminals, provides a very significant low impedance path for AC current flow thru Q2 to the CSR.
Somethings odd with her always only providing answers via having to go to here site, when they could simply be posted here.
Probably so she can edit them as she pleases later to CHA. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 04, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
Somethings odd with her always only providing answers via having to go to here site, when they could simply be posted here.
Probably so she can edit them as she pleases later to CHA. ;]
Mags
She can not only edit and censor, but she has explicitly excluded "some" of us from registering or commenting at all.
Not only that, but her continued posts and links here are also deliberate "Honeytrap" attempts to garner IP addresses and whatever other information can be obtained from your browsers.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 04, 2012, 03:52:10 PM
She can not only edit and censor, but she has explicitly excluded "some" of us from registering or commenting at all.
Not only that, but her continued posts and links here are also deliberate "Honeytrap" attempts to garner IP addresses and whatever other information can be obtained from your browsers.
Ah, the honeytrap. But which IP is who, as in just guests? Does she just wait for the few guests that arrive after posting answer links here, and put them on a list?
Mags
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
TK,
As you can see from a repeat of my earlier post below, I was generous and only used 2000pF per MOSFET as the gate to source capacitance. This varies with applied voltage a bit, but 2000pF is probably close to or less than the actual amount.
It is not just 4 MOSFET capacitances in parallel, it is all 5. Draw two caps onto the NERD circuit. One is a 2000pF cap between Q1's gate and source. The second cap is an 8000pF cap (4X2000pF) drawn between Q2's gate and source.
If you now look at the NERD schematic with these two caps drawn in, you will see that both caps are in parallel with the FG terminals, allowing AC current to flow directly to the CSR via the MOSFET capacitances, which total 10,000pF in this instance, and possibly as much as 12.5nF or even a bit more).
As I say below, at 1.5MHz, the reactance of 10nF (10,000pF) is approx. 10 ohms. So this represents a 10 ohm path for AC currents from the Q2 source directly to the CSR. The harmonics of the oscillation will, of course, see an even lower impedance path. The second will see 5 ohms, the third 3.3 ohms, etc.
(If 2.8nF per MOSFET is used, these numbers drop to fundamental=7.5ohms, second=3.8ohms, third=2.5 ohms)
When Q2 is biased on, its DC bias current flows ONLY thru the FG, the CSR and to the battery negative.
AC current, when Q2 is oscillating, flows thru BOTH the FG and thru the MOSFET capacitances, with the MOSFET capacitances being the lower impedance path of the two. Both paths then flow thru the CSR and to the battery negative.
(The above assumes the FG common is actually connected to the CSR as per the paper's schematic and not to the battery negative)
So, as you can see, there is no mystery at all as to how more AC current is able to flow than one would expect if only the Rgen=50R path is considered. There are two paths for AC. The FG AND the MOSFET gate to source capacitances.
Once this is accepted, then Coss must as well be considered. But that can come later.
PW
(And no, this is not a new position, I stated this way back in the locked thread. But then, as now, it fell on her deaf ears.)
Right....thanks for reminding me that all 5 Ciss capacitances are actually in parallel. Your numerical analysis is right on, but I doubt particularly that things like Fourier decomposition are within the pale of discussion.
In my little video I simply wanted to illustrate that a capacitance on the order of that in Ainslie's mosfets could indeed pass substantial AC power at the frequency of the Ainslie oscillations. Ciss, but also KISS, you know.
And of course that the FG itself is a substantial source of power.
And also that the capacitor would be a solid block to DC. That could be illustrated better by using the series battery to put a large DC offset on the FG signal, then showing the scope trace with and without the series capacitor. Do you think that a demonstration like that would be of any use, or that it would relate to any of the topics we have recently discussed?
Quote from: Magluvin on July 04, 2012, 04:00:05 PM
Ah, the honeytrap. But which IP is who, as in just guests? Does she just wait for the few guests that arrive after posting answer links here, and put them on a list?
Mags
Sure, all visitors IP addresses are always logged anyway, with timestamps, in the server logs, if the sysop is savvy.
And she knows certain things about some of us... or thinks she does anyway. Like I'm in Canada, or maybe Texas. So despite her inability to put two and two together and obtain four, it's possible for her ... with considerable assistance from her ten-year-old neighbor, probably ... to gather a bit more information about those persons who keep hacking her computers and rifling her flash drives for all that incrimin8ing d8a.
But we wouldn't want to make things any easier for her by talking about it. So shhhhh !!
:-X
And really, it's not a honeytrap. More like a moldy cheese trap, actually. Still attracts flies, but they don't get any honey, just bad smelling slimy old rotten goat's milk cheese.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 04, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
Sure, all visitors IP addresses are always logged anyway, with timestamps, in the server logs, if the sysop is savvy.
And she knows certain things about some of us... or thinks she does anyway. Like I'm in Canada, or maybe Texas. So despite her inability to put two and two together and obtain four, it's possible for her ... with considerable assistance from her ten-year-old neighbor, probably ... to gather a bit more information about those persons who keep hacking her computers and rifling her flash drives for all that incrimin8ing d8a.
But we wouldn't want to make things any easier for her by talking about it. So shhhhh !!
:-X
And really, it's not a honeytrap. More like a moldy cheese trap, actually. Still attracts flies, but they don't get any honey, just bad smelling slimy old rotten goat's milk cheese.
TK,
I would not even consider visiting that site without a ten foot or longer pole...
PW
Quote from: Magluvin on July 04, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
Somethings odd with her always only providing answers via having to go to here site, when they could simply be posted here.
Probably so she can edit them as she pleases later to CHA. ;]
Mags
Her "forum" is more like her personal blog. She enjoys being able to misrepresent and misqute posters from here and put her spin on it to meet her agenda.
What she probably doesn't realize is that with all her commentary, Doggerel, and nonsense technical discussion aimed at posters here, she is merely instilling curiousity in her readership (however small that is) and likely directing them to seek out ths forum to see what is going on. So, in the end, any cross readership from there will likely get to choose between her nonsense and the more technically sound discussions here.
I am anxious to see what Chess is working on. I only hope that her presence over there , her silly Doggerel, her lack of technical skills, and her nonsensical postings do not tarnish the credibility of his efforts by association.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 05:09:55 PM
TK,
I would not even consider visiting that site without a ten foot or longer pole...
PW
Maybe a giant pickle would work better. It's what I use, since Ainslie is so fascinated with them.
Meanwhile.... Testing Kontinues.
Capacitors.... how do they WORK, anyway? And what are they good for, huh?
In the next little video that no one will watch, I illustrate several things of interest: how a function generator's output can be placed in series with a 12-volt lead acid battery and the combination used to light up a tungsten bulb to white-heat, through a capacitor with just the FG's contribution or directly with both the battery and the FG contributing power to the bulb. That is, I illustrate the capacitor filtering out a 12 volt DC offset while simultaneously passing current that is going through a battery and coming FROM a function generator to light up a light bulb with considerable power.
In other words, I once again soundly refute an inane and asinine claim of willfully ignorant overweeningly arrogant Rosemary Ainslie.
And... in more than passing, at the end.... there is a little topical surprise, that some may have already anticipated.
(just for reference I here include the specific quote from Ainslie):
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
(sic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
If you now look at the NERD schematic with these two caps drawn in, you will see that both caps are in parallel with the FG terminals, allowing AC current to flow directly to the CSR via the MOSFET capacitances, which total 10,000pF in this instance, and possibly as much as 12.5nF or even a bit more).
PW
(And no, this is not a new position, I stated this way back in the locked thread. But then, as now, it fell on her deaf ears.)
Back when I got the simulation producing the correct wave forms after the cross-wiring discovery, the only remaining "problem" was that my FG Rout had to be relatively small. It worked ideally at 2 or 4 Ohms, not 50.
I knew there was a low-impedance path missing somewhere, and I want to thank picowatt for bringing this missing AC path to light.
I had suspected the MOSFET models were perhaps the cause, and when I checked yesterday, it surely does appear they are. Here is a quote right from the text in the pspice model for the IRFPG50:
Quote* The voltage-dependent capacitances are
* not included.
From the datasheet, we can see that Ciss is minimum (2800pF) at slightly over 20V V
DS. Any lower than 20V and Ciss increases. C
GS (Gate-to-Source Capacitance) makes up about 95% of Ciss.
.99
Hah.... good find .99.
So I think I can guess what you are doing right now....
putting in the capacitances as discrete components to see the result in the sim, right ?
;)
Did it yesterday, 2800pF each side. Rgen=50 Ohm.
Works now, but the turn ON and OFF of the burst envelope are much slower, so I have to lengthen the run time.
:D
Quote from: poynt99 on July 04, 2012, 07:13:21 PM
Back when I got the simulation producing the correct wave forms after the cross-wiring discovery, the only remaining "problem" was that my FG Rout had to be relatively small. It worked ideally at 2 or 4 Ohms, not 50.
I knew there was a low-impedance path missing somewhere, and I want to thank picowatt for bringing this missing AC path to light.
I had suspected the MOSFET models were perhaps the cause, and when I checked yesterday, it surely does appear they are. Here is a quote right from the text in the pspice model for the IRFPG50:
From the datasheet, we can see that Ciss is minimum (2800pF) at slightly over 20V VDS. Any lower than 20V and Ciss increases. CGS (Gate-to-Source Capacitance) makes up about 95% of Ciss.
.99
.99,
That is amazing that you found that line regarding Cgs in your Spice description, and that you actually looked/new where to look for it. Great sim skills!
It would indeed be quite interesting to see if adding discrete caps as per TK's comments would allow you to acheive osc with Rgen=50R in your sims.
I was being generous when using 2nF per MOSFET, using 2.6 to 2.8nF is probably a bit more realistic. Using 2.7nF per MOSFET, the five in parallel would have a reactance at 1.5MHz of 7.86R. That 7.86R in parallel with the Rgen=50R would provide a 6.8 ohm path for an AC sine at the fundamental of 1.5MHz.
But again, it must be kept in mind that the oscillation is not a pure sine so harmonics will see an even lower impedance thru Cgs. Half, third, fourth, fifth, etc.
If you are going to try the sim with the caps added, please keep us updated. I always enjoy your sim work!
Can you do FFT's of waveforms in sim?
PW
.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 04, 2012, 07:31:53 PM
Did it yesterday, 2800pF each side. Rgen=50 Ohm.
Works now, but the turn ON and OFF of the burst envelope are much slower, so I have to lengthen the run time.
:D
.99,
Dang cross posting. So, you beat us all to the punch line. Always gotta' save that punch line to the very end.
So, are you saying that the burst envelope of the sim is slower than the NERD waveforms?
Next question, can you tell what values are being used for Coss in the MOSFET sims?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on July 04, 2012, 07:31:53 PM
Did it yesterday, 2800pF each side. Rgen=50 Ohm.
Works now, but the turn ON and OFF of the burst envelope are much slower, so I have to lengthen the run time.
:D
.99,
Is this sim your single MOSFET burst osc or the NERD circuit?
What freq of osc did you end up with?
PW
I hope Rosie Posie is taking notes! lol
It's still drilled into me. The impedance of a capacitor at zero Hz is infinity. The impedance of a capacitor at infinity Hz is zero.
What is it.... Impedance = 1/(j * omega * C) = - j/(omega * C).... something like that? Multiply by j/j.
Great show guys.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on July 04, 2012, 07:31:53 PM
Did it yesterday, 2800pF each side. Rgen=50 Ohm.
Works now, but the turn ON and OFF of the burst envelope are much slower, so I have to lengthen the run time.
:D
.99,
It looks like you should also have about 140pF gate to drain and about 110pF drain to source if you want to try putting Coss in there (if it isn't already) to see how that performs. The Coss components are involved in feedback.
Coss is specified to =250pF
Coss=Cgd+Cds 5% of Ciss=Cgd=140pF, Cds=250-140=110pF
PW
ADDED: It's a shame you can't model the voltage dependency of these capacitances. Or can you?
As can be seen, once Vds falls below the knee in the graph .99 posted, Coss/Ciss change rapidly. In particular, Coss changes rapidly with respect to Ciss. During large signal swings that may drop Vds below the knee, these values modulate with signal and complicate AC analysis (particularly wrt feedback mechanisms). If Vbatt is high enough (and/or signal swing low enough) to keep Vgs above the knee, it's a little less so.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 04, 2012, 08:35:47 PM
I hope Rosie Posie is taking notes! lol
It's still drilled into me. The impedance of a capacitor at zero Hz is infinity. The impedance of a capacitor at infinity Hz is zero.
What is it.... Impedance = 1/(j * omega * C) = - j/(omega * C).... something like that? Multiply by j/j.
Great show guys.
MileHigh
Didn't you notice? At one point in my recent demo, the first Cap one I think, the bulb is _brighter_ when connected through the cap than it is when connected directly through the positive bus, with no changes to the FG setting, which is running at something around (secret frequency redacted).
Therefore.... free energy: the cap has _negative impedance_, sucking them zipons from the blogosphere of the Ainsliebrain to light a 3 Watt bulb to about the same brilliance as.... well, as the Ainsliebrain. Three Watts. Or three Joules rather, since 1 Watt = 1 Joule in the Ainsliebrain.
All I need is a million dollars to develop this negative impedance effect in poly caps into a commmercially viable product. Applications would include brighter car lights, faster microwave ovens, and even water pumps in the third world. I've patented the idea but allowed the patent to lapse so that everyone can know what a hero I am. But it's hard to find academics or replicators with the sufficient knowledge enough and picoqualtificiations and Etch-a-Sketch oscilloscopes who simultaneously are stupid enough to fish for that carp.
.whoops. I posted when I shouldn't.
R
Quote from: MileHigh on July 04, 2012, 08:35:47 PM
I hope Rosie Posie is taking notes! lol
It's still drilled into me. The impedance of a capacitor at zero Hz is infinity. The impedance of a capacitor at infinity Hz is zero.
What is it.... Impedance = 1/(j * omega * C) = - j/(omega * C).... something like that? Multiply by j/j.
Great show guys.
MileHigh
Seriously now... thanks for bringing this up, MH.
Inductors of course behave in the inverse manner. So as one sweeps frequency for a given combination of capacitance C and inductance L, the inductive reactance will go one way and the capacitive reactance the other way, and there will be some frequency when the total reactance is minimized and the most power can be transferred through the LC network.
This is what I meant in the first cap video when I said that there was a frequency at which the cap seemed almost transparent to the AC power... but I was neglecting to mention the inductances, since I had not yet put them into my physical model.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 09:10:16 PM
.whoops. I posted when I shouldn't.
R
Starting about ten years ago.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 09:10:16 PM
.whoops. I posted when I shouldn't.
R
Ain't that the truth...
I was looking on YouTube and there is lots more instructional material on capacitors and related as compared to a few years ago. There are lots of serious teaching clips done on a blackboard and some computer whiteboard stuff also. I am trying to find the one clip that would be the sweet spot for here but no luck so far.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 04, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
I was looking on YouTube and there is lots more instructional material on capacitors and related as compared to a few years ago. There are lots of serious teaching clips done on a blackboard and some computer whiteboard stuff also. I am trying to find the one clip that would be the sweet spot for here but no luck so far.
Are you saying that my two capacitor clips aren't "serious" enough for here? I'm crushed. I realise that I am pitching them more at the level of EF, but come on.... don't you think that the illustration of AC coupling using the external capacitor was at least frank, if not solemn or completely serious?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 09:10:16 PM
.whoops. I posted when I shouldn't.
R
Whew, good thing she stopped her self just in time, err, almost. Just a lil cheese on the honey trap. Most posts previous had links. I suppose she almost dropped a link to a new post over there. But she put on the brakes before letting it slip.
I guess we will never know. ;]
Mags
Thats just wrong M. ;)
Mags
TK:
Your clips are great. I used the term "serious" for the academic clips I was sampling - too much math. You position your clips at the right level.
I found a good clip that's long but well done. Perhaps it will get through to Rosemary.
Newbies might want to check this one out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMH8wKK-Ag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMH8wKK-Ag)
MileHigh
Hi guys,
Here's the update...
Not very interesting - but NOR are these last few pages.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2493.html#msg2493
Regards,
Rosemary
edited
corrected the link
@All,
Some time ago I recall that there was discussion regarding the inductace of the CSR (Rshunt) used in the NERD circuit. In the "paper" it is stated to be 110nHy.
Was this determined to be correct?
That's seems like a rather large amount of L to have to correct for regarding the observed current thru Rshunt at 1.5MHz.
So, what was decided, is 110nHy the value to use?
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 04, 2012, 11:18:03 PM
Hi guys,
Here's the update...
Not very interesting - but NOR are these last few pages.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2493.html#msg2493 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2493.html#msg2493)
Regards,
Rosemary
edited
corrected the link
BuurrrrrP! She couldnt hold it in any longer. Using Tor browser, well, not much to see.
Mags
And guys,
Here's an update that I trust will be of extreme interest to you all.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2495.html#msg2495
Quote from: Magluvin on July 04, 2012, 10:04:16 PM
Whew, good thing she stopped her self just in time, err, almost. Just a lil cheese on the honey trap. Most posts previous had links. I suppose she almost dropped a link to a new post over there. But she put on the brakes before letting it slip.
I guess we will never know. ;]
Mags
Nah, it's just more mendacity, misrepresentation, and error. Same stuff different day. Or is it always the same day, mannnn....
Her builder has already told her that this present circuit isn't worth looking at, only the earlier Quantum circuit is of any significance, he believes. And he's sure that he's going to use driver chips for his mosfet..... and I am laughing, ho ho ho.
Then, she refers to her blog post where she says that there is an error in the schematic IN THE BLOG POST ITSELF, nowhere else, and promises to post the correct one "tomorrow"... but of course she never does. The blog post itself contains two schematics: the single mosfet one that is CLEARLY not the one used in the demo, and the 5 mosfets in strict parallel from a simulation program, apparently. NEITHER OF WHICH IS CORRECT. And... when she then refers to the "paper" for the correct schematic.... and then when the papers came out the papers contained two different schematics, NEITHER of which corresponded exactly to the Demo device (location of FG black lead). See below, and the blog post she references. Nowhere that I can find is a clear retraction of incorrect diagrams and an unequivocal posting of the correct one, and the blog post most definitely does NOT support the contention that the Q1-Q2 wiring error was known to her at that time.
Finally, the Ains-lies continue as she misrepresents and lies about the recent discussions here. Again, pulling values out of her hallucinations that we here have never espoused at all. And not a peep about the Q1-no-current issue or the FG current issue or the repeated lies about my work or the capacitor AC current path in her circuit.... just more lies and bloviation.
A quote from her from over there:
"But the charm of this new circuit is that it shows that COP Infinity number with unerring regularity. And that's certainly not an acceptable measurement."
You are 100% correct, "that's certainly not an acceptable measurement". You have managed to make a reading on a 'scope indicate a negative mean power measurement, without taking lead inductace into consideration. You have shown no proof of COP=infinity, by any acceptable definition.
And one more quote"
"Everyone trying very hard to convince themselves that the capacitance associated with our MOSFETs are able to GENERATE about 10 amps x >72 volts of energy onto our circuit."
This sentence either indicates you have no idea what is being discussed, or that your technical writing skills are atrocious, or possibly both. "GENERATE" and "onto", what on Earth are you talking about? Keep that spin coming, all surely see right thru it.
As we have been discussing the low impedance AC path during the oscillation phase (which apparently you do not find interesting), I assume you are saying that in one of the captures 10amps of AC current is indicated. Please reference a figure, I see no such amount.
But, the bulk of the AC current that is flowing during the oscillation phase, does indeed flow thru the total parallel capacitances of all five of the MOSFET gate to source capacitances. If you could follow along, and as it pertains to your circuit, you might actually find it interesting.
'Tis a pity...
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 11:32:27 PM
@All,
Some time ago I recall that there was discussion regarding the inductace of the CSR (Rshunt) used in the NERD circuit. In the "paper" it is stated to be 110nHy.
Was this determined to be correct?
That's seems like a rather large amount of L to have to correct for regarding the observed current thru Rshunt at 1.5MHz.
So, what was decided, is 110nHy the value to use?
PW
Well, it was measured on their inductance meter, a reasonably good one, better than mine for sure. I thought it was implausible for a while but that was because I was being misled by my meter, which doesn't like resistive inductors at all.
Several people suggested to her the correct way to construct a very low inductance CVR back in the day, Cheeseburger/humbugger for example, even including part numbers and construction drawings. Other people have used low inductance CVRs in there, and so did I when I switched to a single 0.2 ohm commercial CVR in Tar Baby, but not nearly as low as the ones Fuzzy has used or that Cheeseburger had suggested.
I used that value for my spreadsheet calculations when I was still using the 4, 1R sand resistors like she was using, IIRC, among other values as well.
It's a convenient value, though, because, as I recall, at the Ainslie operating frequencies the CVR's total impedance actually came out fairly close to 1 Ohm, if I did the math right, and so one could use the voltage drop in volts directly as the current reading in Amps.
TK,
If you caught my earlier post regarding the Rshunt L in the NERD circuit, was it decided that 110nHy was the value to use? (as stated in the "paper")
If so, when reading current off the 'scope, Rshunt would be closer to .96 to 1R at the osc fundamental. I am trying to find a capture demonstrating 10amps of AC current as she apparently claims.
I can't find a capture showing 10amps even if .25R is used as Rshunt (AC or DC).
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 12:30:31 AM
Well, it was measured on their inductance meter, a reasonably good one, better than mine for sure. I thought it was implausible for a while but that was because I was being misled by my meter, which doesn't like resistive inductors at all.
Several people suggested to her the correct way to construct a very low inductance CVR back in the day, Cheeseburger/humbugger for example, even including part numbers and construction drawings. Other people have used low inductance CVRs in there, and so did I when I switched to a single 0.2 ohm commercial CVR in Tar Baby, but not nearly as low as the ones Fuzzy has used or that Cheeseburger had suggested.
I used that value for my spreadsheet calculations when I was still using the 4, 1R sand resistors like she was using, IIRC, among other values as well.
It's a convenient value, though, because, as I recall, at the Ainslie operating frequencies the CVR's total impedance actually came out fairly close to 1 Ohm, if I did the math right, and so one could use the voltage drop in volts directly as the current reading in Amps.
xposting again I see...
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 12:20:45 AM
Her builder has already told her that this present circuit isn't worth looking at, only the earlier Quantum circuit is of any significance, he believes. And he's sure that he's going to use driver chips for his mosfet..... and I am laughing, ho ho ho.
Not actually. It's a subject under discussion. Here's the link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg2490.html#msg2490
Regards,
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 05, 2012, 12:35:33 AM
Not actually. It's a subject under discussion. Here's the link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg2490.html#msg2490
Regards,
Rosie Pose
It appears that she is not the only one over there that has no idea how the common gate configured Q2 operates in her circuit.
No mention of bias, linear operation, or negative voltage on the source of Q2 to bias it on.
And, apparently G has yet to look at FIG3 and FIG7 and realize that something is amiss with Q1. +12 volts to its gate and no current flow? How can that be? Is Q1 faulty, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic?
He apparently does understand the common source configuration, so maybe he will see it sooner or later.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 05, 2012, 12:20:25 AM
And guys,
Here's an update that I trust will be of extreme interest to you all.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2495.html#msg2495 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2495.html#msg2495)
Uh-oh. Picowatt, you are in big trouble now. Listening in on Ainslie's private conversations and posting the details... that's a no-no, and it was too bad you got caught when you played back what you had recorded so she could hear it. The police will be investigating, and she KNOWS who you are !!
If I were you, I'd... I'd..... why, I suppose I'd laugh, like I'm doing anyway.
I told you you should have used a pickle.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 12:51:12 AM
Uh-oh. Picowatt, you are in big trouble now. Listening in on Ainslie's private conversations and posting the details... that's a no-no, and it was too bad you got caught when you played back what you had recorded so she could hear it. The police will be investigating, and she KNOWS who you are !!
If I were you, I'd... I'd..... why, I suppose I'd laugh, like I'm doing anyway.
I told you you should have used a pickle.
Did I miss something?
Quote from: picowatt on July 05, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
TK,
If you caught my earlier post regarding the Rshunt L in the NERD circuit, was it decided that 110nHy was the value to use? (as stated in the "paper")
If so, when reading current off the 'scope, Rshunt would be closer to .96 to 1R at the osc fundamental. I am trying to find a capture demonstrating 10amps of AC current as she apparently claims.
I can't find a capture showing 10amps even if .25R is used as Rshunt (AC or DC).
PW
Almost all of the screenshots that I've been able to find are in the downloads section of this forum in a big zipfile. Many of them are the full-resolution .bmp (or converted to .jpg) screensaves directly from the scope; only a few are copypasted from images of images. And contrary to Ainslie's paranoid claim, I found every single one of them in forum or blog posts of her own posting; they have all been released by Ainslie herself to the public as part of this open source project. (Insert tongue-in-cheek emoticon here.) If I could "rifle" things from people's flash drives on the other side of the planet... well, let's just say I'd be using that talent for obtaining something other than a little old lady's fantasy delusions.
Anyhow, the zipfile might be useful to you, and I also have a few more that I found later that didn't make it into the current release yet. They are also posted on a page at MrSean2k's,
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
But none of them show 10 amps in the CVR for any duration that I have found.
Unless you count SCRN0235, which appears to show some very fast spikes that reach 10 amps for nanoseconds but do not persist. This is one of the very few trials that uses the full 6 battery pack and also uses significant Q1 ON time... during which current DOES flow, and when it shuts off the large 10 amp spike appears.
However, the melted battery clips that she showed along about the time of the battery fire and the acknowledged blown mosfets.... I'll bet there was a ten amp surge that time, for sure.
ETA: I see that the spikes have a negative excursion as well, and the full spike appears to span 35 volts p-p on the CVR trace. Lol.
I'm not concerned about a 35 ampere spike that only lasts a few tens of nanoseconds.
TK,
So, what do you think about using an efficient PWM servo to force an identical load to follow the temp profile of the DUT load?
I am considering this as a defintive means to measure efficiency. PWM freq could be set similar to the DUT period, sans the osc. Loads would have fairly high thermal leak to keep them both at 100C or less so that precision temp sense IC's can be used for temp inputs.
The bulk of the work would be in confirming that the loads are identical, the temp sensors track accurately, and that the servo response is sufficient to follow various complex load profiles applied to the DUT load.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 05, 2012, 01:17:03 AM
TK,
So, what do you think about using an efficient PWM servo to force an identical load to follow the temp profile of the DUT load?
I am considering this as a defintive means to measure efficiency. PWM freq could be set similar to the DUT period, sans the osc. Loads would have fairly high thermal leak to keep them both at 100C or less so that precision temp sense IC's can be used for temp inputs.
The bulk of the work would be in confirming that the loads are identical, the temp sensors track accurately, and that the servo response is sufficient to follow various complex load profiles applied to the DUT load.
PW
It sounds basically like a good idea, if a lot of trouble. I'd do something like that as a second or perhaps third stage investigation, before I got ready to stick the whole thing into the Mother Of All Calorimeters, which is occasionally available. I like the idea of tracking variations and correcting automagically, but it would be more programming than I'm willing to do, even though I know a thirty-dollar Arduino could easily do it, with its own onboard PWM driving an amp stage.
To first order though, I'd just use the actual same load in the same leaky container and run straight DC against the NERD circuit with filtered average input power being equated and the NERD mosfets fan-cooled for stability, in a randomized sequence of runs, say 5 in each condition in random order, and I'd look at the time-temperature to equilibrium as data. You'll then get a family of curves that look like those I've already shown for the COP>17 circuit and the decision should be easy. If this result is ambiguous and can't be fixed or if the NERD circuit looks more efficient at heating the load, then more serious (and strenuous and rigorous) investigation should be undertaken. However, in a case with as little face validity as this one, there is much reason to doubt the whole story and so the first calorimetry might as well be coarse and easy, yet good enough for a "go-nogo" decision on further work to be made.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 01:33:25 AM
It sounds basically like a good idea, if a lot of trouble. I'd do something like that as a second or perhaps third stage investigation, before I got ready to stick the whole thing into the Mother Of All Calorimeters, which is occasionally available. I like the idea of tracking variations and correcting automagically, but it would be more programming than I'm willing to do, even though I know a thirty-dollar Arduino could easily do it, with its own onboard PWM driving an amp stage.
To first order though, I'd just use the actual same load in the same leaky container and run straight DC against the NERD circuit with filtered average input power being equated and the NERD mosfets fan-cooled for stability, in a randomized sequence of runs, say 5 in each condition in random order, and I'd look at the time-temperature to equalibrium as data. You'll then get a family of curves that look like those I've already shown for the COP>17 circuit and the decision should be easy. If this result is ambiguous and can't be fixed or if the NERD circuit looks more efficient at heating the load, then more serious (and strenuous and rigorous) investigation should be undertaken. However, in a case with as little face validity as this one, there is much reason to doubt the whole story and so the first calorimetry might as well be coarse and easy, yet good enough for a "go-nogo" decision on further work to be made.
TK,
Programming? I am an analog guy. Analog servo, just need to get the loop response reasonable. Let the loads do a bit of thermal integration to slow needed response time and allow minimal servo overshoot/best damping. Probably could easily track within +/- 1C, possibly half that. Swap loads and verify loads are matched and your off and running.
PW
Greg said,
QuoteI am approaching this with an open mind without any forgone conclusions on my part. I intend to demonstrate the simple "Power In" vs. "Power Out" aspect of things but I will do so without ANY assumptions being made about ANYTHING, ANYWHERE.
I believe an untapped source of energy exists with this, which is why my associates and I have just spent several hundred dollars for an experimental setup to prove it is so ... not to disprove it.
Facepalm.
LOL picowatt
Quote from: picowatt on July 05, 2012, 01:39:04 AM
DELETED to increase fear factor!!
Are you referring to this? That 'thing' that you thought you missed? That you then found and printed? And then deleted again? Under the spurious excuse of it increasing the 'fear factor'?
Quote from: Rosie on July 05, 2012, 12:11:53 AM
Ever onward...
What intrigues me is the level of protest that accompanies my posts - elsewhere on the internet. I'm hounded by some dedicated players that - on the face of it - spend their every waking moment in attempting to DEFEAT the evidence that we show of COP infinity. I've mentioned this before. It's somewhat excessive. If indeed, our thinking is wrong - then this will be disproved, in short order. But the fact is that the evidence only ever continues to SUPPORT the claim. Thus far the trick has been to DIMINISH that evidence and confuse our poor public - with a welter of utterly irrelevant comment. But their best efforts are entirely discounted when one applies nothing more complicated that simple logic. All that ponderous - obscure - ridiculously pretentious 'science' that they bandy around - is poor substitute for clarity of argument and basic simple good sense. In any event, what IS as clear as daylight is their anxious refusal to discuss the 'thesis' which is measured as marginally MORE frantic in not being spoken - as their tedious technical discussions - which ARE spoken. Now. Here's an account of a really interesting telephonic discussion that I had with one of my collaborators. They're given in their correct order - but they're not the full conversation.
I heard a series of of 'clicks' and could no longer hear my collaborator. Then I heard a replay of an earlier statement of mine which somehow came back 'out of the blue' so to speak. Someone was not only listening but had actually taped the conversation.
Me > I think we're being listened to
C > ... (something indiscernible)..heard the word 'bugged'
Me > Yes I think there's someone listening in
C > Did you hear they've found the Higgs Boson?
Me > Yes. I think it's our zippon - out of its field condition
C > ... (something indiscernible)
Me > I'll get back to you. We're being overheard
C > ...(still couldn't hear him)
Me > *** I'll get back to you.
Which was when I ended that phone call.
At the time I was logged onto TK's thread. I refreshed and saw that picowatt had posted stating 'now she's claiming that she found the Higg's Boson in advance of CERN.' I copied and commented and posted on our thread. I copied the link to TK's thread. Then picowatt edited out the 'Higgs Boson' reference. Then Glen Lettenmaier (FTC) applied his rather ponderous intellectual machinations and assumed I'd invented that comment. And THEN - surprisingly - picowatt admitted he'd written it.
And here's my question. Outside of that single comment to my friend - I had NEVER written nor mentioned this. True I'd always assumed it. It is a miracle of somewhat improbable co-incidence - that picowatt could EVER have seen the argument related to Higgs Boson IF he did not know the thesis BACKWARDS or ELSE he had been listening to our conversation. I'm not prepared to speculate. I'll leave it to our own police to see if they can uncover anything at all. The good news is that I KNOW who picowatt is. If they need to investigate they'll possibly get to the appropriate source. But I believe on the whole - that phone tapping is just as illegal as is the public disclosure of information that HAS NOT BEEN PUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. (TK I trust you and Sean are reading here.) And the only reason that I'm mentioning all this is to show you all that my delusions of paranoia are heavily supported by the an almost freakish consistency in co-incidence and evidence that somehow leaks out - all over the place. And it's a paranoia that is also supported by the evidence of some serious efforts at destroying my good name. And my point is this. There is an almost frantic need to keep silent on the theoretical aspects of this technology. I'm well aware of the reason for this. I'm not so sure that you, dear readers - are quite so aware of these reasons. And that's why I've decided to start this thread. Let the chips fall where they may.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Rosie Pose
Hi Members and guests,
Have you all noticed that the "QUOTE" links that Rosemary crosses over from one FORUM to another purposely don't work or take you where the original posting is quoted. :o
This is very un-professional to not reference "QUOTES" links properly and keep postings error free .... but what else is new everything she posts has massive ERRORS. ::)
Here's just a few examples ..... ???
FTC
:P
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 05, 2012, 11:11:24 AM
LOL picowatt
Are you referring to this? That 'thing' that you thought you missed? That you then found and printed? And then deleted again? Under the spurious excuse of it increasing the 'fear factor'?
Rosie Pose
Not at all. Sorry you missed it!
In the end, I decided your assertions were so ridiculous that they were not even worthy of a response.
If you actually believe that I some how tapped into your phone conversation, you are indeed severely deluded.
I know this to be 100% true, as I did no such thing.
Get a grip on yourself!
Ainslie, you are a joke. Nobody is "avoiding" your absurd "thesis" for the reasons you claim.
Nobody who has any understanding of the Standard Model of nuclear physics and Quantum Electrodynamics is going to give your "thesis" a second glance, and you have been told why, over and over and over by everyone who has read it. Your little cartoons don't even correspond any more to the schematic(s) you have been claiming to have tested, since the schematics have been changed but the cartoons haven't.
What is the mass/energy value, and how is it derived, of the Higgs Boson under your "thesis"? How big an accelerator is needed to detect it? What will its signature look like UNDER YOUR "THESIS"?
You have no clue, because your "thesis" makes NO MATHEMATICAL PREDICTIONS... in fact NO TESTABLE PREDICTIONS at all. In other words, it's just a silly fairy tale without any grounding in reality, and it shows that you, once again, are willfully ignorant of the subjects you choose to attempt to discuss, you refuse to understand and use the common language of REAL discussions of those subjects, and your thought processes are so clouded that you are unable to reason correctly about what you are trying to discuss.
In other words, your "thesis" is a joke, not worthy of serious consideration as anything other than evidence of deluded mental processes. If you want your "thesis" to get the attention it deserves.... show it to a psychoanalyst.
The most insulting part of her post is her speculation that I might actually know her thesis "BACKWARDS".
.yaw taht daer fi esnes erom ekam dluow ti ylbissoP
In my read (don't ever say review!!) of her papers, I never got past the 'scope captures. I asked why Q1 was not turnng on in FIG3 and FIG7 when the indicated gate drive should definitely be turning Q1 on. This blatant and obvious error regarding Q1 throws out the bulk of the data discussed regarding the circuit.
Her responses to date are so lacking, further reading is of little merit.
In FIG 3, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on. Yet, the CSR trace, during this same period, does not indicate the current flow one would expect if Q1 were turned fully on.
As well, FIG7 also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again no current flow is observed.
In FIG5 (made the month prior), during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approx. +5 volts is indicated as gate drive to Q1, and as is expected, current flow is observed via the CSR trace.
Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7? During those captures, Q1 must must have been malfunctioning, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
A random quote from the Ainslie file concerning some key concepts of her "thesis":
QuoteThe reason that Zero Point Energy eludes everyone is simple. You all persist in believing that electromagnetic forces are unified. In fact the magnetic force is primary and the electric force secondary. The magnetic fields are highly structured - closed orbital strings of magnetic dipoles with a velocity of 2C and half the mass of a photon. They 'chase their tails' so to speak and thereby defy the exclusion principle. These fields are everywhere - the fabric behind the tapestry of the universe. They underpin all the known forces. Superluminal - they are the medium through which all psi phenomenon is enabled. Interaction with these fields enables movement through space. Composites of these dipoles form the electron (3 magnetic dipoles), the proton (9 magnetic dipoles) and the photon (2 magnetic dipoles). Using this the model can reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. I call the magnetic dipoles luminons and their "breakaway" composites - truants. Any other composites would be unstable and would decay back into the field. Possibly the nuances? The neutron is different. It's an upside down proton. It is also unstable as without the proton to interact and "anchor" it, so to speak, it would also decay.
(sic)
...
QuoteI have proved these concepts by default - I had to exceed unity.
Well, I certainly know that is backwards.... worse than backwards, actually. It's so lost it doesn't even know up from down much less forwards from backwards. It arrives before it starts off, doncha know.
PW said (and I agree):
QuoteWhy is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7? During those captures, Q1 must must have been malfunctioning, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
It is almost as if Ainslie does not realize that those black lines in a schematic indicate wires, that the symbols G, D, and S have assigned meanings that don't move on the mosfet body, or that small changes in the positioning of wires or attachment points have non-negligible effects on circuitry.
There has been so much discussion about the simple depiction of a circuit using conventional schematics over the years that one would think that BY NOW, Ainslie would have learned to speak the language.
I mean... just look at the original Quantum schematic. Even my quick handdrawn sketches are better laid out and more conventionally organized than that mess. When did you EVER see a circuit using a 555 timer that specified the pin functions, but not the pin NUMBERS, on the schematic?
And that was a decade or more ago, and the present discussion.... Q2 source floating, Q1 source-Q2 gate not connected, and so forth..... shows that she STILL cannot read her own schematics properly...
-OR-
Perhaps once again she is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH about the ACTUAL SCHEMATIC being used in those scopeshots.
In other words, she's either a continuing, willfully ignorant idiot, or a mendacious liar engaging in pseudoscientific misconduct.... or, my favorite.... both.
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 07:49:27 PM
.99,
That is amazing that you found that line regarding Cgs in your Spice description, and that you actually looked/new where to look for it. Great sim skills!
Thanks.
Quote
Can you do FFT's of waveforms in sim?
PW
Yes!
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 07:55:12 PM
So, are you saying that the burst envelope of the sim is slower than the NERD waveforms?
No. I am using a much higher burst control frequency on the order of 25kHz as opposed to the NERDs using a period of 2 minutes. As such, the burst envelope is more prominent when viewing the wave forms. I need to retain a minimum "sample rate" of sorts, so in order to stretch the sim out to much longer periods would require very long simulation times.
Quote
Next question, can you tell what values are being used for Coss in the MOSFET sims?
PW
No. The model is not that straight forward unfortunately. You might be able to derive Coss from the parameters they use in the model, but that is much beyond the level of analysis I wish to go.
MOSFET SPICE modeling has been a hot topic of debate for many years, and it is still in development. I believe there are models out there that account for the voltage-dependent capacitances, but they are not standard yet.
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 07:57:48 PM
.99,
Is this sim your single MOSFET burst osc or the NERD circuit?
What freq of osc did you end up with?
PW
It is the NERD circuit.
Without any added capacitance, Fo=1.59MHz.
With 2800pF C
GS for each MOSFET (2 total), Fo=1.47MHz.
Quote from: picowatt on July 04, 2012, 08:53:12 PM
.99,
It looks like you should also have about 140pF gate to drain and about 110pF drain to source if you want to try putting Coss in there (if it isn't already) to see how that performs. The Coss components are involved in feedback.
Coss is specified to =250pF
Coss=Cgd+Cds 5% of Ciss=Cgd=140pF, Cds=250-140=110pF
With Cgd=140pF, Cds=110pF, Cgs=2800pF per MOSFET, Fo=1.295MHz
Quote from: poynt99 on July 05, 2012, 07:27:26 PM
It is the NERD circuit.
Without any added capacitance, Fo=1.59MHz.
With 2800pF CGS for each MOSFET (2 total), Fo=1.47MHz.
.99,
From this, am I correct in assuming that you are only using a single MOSFET in each position (Q1, Q2) in the NERD config?
If so, have you considered using all four MOSFETs in the Q2 position?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on July 05, 2012, 07:29:29 PM
With Cgd=140pF, Cds=110pF, Cgs=2800pF per MOSFET, Fo=1.295MHz
.99,
Possibly the pspice model already has some amount of Coss? Is there any way to tell?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on July 05, 2012, 07:29:29 PM
With Cgd=140pF, Cds=110pF, Cgs=2800pF per MOSFET, Fo=1.295MHz
.99,
You might consider trying the sim with all four Q2 MOSFETS (and the single Q1) and then adjusting the added Cgs cap values until you get the correct Fo. There may already be a bit of Cgs in the models
Maybe lose the added Coss (Cds/Cdg), as again, surely the models have some C already there as well.
If your time allows and you are so inclined, of course...
PW
PW,
I think the most critical component is Cgs for that hidden AC path. The Fo is not that critical as long as we are in the ball park.
:)
Part 3.
First we look at an example of an open circuit FG setting of +/- 12V with 20% duty cycle. Once the FG is connected to the NERD circuit as shown, we see that not only is there a negative limit of -4V being created by ROUT, but there is a positive limit of 10V as well, again because of a voltage drop across ROUT. In this latter case, the current path is through Q2's forward-biased body diode. Here we see a current of 37mA.
During the negative portion of the FG output, the current is 160mA.
Next, we look at the current path while the FG output is positive. This is shown by the RED path. Note that without Q2's body diode, there would be no path. This is a closed-loop secondary path not including the battery. Once the FG output setting is below 10V, there is almost no current through this path.
Following this, we see the current path for a negative FG output. This is shown by the BLUE path. This path through the FG includes the battery and is part of the main current through the load. There is only -4V at the FG terminal due to the 160mA flowing through its 50 Ohm ROUT, which constitutes an 8V voltage drop.
Next we take a look at the dynamics from end-to-end by imposing a DC sweep through the NERD circuit as shown in the simulation schematic. We are sweeping from -16V through to +16V to see where the limits are at each end. Also shown in red is the current through the 50 Ohm as a function of the sweep voltage.
.99
Quote from: picowatt on July 05, 2012, 11:55:40 AM
Not at all. Sorry you missed it!
In the end, I decided your assertions were so ridiculous that they were not even worthy of a response.
If you actually believe that I some how tapped into your phone conversation, you are indeed severely deluded.
I know this to be 100% true, as I did no such thing.
Get a grip on yourself!
LOL. I trust your gauge of 'truth' is at LEAST 100% REALLY TRUE. Otherwise you're not giving us the 'real truth'. Curious how truth can be qualified in terms of both percentage and a scalable 'reality'. And I'm not sure if the 'real truth' is that I'm utterly deluded - or that you did not ENTIRELY listen in to the ENTIRE phone call. Just some of it?
What a joke you are picowatt. And thanks very much for making that observation. I felt too shy to introduce it entirely on my own. I"m referring, of course, to the fact that our zipon IS that Higg's bosun - when it's OUT of it's structured field condition. :-*
Rosie Pose
ADDED
Added
And BTW TK - our model is most CERTAINLY mathematically validated as well as being experimentally proven.
.99,
Wow, you put a lot of time and effort into this!
Thanks for reminding me that the voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] is clamped at the Q2 body diode
forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage. Forgetfulness comes with age!
When Q1 is fully on, the drain voltage drops to about +11 volts (with 72 V batt and 11R load). Therefore, the positive voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] by the FG cannot go any higher than approximately +12.5 volts regardless of the FG open circuit voltage. Any voltage in excess of +12.5 volts will cause the Q2 body diode to conduct. As well, any voltage output by the FG in excess of +12.5 volts will will be dropped across Rgen and current will be drawn. Below this voltage, only leakage current flows, which is very low.
The voltage at which the Q2 body diode turns, and at which the FG output is clamped when its output is a positive voltage, reduces in value as the battery voltage is reduced. At Vbatt=60, the FG output will be clamped at approx +10.7V. With Vbatt=48V, clamping will occur at +8.9V. At lower battery voltages, clamping can occur before Q1 is fully on and thereby limit the amount of current Q1 can pass..
The IRFPG50 body diode forward voltage is specified as 1.8 volts at 6.1amps. At lower currents, as there would be in the above instances, the forward voltage will be less than 1.8 volts (in the above, a Vforward of 1.5V was used)
Thanks again .99,
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 05, 2012, 11:05:28 PM
LOL. I trust your gauge of 'truth' is at LEAST 100% REALLY TRUE. Otherwise you're not giving us the 'real truth'. Curious how truth can be qualified in terms of both percentage and a scalable 'reality'. And I'm not sure if the 'real truth' is that I'm utterly deluded - or that you did not ENTIRELY listen in to the ENTIRE phone call. Just some of it?
What a joke you are picowatt. And thanks very much for making that observation. I felt too shy to introduce it entirely on my own. I"m referring, of course, to the fact that our zipon IS that Higg's bosun - when it's OUT of it's structured field condition. :-*
Rosie Pose
ADDED
Added
And BTW TK - our model is most CERTAINLY mathematically validated as well as being experimentally proven.
The bulk of this post seems nonsensical. But you can indeed trust that my truth, as it pertains, is 100% true.
As for your" scalable reality", get a grip on it already...
As for you saying I am a joke, do you ever listen to yourself?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 05, 2012, 11:05:28 PM
And BTW TK - our model is most CERTAINLY mathematically validated as well as being experimentally proven.
Bullshit.
Bullshit of the smelliest order. You have no clue at all. Go ahead, derive the permeability of the vacuum, mu-nought, using your model.
And there is no experimental "proof" either. You have neither experiments nor proof of anything except that you are daffy.
I"m referring, of course, to the fact that our zipon IS that Higg's bosun - when it's OUT of it's structured field condition. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fkiss.gif&hash=184eefb722c86a44103c1ff6c06da4a860041ebd)
Rosie Pose
Is she saying she has identified Higgs bosun in her circuit? :o
Man, all those billions on a particle accelerator, they coulda just built an Altoids. :o :o
MaGs
Hi Guys.
I've posted an answer to picowatt's never ending pretensions in the following links.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2510.html#msg2510
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2511.html#msg2511
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2512.html#msg2512http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2513.html#msg2513
Seemingly it takes some time to debunk that kind of 'obfusticated' argument.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Magluvin on July 06, 2012, 12:13:30 AM
I"m referring, of course, to the fact that our zipon IS that Higg's bosun - when it's OUT of it's structured field condition. (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/kiss.gif)
Is she saying she has identified Higgs bosun in her circuit? :o
Man, all those billions on a particle accelerator, they coulda just built an Altoids. :o :o
MaGs
Quite right Magsy. Well said.
Rosie pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 11:51:02 PM
Bullshit.
Bullshit of the smelliest order. You have no clue at all. Go ahead, derive the permeability of the vacuum, mu-nought, using your model.
And there is no experimental "proof" either. You have neither experiments nor proof of anything except that you are daffy.
I've answered this post here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2514.html#msg2514
Quote from: Magluvin on July 06, 2012, 12:13:30 AM
Man, all those billions on a particle accelerator, they coulda just built an Altoids. :o :o
MaGs
yeah it's funny that after hoaxing billions from governments and civilians that CERN receives no harassment from the likes of milelow, tk, etc. etc. you know, those guys that are here day after day making sure no hoaxes or frauds (well except tinselkoala/alsetalokin, he actually perpetrated a hoax) show up here... shit, peter higgs predicted the higgs boson how many decades ago now? and they are still wasting resources chasing 'schaumkommen'... ::)
but hey it's easier to pick on old ladies on obscure forums isn't it? after all, neither CERN nor any of their scientists would give a second thought to anything said by anyone here. ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 11:51:02 PM
Bullshit.
Bullshit of the smelliest order. You have no clue at all. Go ahead, derive the permeability of the vacuum, mu-nought, using your model.
And there is no experimental "proof" either. You have neither experiments nor proof of anything except that you are daffy.
and this one I answered here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2515.html#msg2515
All:
Here is an example of why it is hopeless:
PW:
QuoteThanks for reminding me that the voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] is clamped at the Q2 body diode
forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage. Forgetfulness comes with age!
Rosemary's response:
<<< As seemingly does excessive obfuscation of reference come with age. This sentence makes no sense at all - not even in the 'so called' 'professional speak' that picowatt indulges. I think what he's trying to say is that IF there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q1 and a positive at the Gate of Q1...? Maybe? Or perhaps - when there's a positive signal at the Gate of Q2 and a negative signal at the Gate of Q1...? Can't actually tell. God alone knows. Perhaps he's just reserving both options. And as for the 'forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage? WHAT? WHICH MOSFET? Q1? Q2? WHAT 'DRAIN' VOLTAGE? The MOSFET legs? The CIRCUIT? God help us. This is the kind of nonsense that impresses no-one but the trolls. WHY can they not simply speak clearly. It's widely held to be a desirable practice. Clarity of expression. Never hurt anyone. And most especially desirable in a discussion of science. And the reasons for all this abusive, undefined reference and terminology that are as obscure as night - are quite simply the result of their 'ruminations' - as relevant as are cows in a green meadow - while they 'spin' the colours of the emperor's new cloak. And while they make absolutely no kind of sense in any context at all. What idiocy! >>>
It's hopeless.
Rosemary, what PW stated is perfectly comprehensible and makes perfect sense. If over the years you had tried to pick up on electronics jargon you would understand exactly what he said. Instead, it's clear that your ability to learn is very limited and beyond a superficial level of understanding about electronics you are hopeless - totally opaque.
If we put aside the fact that you are totally incapable of learning beyond a certain limited point, you make a complete and total ass of yourself in the quote above. I know that you are not capable of understanding this but your comments are jaw-dropping. You can't understand how deep and wide the disconnect is between yourself and the actual operation of your circuit.
It's hopeless.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2012, 01:46:45 AM
It's hopeless.
It's hopeless.
MileHigh
and yet you are still here... so what does that say about you?
What does this say about you? :P
Hello MileHigh
I seriously miss your contributions on our own thread.
Are you asking me? In this post?
Quote from: MileHigh on July 06, 2012, 01:58:11 AM
What does this say about you? :P
Or are you addressing the wider readership here? Frankly my own opinion is that you've taken a photograph of picowatt. And I'm not sure he would like that. He prefers to keep his identity under wraps. God forbid that we'd recognise him in the streets as a result of this intervention. I'd be inclined to zap a restraining order on him and then call the cops. Better still... The FBI.
Rosie Pose
More BS...
"Quote from: picowatt on Today at 05:43:22
Thanks for reminding me that the voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] is clamped at the Q2 body diode
forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage. Forgetfulness comes with age!
As seemingly does excessive obfuscation of reference come with age. This sentence makes no sense at all - not even in the 'so called' 'professional speak' that picowatt indulges. I think what he's trying to say is that IF there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q1 and a positive at the Gate of Q1...? Maybe? Or perhaps - when there's a positive signal at the Gate of Q2 and a negative signal at the Gate of Q1...? Can't actually tell. God alone knows. Perhaps he's just reserving both options. And as for the 'forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage? WHAT? WHICH MOSFET? Q1? Q2? WHAT 'DRAIN' VOLTAGE? The MOSFET legs? The CIRCUIT? God help us. This is the kind of nonsense that impresses no-one but the trolls. WHY can they not simply speak clearly. It's widely held to be a desirable practice. Clarity of expression. Never hurt anyone. And most especially desirable in a discussion of science. And the reasons for all this abusive, undefined reference and terminology that are as obscure as night - are quite simply the result of their 'ruminations' - as relevant as are cows in a green meadow - while they 'spin' the colours of the emperor's new cloak. And while they make absolutely no kind of sense in any context at all. What idiocy!"
In this post you demonstrate that you cannot understand what was being discussed and that you do not even know how to read your own schematic. I was responding to .99, I would have typed more slowly for you.
When you say "I think what he is trying to say", you should have stopped right there. READ MORE SLOWLY, ATTEMPT TO COMPREHEND!!! Your "interpretation" of what was being discussed is so far out in left field that it brings into question your ability to even read.
The [gate of Q1/source of Q2] was written that way because they are electrically the same point. You do understand that a black line on a schematic denotes a wire don't you??
Most of the discussion you reference was with regard to when a positive voltage is applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2]. From your own schematic, which you apparently cannot read, when the FG applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q1, that same positive voltage is also applied to the source of Q2. The gate of Q1 and source of Q2 are CONNECTED. Either you are looking at yet another schematic, or you can't even read or understand the one you "published". Which is it?
And for certain, if Q1 is functioning and connected as per your schematic, when it is fully on, the drain voltage will indeed drop to the voltages I stated. Which drain you ask? BOTH!!! They are CONNECTED in YOUR schematic. Asking which drain only demonstrates your complete lack of skills in this field. You would think you could have learned to read YOUR OWN schematic by now. Apparently you cannot, yet YOU feel more qualified to discuss the circuit than just about anyone else. Really, who is the "joke" around here?
I would suggest you spend more time trying to understand what others write before you fly off the handle with non-sensical responses that only demonstrae your limited ability to read and understand.
The rest of your responses/posts are total gibberish, as again, you are unable to grasp what was even being discussed.
You throw away every opportunity to actually learn something and instead choose to ridicule and denigrate anyone whose technical skills exceed your own, which is a very large group. And whose fault is that? Remain ignorant, if that is what you wish. You are only fooling yourself.
If you want to post something "over there", try this:
In FIG 3, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on. Yet, the CSR trace, during this same period, does not indicate the current flow one would expect if Q1 were turned fully on.
As well, FIG7 also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again no current flow is observed.
In FIG5 (made the month prior), during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approx. +5 volts is indicated as gate drive to Q1, and as is expected, current flow is observed via the CSR trace.
Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7? During those captures, Q1 must have been malfunctioning, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
And you say I am a joke...
continued/...
Quote from: picowatt on Today at 05:43:22
When Q1 is fully on, the drain voltage drops to about +11 volts (with 72 V batt and 11R load).
NOT ACTUALLY. In fact NOT AT ALL. When Q1 is FULLY ON both SOURCE AND DRAIN VOLTAGE climb to well in excess of the battery supply source. The difference is that the Drain voltage is out of synch or out of phase with the battery voltage.
(Speaks for itself...)
A glimmer of hope:
"I think I see it now. My question is this. How does the function generator apply a positive signal to the gate of Q2? It can't. Not according to that schematic."
You are correct. There is never a "positive signal" applied to the GATE of Q2.
Q2 is turned on when the function generator applies a "negative signal" to the SOURCE of Q2.
Sorry all. I've deleted this post. It seems that I'm now posting on the wrong forum with somewhat monotonous regularity. Abject apologies. I'll try and do better.
Regards,
Rosie
Added.
This link answers picowatts earlier insistence that there's a negative signal at the gate of Q2.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg2518.html#msg2518
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 06, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Sorry all. I've deleted this post. It seems that I'm now posting on the wrong forum with somewhat monotonous regularity. Abject apologies. I'll try and do better.
Added.
This link answers picowatts earlier insistence that there's a negative signal at the gate of Q2.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg2518.html#msg2518
Your response is incorrect.
As has been stated over and over and over... Q2 is biased on when the FG output applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2.
Guys - I think picowatt is referring to this response. As he's NOT inclined to make you fully conversant with the problem - then allow me...
Quote from: picowatt on July 06, 2012, 10:33:24 AM
Your response is incorrect.
As has been stated over and over and over... Q2 is biased on when the FG output applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2.
Here's the full response which somewhat detracts from his claim that there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q2.
Quote from: Rosie on July 06, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
And may I add - for edification to the picowatts of this world - IF there is a negative signal as NOW CLAIMED - applied to the gate of Q2 it would NOT conduct that forward biased (clockwise) current flow (outlined in blue) PRECISELY because that NEGATIVE SIGNAL WOULD REPEL the current discharge from the battery supply. The battery would not be able to conduct. The blue trace shows the battery conducting.
I took the trouble to emphasise the argument by highlighting it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 06, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Guys - I think picowatt is referring to this response. As he's NOT inclined to make you fully conversant with the problem - then allow me...
Here's the full response which somewhat detracts from his claim that there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q2.
I took the trouble to emphasise the argument by highlighting it.
Regards,
Rosemary
As I said, you are incorrect.
There is no problem...
I am astounded at what Ainslie has been posting lately.
But... PW: did you let this one slip by? Notice that she is affirming that a 12 volt signal to Q1gate/Q2source will TURN Q1 ON, and she's pointing to current flow scopeshots as evidence.
BUT..... what about those scopeshots that we keep asking about where Q1 IS CLEARLY GETTING 12 volts but is not turning on and passing current?
WHAT ABOUT THOSE, AINSLIE.
Quote from: picowatt on 6 July 2012 at 05:43:22
QuoteTherefore, the positive voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] by the FG cannot go any higher than approximately +12.5 volts regardless of the FG open circuit voltage.
Ainslie replied:
Quote
IF the voltage at the 'Gate of Q1 Source of Q2' (as he puts it) is + 12.5 volts - then it most certainly WILL conduct current from the battery supply irrespective of the 'drain voltage'. And this is easily verifiable. Just look at the waveform across the shunts. They're showing evidence that is diametrically AGAINST this ALLEGATION.
And then (now) TK asked,
WHAT ABOUT FIGURE 3, THEN, AINSLIE? WHY DOES IT NOT SHOW CURRENT SINCE THE Q1 IS GETTING A VOLTAGE OF +12 VOLTS?Your own scopeshots show, over and over, EVIDENCE that is diametrically AGAINST YOUR CLAIMS, you bloviating, lying, willfully ignorant autohalfdidact.
You are contradicting yourself YET AGAIN with your ignorant and illconsidered comments.
It's also really too bad that the mosfet common drain voltage is STILL, after all these years, so confusing to you that you cannot even bring yourself to show it on most of your shots and you cannot discuss it coherently even to this day.
Ainslie, you utter liar and ultimate hypocrite. EVERY ARGUMENT I MAKE is or can be supported with many references to outside authority and/or experiments that ANYONE CAN DO FOR THEMSELVES and/or to YOUR OWN WORDS, Ainslie you hypocrite and liar.
YOU, on the other hand, have NEVER been able to refute a single argument of mine with REFERENCES or REPEATABLE WORK OF YOUR OWN.
NEVER.
Not even once. You've never been able even to correct your own calculations, much less find problems with mine. You've never presented work of sufficient quality to pass muster at an eighth grade science fair, much less the discussions at the level of this forum or even EF. And you continue to lie about and misrepresent the work of others.
YOU are constantly using ONLY DENIAL, and DENIAL ONLY, as your main mode of debate, and THIS PRESENT POST ITSELF which I have reproduced below is ample evidence of that.
And in addition, your late-night ramblings that you later come back and edit are ample evidence that you like to get yourself a bit tipsy in the evenings, if not outright garrulously drunk.
It doesn't take more than a couple of posts for her to contradict herself. But that's easy to do when her argument isn't coherent in the first place.
First she says that she doesn't claim her theory predicts that zipons are somehow Higgs bosons and challenges anyone to show where she did say it..... then she goes ahead and claims it anyway.
This has gone beyond the amusing. It's simply pathetic. Next, Ainslie will be soliciting the Nobel committee wondering why her prize has been delayed.
I am also highly amused by this present "conversation". Hasn't this happened before, too? Several times, in fact; enough to qualify it as part of the AinsLie Syndrome, a subset of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I mean, of course, that Ainslie has to post links here to her comments there to get any discussion, but nobody is discussing her comments there, just here.
It's a continuing example of her idiocy and lack of a cooperative attitude. She can lie and distort and misrepresent all she likes "over there" and unless someone is also aware of this thread, there is no dissenting voice allowed at all. In other words, she's standing on her own private soapbox and lying through her toothless gums about her work, my work, fuzzy's work, the analyses of .99 and PW, and all the usual old lies about the COP >17 claims are re-emerging as well.
Lunacy, is what it is.
ETA: It's sort of like Munchausen's By Proxy. She's doing Dunning-Kruger by Proxy, evidently, putting her own stupid ignorant arrogant interpretations of words into other peoples' mouths and accusing them of saying what she herself has hallucinated.
Again:
"And may I add - for edification to the picowatts of this world - IF there is a negative signal as NOW CLAIMED - applied to the gate of Q2 it would NOT conduct that forward biased (clockwise) current flow (outlined in blue) PRECISELY because that NEGATIVE SIGNAL WOULD REPEL the current discharge from the battery supply. The battery would not be able to conduct. The blue trace shows the battery conducting."
Please show even one quote where I state a NEGATIVE signal is applied to the GATE of Q2. You cannot, because no such thing was ever said, by anyone that I can recall, except for you of course.
The gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR and to the FG signal ground. The gate of Q2 effectively never changes.
A NEGATIVE voltage applied to the SOURCE terminal of Q2 is what biases Q2 on.
@PW, .99: (please don't take the ALLCAPS as shouts; I just want to make sure that the blind readers can see as well as possible.)
Ainslie always refers to the mosfets as a "switch". She appears not to realize that the mosfets have a linear conductance mode of operation where the gated CHANNEL between the DRAIN AND SOURCE formed by the ELECTRIC FIELD on the GATE STRUCTURE of the mosfet is REGULATED LIKE A VALVE by the strength of the charge on the gate structure of the mosfet. Hence, the mosfet can also be used as an amplifier, by "tickling" the gate charge around the gate threshold value. SMALL CHANGES in the gate charge result in SMOOTH OPENING OR CONSTRICTING of the GATE CHANNEL BETWEEN THE DRAIN AND SOURCE of the mosfet.
Does Ainslie show any sign of accepting that this mode of mosfet operation is even possible, much less operating as a mechanism in her circuit?
I've taken the liberty of reproducing for educational and review purposes, under Fair Use provisions of the DMCA, a spread from the excellent kindergarten textbook, "Getting Started In Electronics" by Forrest Mims III, published by Radio Shack in 1983. This spread describes what mosfets are and how they work in very basic terms. It should be evident from the structural drawings that the gate structure is one plate of a capacitor, and also that the drain-source channel works like a valved channel, with the electric field from the gate capacitance varying the opening of the valve. I've included it in a large size so that the visually-impaired can have a fair chance at seeing it, if not exactly understanding it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 06, 2012, 04:30:35 PM
@PW, .99: (please don't take the ALLCAPS as shouts; I just want to make sure that the blind readers can see as well as possible.)
Ainslie always refers to the mosfets as a "switch". She appears not to realize that the mosfets have a linear conductance mode of operation where the gated CHANNEL between the DRAIN AND SOURCE formed by the ELECTRIC FIELD on the GATE STRUCTURE of the mosfet is REGULATED LIKE A VALVE by the strength of the charge on the gate structure of the mosfet. Hence, the mosfet can also be used as an amplifier, by "tickling" the gate charge around the gate threshold value. SMALL CHANGES in the gate charge result in SMOOTH OPENING OR CONSTRICTING of the GATE CHANNEL BETWEEN THE DRAIN AND SOURCE of the mosfet.
Does Ainslie show any sign of accepting that this mode of mosfet operation is even possible, much less operating as a mechanism in her circuit?
I've taken the liberty of reproducing for educational and review purposes, under Fair Use provisions of the DMCA, a spread from the excellent kindergarten textbook, "Getting Started In Electronics" by Forrest Mims III, published by Radio Shack in 1983. This spread describes what mosfets are and how they work in very basic terms. It should be evident from the structural drawings that the gate structure is one plate of a capacitor, and also that the drain-source channel works like a valved channel, with the electric field from the gate capacitance varying the opening of the valve. I've included it in a large size so that the visually-impaired can have a fair chance at seeing it, if not exactly understanding it.
TK,
Was this in response to her most recent post "over there", or are you psychic?
Yes, it does appear from her newest that she cannot grasp that Q2 is only being turned on "a little bit". When the FG applies a negative voltage to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 is turned partially on and biased into a linear region of operation. The amount of DC current that flows, under DC conditions, is approximately 100 to 200ma (that's "milliamps"), with 150ma typically being measured. This DC current is referred to as "bias current", or simply "Ibias".
Under these conditions, Q2 is configured as a common gate amplifier.
ADDED: With 200milliamps of DC bias current flowing thru Q2, the FG, and the CSR, the observed positive voltage at the CSR from this continuous DC current flow, would be only 50millivolts.
If the FG sigal ground is connected to the battery negative instead of the CSR (as was apparently done in some tests) the DC bias current that flows thru Q2 andd tthe FG would bypass the CSR altogether and produce no measureable voltage across the CSR.
Manny the manual mosfet oscillator and the Magic of DPDT:
(in which the linear conductance range of a mosfet plays an important role)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIIiKcY3sk8
(ETA: Psychic? No more so than you were with your Higgs boson comment. It's easy to predict her, by now.)
Quote from: picowatt on July 06, 2012, 04:56:50 PM
TK,
Was this in response to her most recent post "over there", or are you psychic?
Yes, it does appear from her newest that she cannot grasp that Q2 is only being turned on "a little bit". When the FG applies a negative voltage to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 is turned partially on and biased into a linear region of operation. The amount of DC current that flows, under DC conditions, is approximately 100 to 200ma (that's "milliamps"), with 150ma typically being measured. This DC current is referred to as "bias current", or simply "Ibias".
Under these conditions, Q2 is configured as a common gate amplifier.
ADDED: With 200milliamps of DC bias current flowing thru Q2, the FG, and the CSR, the observed positive voltage at the CSR from this continuous DC current flow, would be only 50millivolts.
If the FG sigal ground is connected to the battery negative instead of the CSR (as was apparently done in some tests) the DC bias current that flows thru Q2 andd tthe FG would bypass the CSR altogether and produce no measureable voltage across the CSR.
Well, it is certain that the video demo of the NERD circuit, which claimed in the video to use one schematic, showed another, was claimed in the paper to use a third and actually used a fourth..... THAT demo, the only one we can trust because there are pictures of it..... had the FG signal ground connected to the battery negative, instead of the CVR. HENCE, the DC current... flowing in the POSITIVE direction, would as you indicate, bypass the CVR altogether and produce no measureable voltage across the "shunt".
What, then, would this wiring arrangement do to the current readings obtained? Would they reflect the true current flowing in the circuit, in the load? Particularly, what would this do to the SIGN of any average current values obtained by looking only at the "shunt" voltage drop?
What assurance do we really have that ANY of the scopeshots were obtained with the FG's negative lead on the correct side of the CVR shunt? Since the importance of this issue is paramount, it needs to be stressed until it's treated satisfactorily by the NERDs or rather, the chief NERD.
I've appended the "original" schematic, the one gestured to in the video by "Donny". One is apparently free to attach the FG's black lead wherever one likes....at point B or point D. Or not at all.
Perhaps it's best if you DON'T attach it at all ...since.... if you don't attach it at all, and if it's like most FGs.... it will be grounded back to the line cord anyway, AND since the scope probe grounds are also grounded in this way it's already hooked to the negative pole of the battery through all the scope probe grounds.
So..... well, if you then DO hook the FG's ground lead instead to the transistor side of the CVR... you will essentially be shorting out the CVR by the groundloop you have just created anyway.
Once upon a time Ms. Gate and Mr. Source lived in a two dimensional world and were married, but eventually things didn't work out for them. Now in order to keep the peace, a certain minimum vertical distance must be maintained between the two of them. Let's call this distance "VGS". As long as the relative distance VGS is maintained and Ms. Gate is higher than Mr. Source, the two are content and life flows along normally.
From the diagram, we can see that Ms. Gate and Mr. Source live in the same plane, but are separated by distance VGS relative to each other. They each can move up or down as long as a minimum relative distance VGS is maintained between them and Ms. Gate is higher than Mr. Source. Both Ms. Gate and Mr. Source can live above ground level as shown in Fig. 1, Ms. Gate can be above ground level and Mr. Source below ground level as in Fig. 2, or both can be below ground level as in Fig. 3. In each of the 3 scenarios, Ms. Gate and Mr. Source are content because at all times a relative minimum distance VGS is maintained between them, and life happily flows along.
Moral of the story:
It doesn't matter where Ms. Gate and Mr. Source are in relation to ground level, as long as the relative vertical distance VGS is maintained between them and Ms. Gate is above Mr. Source, life happily flows along.
That's a nice illustration, poynty. Golly, it sounds like you are saying that what is important is the _relative_ voltage between Ms Gate and Mr Source. Lol.
So then, if Ms Gate is nailed to the ground so that she can't float either up or down at all..... how then are the couple to keep that happy distance that keeps things flowing?
It looks to me like Mr Source will have to descend down below the ground level, to some negative height, to maintain that happy distance, if Ms Gate can't move because she's been chained to that bad old battery negative pole.
That's no problem, I'm sure they can manage that somehow, especially if Mr Source has a nice big pickle ...er ...shovel. But what if they don't always keep _exactly_ the right distance? I mean it's only a third or fourth part of the maximum distance they can be before they separate forever, but it has to be sufficiently apart enough for the space between them to let the little "kiddies" run freely sideways between Mr Source and Uncle Drain.
What if the distance is a bit more than just enough, then a bit less than just enough, and so on? Would only a few of the kiddies get through to Uncle Drain, and then a lot of them, then only a few again?
Well, if Mr Source and Ms Gate are anything like mosfet structures, and the distance between them is anything like potential difference, AKA voltage.... then they will.
Well if Rose does not get this, then she must be just saying its wrong on purpose and she does realize the problem.
Its been said and said and said and described and described, again and again.
But Poynt brought it out in a way that everyone should understand what is happening. ;]
Mags
Four Ms. Gates tied down to the ground helpless and squirming.
Four Mr. Sources grovelling below in the basement looking up in fear.
Four Mz. Drains looking down at the helpless squirming Ms. Gates with their high-potential electron injection guns at the ready.
Sounds like an idea for a movie! lol
Her conception of the way mosfets work is flawed. And since it is impossible for her to acknowledge that her conception is wrong, she blocks her own understanding of the issues.
In the following quote, from her reply to .99's scenario of marital bliss, she writes:
QuoteThe ONLY way that current can pass in a clockwise direction - wherever its source - through any PART of the Q2 is IF there's an appropriate signal applied to the Gate. Without any signal the switch is open. With a negative signal the switch will REPEL a positive current flow. Only with a positive signal will that clockwise current flow be able to bridge the gate to run from the drain rail of the circuit to the source rail of the circuit. All of which is very easy to prove. Just disconnect Q2's Gate leg from the circuit and see what happens. One would get an ENTIRE CESSATION OF ANY CURRENT AT ALL.
The ONLY way: This part betrays her lack of conception that AC will "flow" through the gate capacitance whether the mosfet is on or not. She has not watched or understood my video showing a capacitor of the same value as her gates, passing a 1.5 MHz AC signal and lighting up a bulb with practically no attenuation.... no mosfet "switch" involved at all, JUST THE MOSFET's INPUT CAPACITANCE.
Without any signal: Here she betrays her lack of understanding that it is not "signal" that the gate works by, but CHARGE. The gate will stay "open" to whatever degree it is CHARGED, and the charge will stay on the gate if it is not REMOVED actively or allowed to FLOW AWAY passively. If the mosfet is simply disconnected at the gate, then whatever charge is on the gate will keep the mosfet's drain-source channel conducting until that charge leaks away. She has not watched or understood my video showing the effect of CHARGE on a mosfet gate and what happens if you don't drain it away.
With a negative signal: This is simply wrong. A "negative signal" to a mosfet gate doesn't repel, or cause the mosfet to repel, anything, it simply drains away the CHARGE that keeps the drain-source channel flowing, faster. It is the CHARGE on the gate that opens or closes the gate by its electric field acting across the gate's dielectric, and if there is a negative electrical charge here in an n-channel mosfet, yes, the gate is "closed" by a repulsive field. This has nothing to do with the mosfet itself "repelling" anything, any more than a garden hose's closed valve "repels" anything if you close it even tighter.
Designers frequently apply AC to a mosfet gate for exactly this reason-- see my TinselKoil 2.0 for an example of this strategy applied to mosfets to turn them off rapidly. It has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with a mosfet "repelling" anything. Her concept of the functioning of a mosfet is severely flawed. Unfortunately I do not have a video, other than my sstc videos, that address this point directly... it is so fundamental that NOBODY who knows anything about mosfets, or who can READ, could possibly make the mistake she makes here.
bridge the gate: Nothing "bridges the gate" in a functioning mosfet except electric charge. Electric charge is the mechanism for AC passing the gate to the drain/source channel, as illustrated in my "capacitors" video; DC cannot pass from the gate to the other pins; there is normally no current except the superimposed AC "bridging the gate" and that current will flow whether the gate is open or not. She here betrays confusion about the physical model of a mosfet. What we call the "GATE" is really more like the screen-door spring, and it is the mosfet's drain-source channel that is really the "gate" that restricts flow of current.
Examining the sketch of the mosfet's guts in the Mims page I posted would clear up the matter... if only she could see it or would look at it.
We apply a charge to the "screendoor spring". This opens the screendoor more or less to let the little flies representing electrons get from the outhouse (the drain or positive rail) to the kitchen (the source or negative rail.) The charge on the screendoor spring is different from and does not participate in the flow of flies from the outhouse to the kitchen.
And every one of my videos which includes a mosfet illustrates this simple fact.
drain rail: Grit my teeth again. Misuse of jargon has always been a peeve of mine. Hang ten, source rail... whatever. We know what you are talking about, even if you don't, Ainslie.
The circuit's "rails" refer to the power supply and its delivered voltages. There is a positive rail that is connected to the positive supply source, and there is a negative rail that is connected to the ground or negative pole of the supply or both. These represent the extremes of voltage that the supply can provide to the circuit, and since many circuits are laid out LIKE I ILLUSTRATE IN MY RECENT VIDEOS EXPLAINING THIS, they sort of even look like railway rails, and all the circuit's action happens "between" the rails, as I illustrate.
There is no such thing as a drain "rail" or source "rail" although the latter might be considered the negative rail if the circuit is wired that way.
easy to prove: Yes, it is. Unfortunately what Ainslie offers as "proof" is neither proof, nor correct. Again.... She clearly has not watched nor understood my video, Mosfets: how do they work 2, where I show exactly what happens when a mosfet's gate is DISCONNECTED ENTIRELY, and it refutes her "proof" and might surprise even Ainslie, if she only had the wit to understand it and if her understanding wasn't blocked by what she "THINKS" she understands already.
(ETA: SWITCH. Here again and continually, she betrays her lack of understanding of linear conductance in a mosfet. It's not always a "switch" like a relay is, Ainslie. It's more like a valve, which is normally operated fully open or fully closed, but which can VERY EASILY be operated like a smoothly regulating faucet valve, fully controllable and consistent from fully off to fully on and anything in between, depending on the MAGNITUDE OF THE GATE CHARGE, or, put another way, on the distance between Mr Source and Ms Gate interpreted as a difference in _relative_ potential... a voltage.)
It is CHARGE, not "voltage" or "signal" that regulates how a mosfet's gate behaves. This CHARGE can be applied to the mosfet in various ways, among them by using a wire to apply a "voltage signal" to the mosfet gate structure. The electric CHARGE that is on the gate of the mosfet at any given time determines the behaviour of the ELECTRIC FIELD across the mosfet gate's dielectric (insulating) layer. This ELECTRIC FIELD then regulates the flow of CHARGE in the drain-source channel in the same way that stuffing a balloon into an air duct and inflating that balloon can regulate the flow of air in the duct. The air in the balloon doesn't actively participate in the regulated flow, it only changes the SHAPE of something else that does the regulation.
CHARGE, which is usually measured as a potential (a voltage wrt ground) or a gradient in potential wrt some other relative charged reference, determines the behaviour of a mosfet gate. (And it is Charge that is the conserved quantity.)
The video Mosfets How Do They Work 2 and 3 illustrates this fact of CHARGE being the key to the gate's function hopefully clearly enough for even an uneducated child's mind to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
By regulating the CHARGE on a mosfet's gate deliberately and carefully, one can keep the mosfet in the linear conductance region and operate it NOT AS A SWITCH but rather as an amplifier: small changes in the gate CHARGE (accomplished by changing the voltage on a reservoir capacitor using a potentiometer to supply or suck away the CHARGE on the mosfet gate (and reservoir cap in parallel with the gate's capacitance).
This LINEAR CONDUCTANCE OPERATION range of a mosfet is illustrated in the second part of that same video Mosfets How Do They Work 2 and 3 , hopefully clearly enough for even an uneducated child's mind to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
How is this relevant to the operation of the Tar Baby and the NERD circuit? The Q2 mosfets are biased into the linear conductance region by the oscillations, which cycle the _potential difference_ between MrSource and MsGate around the value of 4 volts. It matters not to the mosfet whether it is the gate rising or the source plunging: same result on the difference in CHARGE on the gate.
So it is the oscillations themselves that are driving the partial conducting/partial resisting linear operation mode of the mosfets during the oscillations...and it is the varying resistance of the drain-source channel of the Q2 mosfets that is making the oscillations. That is, the whole thing is one big feedback loop.
Examine the blowup of the oscillations in the Ainslie scopeshot below. Because of her general lack of knowledge and her inability to display scopeshots that actually contain needed information, this is the ONLY one I can find that shows the oscillations and the gate signal at the required resolutions. Or perhaps the required scopeshots are simply not presented by Ainslie, as they tend to refute her claims.
NOTE WELL: the oscillations on the mosfet GATE, the blue trace.... oscillate around +/- four volts. The "positive" is with reference to the source pin of the mosfet, but as PW has shown the gate pins of Q2s are always at the same potential as the battery negative or circuit ground, thus this "positive" is actually produced by the SOURCE swinging _negative_ wrt the battery negative or circuit ground. This moving around 4 volts is exactly what is needed to push and pull the Q2 mosfets into and out of the linear operation region of their performance envelope. The Q2 mosfets are oscillating AND PASSING CURRENT because they are being driven through the linear region... and the oscillations themselves are produced by the mosfet oscillating.... they are classical feedback oscillations, Just As I Show Using Manny the Manual Mosfet Oscillator, only happening much faster and using the circuit's own native capacitances and inductances instead of a reservoir cap and a relay.
As an aside, let us consider for a moment her argument that a "negative mean power" computed from the current oscillations on the CVR and the "battery voltage oscillations" means (no pun intended) that the energy is flowing back to the battery or is preventing the battery from discharging, whatever the claim is today.
This power is computed and depends upon the negative current values exceeding the positive values as well as the simultaneous occurrance of peaks in the "battery" trace. Since there is more area under the negative current portions than the positive, the result comes out to a negative mean energy product measured over a time period... which, according to her interpretation, means a reverse total "power" flow.
And of course if the balance had been positive, it would mean a "positive" power flow. Right?
But what about the case where the balance is symmetrical about the zero baseline? Then there would be no power flow, according to this "logic". But that is exactly the case when you are toasting a bagel. The AC current waveform from the wall is symmetrical and would result in a zero "mean power product" if that product were obtained in the same way Ainslie calculates hers. However... the bagel gets toasted anyway... because both the "positive" AND the "negative" powers are dissipated in the load: the toaster's resistance coils. No power is "returned" to the electric utility, the meter doesn't stop or run backwards... and you are charged for both portions of the current waveform no matter in which direction it's going.
Reasoning correctly from false premises can be just as errorful as reasoning falsely from correct premises. Ainslie's "evidence" is not evidence at all for what she claims it is.
Hi Poynty,
Quote from: poynt99 on July 06, 2012, 08:14:52 PM
Once upon a time Ms. Gate and Mr. Source lived in a two dimensional world and were married, but eventually things didn't work out for them. Now in order to keep the peace, a certain minimum vertical distance must be maintained between the two of them. Let's call this distance "VGS". As long as the relative distance VGS is maintained and Ms. Gate is higher than Mr. Source, the two are content and life flows along normally.
From the diagram, we can see that Ms. Gate and Mr. Source live in the same plane, but are separated by distance VGS relative to each other. They each can move up or down as long as a minimum relative distance VGS is maintained between them and Ms. Gate is higher than Mr. Source. Both Ms. Gate and Mr. Source can live above ground level as shown in Fig. 1, Ms. Gate can be above ground level and Mr. Source below ground level as in Fig. 2, or both can be below ground level as in Fig. 3. In each of the 3 scenarios, Ms. Gate and Mr. Source are content because at all times a relative minimum distance VGS is maintained between them, and life happily flows along.
Moral of the story:
It doesn't matter where Ms. Gate and Mr. Source are in relation to ground level, as long as the relative vertical distance VGS is maintained between them and Ms. Gate is above Mr. Source, life happily flows along.
I've answered this post here...
Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2524.html#msg2524
In your cups again already, I see. Meanwhile, totally and willfully ignoring the "poynt". As usual, as typical, as predictable as ever.
It's really too bad you won't watch my videos, because any eight year old child who would, would know more about mosfets and circuit behavior in thirty minutes than you have learned in ten years or more.
Why don't you ask gmeast to watch my last five or six videos in order and tell you -- and everybody else -- just exactly what's wrong with them.
Of course you won't even do that, because you just might find out something that will make you have to THINK for a change.
Howdy everyone,
I see all Rosemary's accredited academics, engineers, professors and experimentalist that have personally witnessed or verified proof of the COP>INFINITY device claim backing up all the data that was submitted for review are just lining up to post at Rosemary's new forum that's been up for ages now it seems like. I can see from all their countless comments on Rosemary's postings agreeing with every aspect of her THESIS using the crystal ball prediction method through magic mosfet devices that she has engineered around said claims. We all should shake our heads in wonderment on the accredited academics, engineers, professors and experimentalist with the experimental expertise, professionalism and backgrounds in the verifiable documented claims they've made. ;)
As you can see there is a pattern here with the secret images I'm posting, showing plain as day the overwhelming statistics of accomplishments Rosemary has toward her goals, whatever they are. ::)
FTC
???
Only seven posters in the top ten.
That is nearly the funniest thing I've seen all evening.
;D
Yet another misquote or misrepresentation:
"If - as picowatt recommends - there's a 'relatively' negative signal applied to the gate as a result of the Q2's gate's connection to Q1 source and/or to the negative rail of the battery (they're effectively in series) then - seemingly - that negative will repel the positive flow of current from the battery? Surely? Or is the proposal being made that the signal is that small that it doesn't restrict the clockwise flow of current? I'm open to advice her"
There is a relatively POSITIVE signal applied to the gate of Q2 by applying an ACTUALLY negative signal to the source of Q2.
Q1 has nothing to do with turning on Q2, so quit discussing it as if it does. Q2 will turn on and oscillate just fine if Q1 is removed from the circuit. FIG3, FIG7, .99's sims and TK's work all prove this. For now, just ignore Q1 as if it were not there, until you understand how Q2 is turned on Also, forget about the oscillations for now and just just focus on the DC conditions that occur when Q2 is biased on. Oscillations and AC can be considered later.
Read the bold text below several times until it sinks in, this seems to be where you are having a problem. Try reading each statement slowly, over and over, until you understand what is being said in each.
ANY N-channel MOSFET can be turned on by making the gate terminal more positive than the source terminal. Stated otherwise, the GATE terminal needs only to be positive RELATIVE TO the SOURCE terminal to turn on the MOSFET
If the SOURCE terminal is held at GROUND potential and a POSITIVE voltage applied to the GATE terminal, the gate is positive with respect to the source and the MOSFET will turn on. (This is how Q1 is wired and turned on.)
If the GATE terminal is held at GROUND potential and a NEGATIVE voltage applied to the SOURCE terminal, the gate is again positive with respect to the source and the MOSFET will turn on. (This is how Q2 is wired and turned on.)
Both of the above scenarios will turn on a MOSFET. As long as the gate is positive RELATIVE TO the source, it will turn on.
Making the GATE more POSITIVE than the SOURCE will turn on a MOSFET. Making the SOURCE more NEGATIVE than the GATE will also turn on a MOSFET. In both instances, the gate is being made positive RELATIVE to the source.
In response to your "repel" comment:
In the NERD circuit, when the FG output is a negative voltage, the FG is acting identically to, and can be replaced by, a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor.
A twelve volt battery with its "plus" terminal attached to the CSR represents the FG's signal common attachment to the CSR.
A 50 ohm resistor between the twelve volt battery's "negative" terminal and the source terminal of Q2 represents the FG's output connection.
When Q2 is biased on, the plus terminal of the main battery stack is connected, thru Rload and Q2, to the negative terminal of the twelve volt battery representing the FG via the series 50 ohm resistor.
There is no "repel" as you say. In the series string of batteries making up the main circuit battery, the plus terminal of a battery is connected to the minus terminal of the next battery in the string. Again, there is no "repel" as you say.
In the above example wherein the FG was replaced by a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor, when Q2 is biased partially on, the "clockwise flow" is from the main battery plus terminal, thru Rload, thru Q2, thru the 50 ohm resistor to the minus terminal of the battery replacing the FG, out that battery's plus terminal, thru the CSR and and to the main battery minus terminal.
When the FG output is a negative voltage, the FG is merely acting as an additional battery in series with the main batteries. The 50 ohm resistor in series with the FG output limits the amount of DC current that can flow thru Q2 and the FG to the CSR.
ADDED: Before you fly off the handle with a non-sensical response incorporating the words "ridiculous" or "joke", read the bold text until you fully understand what is being said in each statement. Do so for days if necessary! The bold text states what everyone has been saying for months upon months, including .99's recent Ms. Gate and Mr. Source story. You must understand what is being said in bold before any other aspect of the circuit's operation can be grasped. The text in bold is undeniable fact.
For once, try your damnest to understand it, not argue against it!!
ADDED: Just think a bit. The statements in bold are inarguable facts, there is not an EE or MOSFET manufacturer on this planet that would in any way argue these statements to be untrue. MOSFETs have been incorporated into circuitry for years using the facts in the bold statements.
Therefore, if you disagree with any of them, you are either in the very smallest of minorities, or you just do not yet understand what the statements are saying. Which is more likely?
Read them until you understand what is being said.
8)
The FG's "negative" or black lead must have been hooked directly to the battery negative, the common circuit ground, for all of the experiments and demonstrations, because that was the way the apparatus was constructed. There is no evidence whatsoever that she had the FG's black lead in the correct location for any of the reported trials, and the evidence we DO have... the video of the demonstration... clearly shows it connected to the common circuit ground, the battery negative.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
The FG's "negative" or black lead must have been hooked directly to the battery negative, the common circuit ground, for all of the experiments and demonstrations, because that was the way the apparatus was constructed. There is no evidence whatsoever that she had the FG's black lead in the correct location for any of the reported trials, and the evidence we DO have... the video of the demonstration... clearly shows it connected to the common circuit ground, the battery negative.
TK,
That is why I am always having to say "non-battery end of the CSR" or the "battery negative".
Obviously, if the FG signal ground is connected DIRECTLY to the battery negative, instead of to the non-battery end of the CSR, no DC or AC current flowing thru Q2 and the FG will be visible on the CSR trace.
Therefore:
Because all DC current flow thru Q2 is through the FG, all DC current will bypass the CSR and return directly to the battery negative. No DC bias current will be measured at the CSR.
For AC currents, 80% or more of the AC current is through the MOSFET capacitances to the CSR, so that much of the total AC current will be indicated by the CSR trace.
The other less than 20% of the AC current that flows thru the FG will bypass the CSR and be returned directly to the battery negative and also not be measured at the CSR.
So, if the FG signal common is connected to the battery negative instead of the non-battery end of the CSR, all DC current and a bit less than 20% of the AC current flowig thru Q2 will bypass the CSR and not be measured or observed via the CSR trace.
On the other hand, if the FG signal common IS connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, then ALL DC and ALL AC currents will pass thru the CSR and be indicated by the CSR trace.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 05, 2012, 10:04:10 PM
Part 3.
First we look at an example of an open circuit FG setting of +/- 12V with 20% duty cycle. Once the FG is connected to the NERD circuit as shown, we see that not only is there a negative limit of -4V being created by ROUT, but there is a positive limit of 10V as well, again because of a voltage drop across ROUT. In this latter case, the current path is through Q2's forward-biased body diode. Here we see a current of 37mA.
During the negative portion of the FG output, the current is 160mA.
Next, we look at the current path while the FG output is positive. This is shown by the RED path. Note that without Q2's body diode, there would be no path. This is a closed-loop secondary path not including the battery. Once the FG output setting is below 10V, there is almost no current through this path.
Following this, we see the current path for a negative FG output. This is shown by the BLUE path. This path through the FG includes the battery and is part of the main current through the load. There is only -4V at the FG terminal due to the 160mA flowing through its 50 Ohm ROUT, which constitutes an 8V voltage drop.
Next we take a look at the dynamics from end-to-end by imposing a DC sweep through the NERD circuit as shown in the simulation schematic. We are sweeping from -16V through to +16V to see where the limits are at each end. Also shown in red is the current through the 50 Ohm as a function of the sweep voltage.
.99
.99,
In your positive 12volt setting drawing (red path), it might have been better if you'd left the Q2 body diode path out of the mix for now. I believe it is just confusing things.
Using ten volts to the gate of Q1, the Q2 body diode would not have been forward biased, but Q1 would have been fully on and the body diode path could have been omitted.
Also, in the red path drawing, why did you not show the full clockwise path thru the batteries, Rload, Q1, and the CSR as you did for the blue path drawing? I believe that is adding confusion as well.
I would suggest eliminating the path thru the body diode for now and outline the full clockwise path in the red path drawing as you did for the blue path drawing.
From reading her responses, I believe it may be possible she believes the red/blue path drawings are depictig clockwise and anti-clockwise current flow instead of FG negative and positive output conditions. The body diode path and lack of a full clockwise path around the battery in the red path drawing is, I believe, the source of confusion.
PW
ADDED: In the red path drawing, consider showing the FG out going only to the Q1 gate with +10V out for the FG and indicating just leakage current for that path (1nanoamp or similar). As well, draw in the full clockwise hi current path thru Q1 all the way around the batteries as you did in the blue path. Then just stick with 5.5amps or so flowing when Q1 is on (red path) and 160ma. when Q2 is on (blue path).
I realize you are attempting to show only the FG paths, but again, I believe she may be getting confused a bit.
Quote from: picowatt on July 07, 2012, 01:59:33 PM
TK,
That is why I am always having to say "non-battery end of the CSR" or the "battery negative".
(snip, see original post)
So, if the FG signal common is connected to the battery negative instead of the non-battery end of the CSR, all DC current and a bit less than 20% of the AC current flowig thru Q2 will bypass the CSR and not be measured or observed via the CSR trace.
On the other hand, if the FG signal common IS connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, then ALL DC and ALL AC currents will pass thru the CSR and be indicated by the CSR trace.
Right. Now.... Say the FG signal common is connected to the transistor side of the CSR as is proper for the current measurement.
What if the FG signal common is connected to the chassis ground of the FG, which is connected back through the line cord to the mains ground, which is connected through the scope mains cord to the oscilloscope chassis ground which is connected to the scope probe ground leads which are connected to the battery negative? And if one oscilloscope is "isolated" by cutting off its main cord ground pin...yet that scope is connected in strict parallel with one which has not had its ground pin cut off... isn't the CSR shunt "shorted out" by the groundloop?
Regardless of that issue-- perhaps the FG signal ground is isolated (possible) and both scopes have isolated probe grounds (unlikely) -- nevertheless the location of the FG signal ground black cliplead during the reported tests should be confirmed.If it WAS on the transistor side of the shunt for the experimental trials... WHY was it moved to the incorrect location for the only photoshoot of a trial there is: the demo video? Can it be proven to be in the correct location for the reported experimental trials?
And if it WAS NOT on the transistor side of the shunt... then all the current data reported in the "papers" is obviously invalid. All of it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2012, 07:39:46 PM
Right. Now.... Say the FG signal common is connected to the transistor side of the CSR as is proper for the current measurement.
What if the FG signal common is connected to the chassis ground of the FG, which is connected back through the line cord to the mains ground, which is connected through the scope mains cord to the oscilloscope chassis ground which is connected to the scope probe ground leads which are connected to the battery negative? And if one oscilloscope is "isolated" by cutting off its main cord ground pin...yet that scope is connected in strict parallel with one which has not had its ground pin cut off... isn't the CSR shunt "shorted out" by the groundloop?
Regardless of that issue-- perhaps the FG signal ground is isolated (possible) and both scopes have isolated probe grounds (unlikely) -- nevertheless the location of the FG signal ground black cliplead during the reported tests should be confirmed.If it WAS on the transistor side of the shunt for the experimental trials... WHY was it moved to the incorrect location for the only photoshoot of a trial there is: the demo video? Can it be proven to be in the correct location for the reported experimental trials?
And if it WAS NOT on the transistor side of the shunt... then all the current data reported in the "papers" is obviously invalid. All of it.
TK,
Yes, you are correct. Neither scenario allows the CSR to account for all current flow.
That may be why the FG common was moved to the battery negative in the March demo. Possibly it was originally connected to the xstr side of the CSR but it was noticed that the traces looked better with it on the batt neg instead.
If the FG common was connected to the batt neg then DC and AC currents flowing thru the FG would have bypassed the CSR and not be visible on the CSR trace. (Q1 current and the bulk of AC current would have been indicated on the CSR trace)
If the FG were connected to the xstr side of the CSR, and a low resistance path existed between the FG common and the 'scope grounds, the DC current read on the CSR trace would likely have been indicating low, depending on the DC resistance of the test leads, power leads,etc as compared to the value of Rshunt.
But, for the AC osillations, one must also consider how much inductance might have existed in the path from FG common to 'scope ground as well. But again, it would likely cause AC currents to indicate low on the CSR trace.
Neither of the above scenarios provides an accurate reading of all current flow.
Obviously, conecting an isolated FG with its signal common connected to the xstr side of the CSR would have been more ideal.
PW
Yes.... I can recall some old discussion about the location of the cvr and the instrument ground leads but I don't remember if the real significance was stressed in those old days. I'm going to have to go back and look, document a timeline like I did for the revelation of the Q1-Q2 schematic by .99.
I wonder if the IsoTech GFG8216a function generator has one of these:
Guys... great news, LOL. I've just sent Tar Baby off to Georgia for testing. Some absolute boffins have been reading these forums and once they got hold of the thesis they realized that the Higgs boson is the revolution in energy we have all been waiting for. In a couple of days when they have proved the oscillations, we'll go forward with our plans to save the world. I've already got my Nobel Prize application in the mail.
Now.... can anyone tell me the frequency of the DC power in Tbilisi? It might be important, lol.
Meanwhile... back in the DeepBunker I and my minions have noticed that there is no discussion of any substantive nature going on at that other place, EXCEPT that .99 seems to have been able to make a minor advance on the front line with the idea that voltages are relative and it is the voltage _difference_ that matters to Ms Gate and Mr Source. That's a step in the right direction.... how long did it take? What kind of silly second-grade fairy tale did it take for her even to start thinking about the issue?
Her builder is no doubt beginning to wake up, having dismissed the current NERD design apparently completely and is asking hard questions about the earlier COP>17 claim. Diode? No Diode? And he's discovering that Little Miss Mosfet is a real misfit when it comes to discussing circuitry or schematics.
But there is no discussion of "testing", no discussion of the Ahern math errors and .99's corrections of them... in fact, Ahern is rather conspicuous in his absence since that correction, which must have been rather embarrassing for him, the experienced physicist, to get something so basic, so wrong, so many times. No discussion of anything.... not even the fact that "doggerel" is not spelled DOGGERAL.
So.... since Tar Baby is travelling to the former Soviet Union to get inspected by some real Boffins (to a man) and won't be back before Tuesday.... I am working on a Secret Experiment that I'm not going to tell anybody about because it is SECRET. So don't expect any real information. But here are a couple of pix of it during construction. I made that PC board myself yesterday, manually, by using plastic packing tape as a resist and tracing the pattern onto the tape, cutting it out with an Xacto knife, etching in a glass cakepan with ferric chloride, drilling with a #60 bit for the component holes, etc. And yes, the components are supposed to be on the foil side, for a couple of reasons. Secret reasons. It's a secret experiment after all, and I'm not showing the hidden components or the other module. Mostly because there aren't any and I haven't built it yet, but also because they are SECRET.
Hey 'Guys',
I still read this thread about every day. Great pictures, builds, explanations, videos, etc...
I really REALLY know how mosfets work now. Like, really.
So, that being said...
@ Rosemary: Congratulations on pre-discovering the Higgs Boson! I'm sure all your test data is rock solid. No doubt your math is impeccable. Who would have thought zipons were bosons?!? Thank you (for the laughs)!
@ TK: Cool stuff you're working on. I wish I had half your understanding of electronics but thanks to your videos (and this thread...) I know more than I did before I watched them. Thank you!
@ PW: Your explanations of how the mosfets are working helped a great deal. Some of those descriptions are as nicely worded as you could ask for; Easy to understand, clear and consise. Thank you!
@ .99: The Ms. Gate/Mr. Source story about 'relative' voltage was spot on. Also, your sim work is well laid out and easy to follow. Thank you!
I will keep reading but probably won't post unless I can't help myself... I'm sure you 'Guys' know that by now that she is fully fixated on you; Tar Baby doesn't even begin to describe it...
You 'Guys' crack me up.
Happy experimenting,
PC
Hi PC
I'm glad you are amused... ;)
But after all... this is serious business. Why, right now the Imaginary Lawyers of Rosemary Ainslie are probably poring over my videos right now with a fine tooth wrench, looking for all the Actionable Traducements (tm RA) and Violations of Accreditation (tm RA) that I've committed while spinning my demonstrations and hiding wires and batteries and using the world's only Interstate Function Generator still operational to work magic that nobody else ... especially not Ainslie ... can ever expect to repeat.
But please do comment when you can, that is, if you don't have anything more pressing to attend to, like tossing a rabbit into a briar patch or something.
Meanwhile, the Secret Project that I refuse to talk about, other than dropping big hints (just in case it doesn't work) is coming along nicely. The second secret module (SSM) is completed and all the secret hidden components have been installed on the top of the Main Secret Module (MSM) board.
Here are a couple of pix of the SSM and the MSM, mostly completed. And another, showing the pair at what we like to call "First Light", when a new secret experiment passes its first successful secret test successfully.
Soon, I'll be able to open a secret Gate of my own.... into a different dimension, a secret place of sight, and sound and light....
(What is the relevance, you ask? This circuit is basically the same as Ainslie's Q1-Q2 circuit should have been: a multivibrator using two alternating mosfets, making feedback oscillations. The differences are that this circuit is wired correctly, it is tuned by rational selection of inductances and capacitances, it is efficient in _transmitting power across space without wires_ without wasting much heat, and.... it is useful. Not only that... but there are no zipons required, and there is no way that a nonstandard interpretation of the various laws and rules governing circuit behaviour could allow the construction and operation of this circuit. Is it overunity? Well, it's been running every working day since this morning, for several minutes per hour, and the battery is still at the same voltage it was last night, and it has never been recharged in that whole time.)
A top secret video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PHea4pIaG0
Another little TOP SECRET video, showing wireless power multiplication. You might need your shades for this one.
8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7az00WSZBMw
How is it possible to "push" more current through a light bulb than it will draw on its own from a battery DC source?
By raising the voltage, that's how. But does that multiply the power? It must, since the bulb is clearly brighter. Right?
But what happens to the input power when I do this?
(That is the secret part, silly.)
;)
I admire tinsels builds. Your single turn air core hf transformer is cool. The bulb resistance is going in and out of synch with the primary resistance. You need a dummy load that is more stable than the bulb. The ouput could be drawn off by things that just need voltage to light up. Led lamps are coming down in price and you need only to attach one wire to your rig and the other to a big piece of copper which is a good scource of free electrons. I don't think you could close the loop by using a garden light solar cell though. Worth a try? Your big tesla transformer I imagine could lightup the complete inventory on hand of led lamps from homedepots in your surrounding area.
Cmon Tk, dont be a lil Mr Tinselfet. ;]
Would the use of the same loop and the same capacitors for the LC's, as in if they were all the same, would you get better results?
Nice job
Mags
Also, cant wait to here what you have come up with on why there is that boosted output getting the loops close together, and it sticks. Till it gets too far away. Interesting. ;]
Mags
Thanks, sparks.
I've got some old videos showing some triple resonators lighting up LEDs _and_ NE2s in series with only one wire or none, somewhere on my channel. But yes, this little power transmitter project here -- which is basically the "Ainslie" Q1-Q2 configuration done properly with correct tuning and a useful load -- is a fun deal. I'm just starting to explore its possibilities, I just completed it this afternoon.
It even runs at about the same frequency as the NERD Q1-Q2 oscillator. And that last video should be "proof" that it's.... well, that it's running, anyway.
@Mags: I've determined that the "shift" involves a frequency change, but not by a full octave like you might imagine. The signal across the bulb is a very pure sine wave and varies a little with distance, about 20 V p-p and starts at about 1.4 MHz and down from there. The last measurement I took it was stable at 1.375 MHz. But when it clicks into the "brilliant" mode the frequency pops down to a pure sine wave at 875 kHz, roughly, and voltage pops up to over 40 V p-p at the bulb. No wonder it's super bright.
There is another weird weirdness, and that is, when it's in "normal" mode the current drawn from the battery increases as you get closer with the receiver and the bulb gets brighter, and it falls off as you get farther away. When it's in the "brilliant" mode, though... this is reversed, within the range of the effect. The current is low when it's _close_, just as it clicks into the mode, and increases as I get further away and peaks just as it clicks _out_ of the brilliant mode at its maximum distance.
Of course that is part of the secret, so don't tell anyone. The actual numbers on the ammeters... those are secret too, heh heh.
ETA: It turns out that the local capacitance isn't that important; otherwise handling the loops would kill the power, but it doesn't affect it at all. Evidently the power transmission and the circuit operation is governed almost completely by the inductances. I tried a little air variable on the receiver and didn't notice any effect. I have a loopstick here somewhere that I'll try next. The capacitance in the receiver is supposed to be of the same value as the caps in the transmitter, and it is, just different types of poly caps, and ditto the loops, same size or pretty close. The caps in the transmitter have to be good ones, poly, or they will heat up excessively. The mosfets are IRFZ44N.
Ok ok, no numbers. :P
But I have to think some thinks. If the freq goes down when in super nova mode, does the transmitter also go down to that level in freq? Like it all just melds together?
Or would it be possible to get the transmitter side to just produce the super nova freq to start. And maybe always have super nova?
I wanna make one. ;)
Mags
Here's another interesting tidbit: this is NOT a Tesla longitudinal power transmitter. The ClassE sstc from a few pages back operates at almost the same frequency range as this device, and lights up neons and CFLs all over the place with no problem... it makes a high voltage field that's capacitatively coupled somehow. This thing makes a low voltage field that carries a lot of power and is inductive in its effects, not capacitative.
It's very interesting to contemplate these two devices, both operating in the RF, broadcasting power at nearly the same frequencies and actual power levels... but one can light up neons and CFLs wirelessly with high voltage electric fields, but the other cannot-- it only lights up incandescent filaments with strong current flow and low voltage, but high power, magnetic fields.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 09, 2012, 12:07:17 AM
Ok ok, no numbers. :P
But I have to think some thinks. If the freq goes down when in super nova mode, does the transmitter also go down to that level in freq? Like it all just melds together?
Or would it be possible to get the transmitter side to just produce the super nova freq to start. And maybe always have super nova?
I wanna make one. ;)
Mags
mags... he won't give you 'numbers' because that would demonstrate that it's not as efficient as rose's heater. ;) and he knows i'll point it out.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 09, 2012, 12:07:17 AM
Ok ok, no numbers. :P
But I have to think some thinks. If the freq goes down when in super nova mode, does the transmitter also go down to that level in freq? Like it all just melds together?
Or would it be possible to get the transmitter side to just produce the super nova freq to start. And maybe always have super nova?
I wanna make one. ;)
Mags
Yes, it's the transmitter that's changing modes, the receiver just receives it. I scoped the two posts of the transmitter loop and it shows just the same as across the bulb, but with a bit of really HF hash on the sine wave, just enough to make it a little fuzzy, not real distortion.
When the receiver gets close, something about the current draw or the mutual inductances shifts the transmitter into the "supernova" mode. Heck, that's not quite right, because all the components survive! It's only an ordinary nova...
;D
Supernova is when the white smoke leaks out and you can't stuff it back in without plugging the leaks with money.
I'll try different inductors when I have a chance to locate some; that might make a difference. It would be nice to be able to control that mode, for sure.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 12:15:33 AM
Here's another interesting tidbit: this is NOT a Tesla longitudinal power transmitter. The ClassE sstc from a few pages back operates at almost the same frequency range as this device, and lights up neons and CFLs all over the place with no problem... it makes a high voltage field that's capacitatively coupled somehow. This thing makes a low voltage field that carries a lot of power and is inductive in its effects, not capacitative.
It's very interesting to contemplate these two devices, both operating in the RF, broadcasting power at nearly the same frequencies and actual power levels... but one can light up neons and CFLs wirelessly with high voltage electric fields, but the other cannot-- it only lights up incandescent filaments with strong current flow and low voltage, but high power, magnetic fields.
it's interesting to contemplate that an incandescent filament is a resistive load?? and that a neon and/or cfl is not?? LMFAO
Did you hear the buzz of an overannuated gadfly? I thought I did.
Mags, I'm not giving out the numbers because it's a Secret Project Mystery Experiment. Don't you get it?
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2308.msg2516/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=55935edf38dfafc5db1873b5b5de4549#new
Most interesting project TK! It is somewhat
reminiscent of the old single turn low impedance
T-R Metal Detector loops we used to make in the
old days. Nearly identical to the two loops you've
made. Although the Transmit and Receive loops
in the metal detector were offset to minimize
direct coupling while maximizing pickup of
reflected energy from metallic objects within
the search field.
The mode-shifting you've observed certainly
bears looking into. There may be something
of extreme interest there...
Well done!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 12:41:12 AM
Did you hear the buzz of an overannuated gadfly? I thought I did.
Mags, I'm not giving out the numbers because it's a Secret Project Mystery Experiment. Don't you get it?
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2308.msg2516/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=55935edf38dfafc5db1873b5b5de4549#new (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2308.msg2516/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=55935edf38dfafc5db1873b5b5de4549#new)
Yes, I got it. Its just to prove a point. ;] But as you know, that point will never get across. ???
Was this device by your design?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 09, 2012, 01:04:07 AM
Yes, I got it. Its just to prove a point. ;] But as you know, that point will never get across. ???
Was this device by your design?
Mags
No, I give the source of the inspiration and the links in the Description in the first video. I saw the version that Marko made and thought it was the best of the inductive power transfer demonstrations, nice for a tabletop on-demand mind-blower (for certain audiences of course.) So I downloaded the PC template and made the PCB myself, then used some components that he specified and some of my own, but it's basically an exact duplicate, only different, of Marko's circuit and layout.
It was really cheap and easy to build, too. The mosfets are only about 2 dollars each, and I had nearly everything else on hand already. The major expense was the bottle of ferric chloride for the etching, nine dollars, and that's mostly reusable and will make many boards before it loses its strength. The blank piece of PC board was 4 dollars and I used about 2/3 of it.
@SeaMonkey: Thanks, the shifting mode was unexpected and I don't find other builders of this project mentioning it, but I'm sure it's just a loose wire or something, or maybe it's that wormhole just starting to open up. I understand that the discovery that led to the development of the Stargate was from a tinkerer working with a similar device.
Oh... wait, that hasn't happened yet in this timeline. Never mind, you'll forget all about it in a moment. Just look at the flashing lights....
ETA: This thing makes a lousy metal detector though. It responds not at all to a crescent wrench, no matter the coils location/orientation or whatever. I can see no effect on the bulb brightness from moving metals around or between the coils, close coupled or not. This seems weird to me, I was thinking the same as you, until I tried it.
The "hash" you saw in the waveshape across the
load may be an important clue. Spurious oscillations
are the bug-a-boo of RF Power Amplifiers and in
most cases are not at all desirable.
Your case may be an exception if it seems that the
"hash" is present while it's operating in the strange
but powerful mode.
Can you fiddle with the sweep on your scope while
it's in that mode to try and capture the "envelope"
of the hash modulation?
TK:
I can offer you a theory with moderately high confidence for the super-bright mode. It was more or less confirmed in the earlier comments.
I am assuming that this was built with the intention that both resonators would have the same frequency. If course that's not possible without tuning and many types of caps have a tolerance of +/-20%.
In normal mode the transmitter is generating the near-field and the receiver is picking it up and lighting the bulb. You are off of the resonant frequency of the receiver so everything acts like a normal filter. The Q-factor for the receiver is not so narrow, so you get the bulb lighting up.
When it jumps into super-bright mode something interesting is happening. The receiver LC resonator wants to resonate at its center frequency and it's response to the external excitation from the transmitter is being "felt" by the transmitter. This dynamic instantaneous impedance due to the receiver as felt by the transmitter gets stronger as you bring the two loops together.
What eventually happens is that the resonant frequency of the receiving LC resonator is "forced" onto your LC transmitting oscillator and the LC transmitting oscillator starts to slave to the LC receiver. The LC transmitting oscillator is not running at its natural frequency at all, but the nature of the "load," the instantaneous impedance of the LC receiver, gets the transmitting oscillator to sync up to the load. Once they are synced up, then you have true resonant near-field energy transfer - the same thing that they have for certain laptops and cell phones where you just put them on top of a special mat.
When you move the LC receiver away from the LC transmitter, the "forcing power" of the synchronization goes away until eventually the main transmitting LC oscillator "breaks free" and goes back to its natural operating frequency.
I think that's the way the cookie crumbles. The transmitter falls under the influence of the receiver and starts to oscillate in sympathy to the receiver.
MileHigh
Quote from: SeaMonkey on July 09, 2012, 01:41:40 AM
....
Can you fiddle with the sweep on your scope while
it's in that mode to try and capture the "envelope"
of the hash modulation?
Yes, I've done that. I'll take a photo in a few minutes. It's not what I usually call "hash": it's a regular little waveform superposed on the main sine wave, not a "noise" kind of thing at all.
Hmmm..... interesting.
It looks like the "hash" is smoother when the circuit is in the brilliant mode, and more pronounced in the "regular" mode.
See the photos below. Timebase is at 0.2 microseconds per division, vertical amp is at 10 v/div, scope is across the terminals where the transmitting loop attaches (which is the drains of the mosfets, one on each side).
The first one is in the "normal" mode, the second one is the superbrilliant mode. For some reason I don't see the voltage change this time. Or rather I do but I'm starting to understand the distance dependence of the voltages and frequencies... sometimes.
I suppose that I should add, so why does the light get so bright?
The receiver LC oscillator is now being excited at its dead-on natural resonant frequency. This looks like a very low impedance to the transmitter and as a result this also looks like a very low impedance to the battery that is powering the transmitting oscillator.
The bulb connected to the LC receiver is soaking up and burning off the maximum power that can be transferred through space for the near-field transmitter-receiver pair.
So when everybody syncs up the impedance of the circuit is quite low and as a result a lot of power get's transmitted to the bulb.
MileHigh
TK:
The "hash" looks like just another sine wave superimposed on the main sine wave. That would mean that somewhere else in the circuit there is a secondary very-high-frequency resonator that is also being stimulated. It could be LC-anything, stray capacitance, stray inductance, coupled with the MOSFET capacitances, who knows. I don't think it is having any affect on your circuit.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2012, 01:55:08 AM
TK:
I can offer you a theory with moderately high confidence for the super-bright mode. It was more or less confirmed in the earlier comments.
I am assuming that this was built with the intention that both resonators would have the same frequency. If course that's not possible without tuning and many types of caps have a tolerance of +/-20%.
Yes, that's right, but the poly roll caps that I used on the transmitter are 5 % tolerance, and measure right on with my silly ProsKit meter. The poly caps in the receiver match, to the accuracy of the meter. But you are right, however I think this circuit is more sensitive to the inductance... probably precise snipping of the loops would be the way to tune. Marko showed some effect of inductors inside the loop but I haven't been able to see any yet.
Quote
In normal mode the transmitter is generating the near-field and the receiver is picking it up and lighting the bulb. You are off of the resonant frequency of the receiver so everything acts like a normal filter. The Q-factor for the receiver is not so narrow, so you get the bulb lighting up.
When it jumps into super-bright mode something interesting is happening. The receiver LC resonator wants to resonate at its center frequency and it's response to the external excitation from the transmitter is being "felt" by the transmitter. This dynamic instantaneous impedance due to the receiver as felt by the transmitter gets stronger as you bring the two loops together.
What eventually happens is that the resonant frequency of the receiving LC resonator is "forced" onto your LC transmitting oscillator and the LC transmitting oscillator starts to slave to the LC receiver. The LC transmitting oscillator is not running at its natural frequency at all, but the nature of the "load," the instantaneous impedance of the LC receiver, gets the transmitting oscillator to sync up to the load. Once they are synced up, then you have true resonant near-field energy transfer - the same thing that they have for certain laptops and cell phones where you just put them on top of a special mat.
When you move the LC receiver away from the LC transmitter, the "forcing power" of the synchronization goes away until eventually the main transmitting LC oscillator "breaks free" and goes back to its natural operating frequency.
I think that's the way the cookie crumbles. The transmitter falls under the influence of the receiver and starts to oscillate in sympathy to the receiver.
MileHigh
I think all the rest of that is right. But the non-inverse square falloff... how do you account for that? If it was simply a matter of being in true resonance, it would seem that you would still get the 1/r
2 dependence. But what seems to be happening is that the system increases the output power to compensate for the increased distance, and the bulb stays the same brightness. Is this a result of it being somehow "phase locked" and trying to stay in that nice true resonant notch?
Wait... I'm not sure about that. How could the transmitter not be running at its own natural resonant frequency? I agree that the mutual interaction forces a true resonant condition between the two LCs... but I think it's the receiver that needs tuning, not the transmitter.
ETA: OK, I read it again and I see what you mean now. The xmtr is _normally_ running at its natural resonance, but the interaction with the receiver pulls it down to the receiver's resonant frequency and this drops the impedance of the system and the light gets brighter.
But even if the impedance of the transmitting system is zero, the light should only be as bright as it is under DC, right?
TK:
You took the words right out of my mouth; this setup is essentially a form of phase-locked loop. The "loop" is the influence the receiver has on the transmitter. So as long as they are locked, you don't really see much 1/r^2 losses. Also, you are near-field so you won't see 1/r^2 losses in the near field.
When you get far enough away, you "break lock" and the frequency of the transmitter jumps back to its normal operating frequency. There is no linear change in frequency, by definition it's going to be a jump.
What I would do would be to tune the transmitter LC with a variable capacitor (the loops are perfect, don't touch them) and then tune your MOSFET oscillator (assuming it is separate from the transmitter LC) and then you should be in really great shape.
Based on what you have observed so far, if you assume that the transmitter and receiver have natural frequencies within 1% of each other, you will probably get a "lock" going right away and it should be quite robust. Whatever you do, you don't want to make major modifications to the transmitter because you want to preserve that "secret sauce" "locking susceptibility."
Looks like fun!
MileHigh
TK:
QuoteBut even if the impedance of the transmitting system is zero, the light should only be as bright as it is under DC, right?
No because think of this thought experiment: No bulb, and the receiving loop is ideal and the capacitor is ideal. If you start your transmitter under these conditions then the AC voltage and AC current in the receiver will rise linearly over time until they get so high and eventually stabilize where all of the input energy is being radiated out as radio frequency waves. Let's assume that would be at a super high voltage.
When you add a bulb we know that "lots of energy" is transmitted from the transmitter to the receiver. How much is I suppose bottlenecked by the physical space and size of the loops relative to the characteristic impedance of "free space" - some air in a vacuum. How much energy density can the free space between the loops sustain is the question (that's very dependent on frequency also of course) . I doubt the battery and the MOSFETs are the bottleneck.
So when you go back to the bulb, you have "X" power being picked up by the resonating receiver loop. That power is split between the resistance of the wire in the loop and the resistance of the bulb filament. Naturally almost all of the power gets dissipated in the filament of the bulb.
If you did the same setup but upped the frequency by 10X, then it's safe to assume that you could make the bulb burn that much brighter.
MileHigh
TK:
Disclaimer and a final comment. Of course I am just flying by the seat of my pants here from the courses I took ummm......32 years ago.
Certainly energy density goes up as frequency goes up. So the higher the frequency the more power can be transmitted across a medium. If I recall you fly and you are probably aware that in planes the AC is 400 Hz instead of 50 or 60 Hz. That way smaller transformers can be used. So the same principles apply at much lower frequencies also.
Microwaves, gamma rays, part of the nastiness is that they can convey so much power because of the very high frequencies.
MileHigh
Joules = volts times charge So if you have a piece of metal precharged and you provide volts then of course joules out will be more than joules in. Where did the extra joules come from. From outside the frame of reference the transformer resides in. Einstein tells us all laws of physics apply within an inertial frame of reference which implies that all laws of physics do not hold true between convergence of different inertial frames of reference. A kid drops a ball in a descending elevator. It hits the floor and bounces back. He tries it again but some guy with really good reflexes reaches in and grabs the ball and yanks it out of the elevator before it hits the floor. The kid inside the elevator sees his ball disappear. The guy who grabbed the balls hand is all red where the ball smacked into his hand and the elevator slows it's descent because of the decreased mass within it's inertial frame of reference. Just weird effects predicted by Einstein.
Can anyone tell me what the Chief NERD Mendacitor is talking about now? She is lying again, telling her paltry few readers that I am somehow "avoiding needed tests" or some crap like that. Note the statements in the imaged posts below.
She seems to have missed the fact that I have TESTED AND REPORTED a whole lot more than she ever has, and my work is REPEATABLE.
But then.... she arrogantly doesn't bother to watch my VIDEO REPORTS OF MY TESTING AND DEMONSTRATIONS which are posted several times a day, usually. In other words, she lies and misrepresents and continues to cherish and protect her unfathomable willfull ignorance and overweening arrogance, instead of trying to understand and offering cogent, rational criticisms. Of course she cannot offer cogent and rational criticisms of what she CANNOT UNDERSTAND because even when pitched at the sixth grade level, apparently, she still doesn't have the prerequisites to understand what's being presented. Like the common convention that a black line on a schematic diagram represents a connecting wire.
AINSLIE, HELLO.... It is YOU who have been AVOIDING NEEDED TESTS for over a year now. And you have "successfully" avoided doing them YET AGAIN for an indeterminate, probably very long, time because YOU DON"T EVEN HAVE ANYTHING TO TEST or TO TEST IT WITH since you've sent it off to some anonymous INTERNET identities.
I on the other hand have been EVERY DAY making educational videos, performing and reporting tests, circuit variants, and useful devices that demonstrate HOW MOSFETS ACTUALLY FUNCTION IN YOUR CIRCUIT and what PROPERLY SWITCHED MOSFETS CAN DO when they are designed into circuits using CORRECT CONCEPTS of their ACTUAL FUNCTIONING, not some agenda-driven fairy tale of zipons and truants.
Ainslie, I seriously don't think you can actually make a post or a comment without getting something wrong, lying about something, misquoting, misrepresenting, and/or insulting someone.
"Frankly I think TK's drunk".
Do you now.
Well, frankly I think Ainslie is off her meds and needs another little stay in the residential facility to get re-stabilised on her SSRI, before she hurts herself or someone else.
It looks really really bad for Ainslie, when somebody that Ainslie accuses of being "drunk" is able to produce more in a week than she's been able to produce in a year.
Let's see... we have on this thread posters who are drunks, drug addicts, religious fanatics, vulgarians of disgusting dimensions (huge pickles? what a gutter mind she has) and even closet gays.... how horrible is that. We may even have some NEGROES among us, isn't that right Ainslie, since TK is always talking about INTEGRATION and TAR BABIES.
But every one of them knows more about electronics in general, mosfets in particular, and the Ainslie NERD circuit specifically, than poor Little Miss Mendacious Mosfet herself.
# 3778. Matching. Match the internet alias on the LEFT, with the personality characterisation from Ainslie, on the RIGHT. Draw lines connecting the pairs. Each item from either list may be used in several pairings if applicable.
MileHigh drug abuser
PicoWatt religious fanatic
FuzzyTomCat vulgarian of disgusting dimensions
.99 picoqualified
evolvingape well-paid agent
TinselKoala closet gay
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 01:46:57 PM
# 3778. Matching. Match the internet alias on the LEFT, with the personality characterisation from Ainslie, on the RIGHT. Draw lines connecting the pairs. Each item from either list may be used in several pairings if applicable.
MileHigh drug abuser
PicoWatt religious fanatic
FuzzyTomCat vulgarian of disgusting dimensions
.99 picoqualified
evolvingape well-paid agent
TinselKoala closet gay
Is that a "cosmic" vegetarian ? 8)
Look! A bisexual vulgarian out-of-the-closet drug abuser with a pickle of disgusting dimensions!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 01:46:57 PM
# 3778. Matching. Match the internet alias on the LEFT, with the personality characterisation from Ainslie, on the RIGHT. Draw lines connecting the pairs. Each item from either list may be used in several pairings if applicable.
MileHigh drug abuser
PicoWatt religious fanatic
FuzzyTomCat vulgarian of disgusting dimensions
.99 picoqualified
evolvingape well-paid agent
TinselKoala closet gay
# 3778. Matching. Match the internet alias on the LEFT, with the personality characterisation from Ainslie, on the RIGHT. Draw lines connecting the pairs. Each item from either list may be used in several pairings if applicable.
MileHigh drug abuser
PicoWatt religious fanatic
FuzzyTomCat vulgarian of disgusting dimensions
.99 picoqualified
evolvingape
>well-paid agent
TinselKoala closet gay
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 01:46:57 PM
# 3778. Matching. Match the internet alias on the LEFT, with the personality characterisation from Ainslie, on the RIGHT. Draw lines connecting the pairs. Each item from either list may be used in several pairings if applicable.
MileHigh drug abuser
PicoWatt religious fanatic
FuzzyTomCat vulgarian of disgusting dimensions
.99 picoqualified
evolvingape well-paid agent
TinselKoala closet gay
A format error, I assume.
0:33
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg327592/#msg327592
Ah... I see that there IS a genrad 130 Variac in there. I missed it. Thanks.... that's a classic clip indeed.
:)
Meanwhile... the "matching" question wasn't assembled in any particular order (except I saved the juiciest bit for myself) so I hope everybody is equally offended if I got you opposite the wrong -- or right -- personality trait from Ainslie's post.
There is one person missing from that list. The most offensive thing of all is that after about two years RA is still struggling at this very moment to understand how Q2 switches on, while at the same time she has generated tons of bla bla bla verbage in an attempt to sound authoritative about her own circuit.
As of today she is still struggling to understand how Q2 is switching on:
QuoteThere's that distinction again. If we're applying a negative voltage at the gate of Q1 - and this restricts the 'clockwise' flow of current from the battery supply - then HOW does it enable the clockwise flow of current through Q2's source leg. I just can't get there.
MileHigh drug abuser
PicoWatt religious fanatic
FuzzyTomCat vulgarian of disgusting dimensions
.99 picoqualified
evolvingape well-paid agent
TinselKoala closet gay
Rosemary Failed bluffer about the NERD circuit
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 02:16:08 AM
Yes, that's right, but the poly roll caps that I used on the transmitter are 5 % tolerance, and measure right on with my silly ProsKit meter. The poly caps in the receiver match, to the accuracy of the meter. But you are right, however I think this circuit is more sensitive to the inductance... probably precise snipping of the loops would be the way to tune. Marko showed some effect of inductors inside the loop but I haven't been able to see any yet.
I think all the rest of that is right. But the non-inverse square falloff... how do you account for that? If it was simply a matter of being in true resonance, it would seem that you would still get the 1/r2 dependence. But what seems to be happening is that the system increases the output power to compensate for the increased distance, and the bulb stays the same brightness. Is this a result of it being somehow "phase locked" and trying to stay in that nice true resonant notch?
That is what I was thinking. The Tx has a freq that it runs at naturally. And the Rx when within certain proximity may follow long(not short ;] ) with the Tx freq. Like the whipmag CCW stator, having not just one, but a couple of speeds that it would sync at compared to the rotor speed mag pulses.
But then if brought very close, the Tx and Rx , they totally synchronize.
Like you said, the Rx just might be off tune of the Tx.
The input going up when allowing more distance between the Tx and Rx, that is interesting.
I remember the whip, when the CCW was in sync, with my Robowhip adjustable stator positioning, the CCW stator applied quite a bit of drag on the rotor. And that drag did not decrease as the sync'ed stator was moved further from the rotor. I cant say that the drag was more the further out it was, but the super nova thing reminded me of it. Meeehhmries. ;]
Maybe you can apply the Tx driver to the Rx LC and see if they run at different freq naturally. If so, then you can use that basis to fine tune one or the other. ;]
The fact that the input goes up when increasing distance between Tx and Rx shows some sort of dependency involved while in that mode. What I want to try is, to see if more Rx can be driven by the loft side of the Rx, like a chain reaction. It most likely would cause more draw from the input. But if all Tx and Rx are very closely tuned, there may be some better results, what ever they may be. ;]
Mags
Well, I made another transmitter loop that is 2 inches longer. This helped I think. It goes into the "brilliant" mode more easily, stays in with the receiver farther out, and lowered the "nonbrilliant" frequency to under 1 MHz. The "Brilliant" frequency is close to 812.5 kHz and when the transition occurs it is not nearly as noticeable as before, I guess because the freq change isn't as great.
The glass in the bulb is darkening a lot; I almost can't see the filament when it's off. I think this is strange; I have another bulb of the same type.. but sheesh, have you priced small auto bulbs lately? They are all packaged 2 to a blisterpack now, and all cost about 5 dollars the package, no matter the bulb type. It is outrageous to pay 2.50 for a 161 when an 1157 costs the same but has ten times the tungsten and brass and glass in it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2012, 09:08:29 PM
Well, I made another transmitter loop that is 2 inches longer. This helped I think. It goes into the "brilliant" mode more easily, stays in with the receiver farther out, and lowered the "nonbrilliant" frequency to under 1 MHz. The "Brilliant" frequency is close to 812.5 kHz and when the transition occurs it is not nearly as noticeable as before, I guess because the freq change isn't as great.
The glass in the bulb is darkening a lot; I almost can't see the filament when it's off. I think this is strange; I have another bulb of the same type.. but sheesh, have you priced small auto bulbs lately? They are all packaged 2 to a blisterpack now, and all cost about 5 dollars the package, no matter the bulb type. It is outrageous to pay 2.50 for a 161 when an 1157 costs the same but has ten times the tungsten and brass and glass in it.
Very good. Still might need fine 2ning. ;]
The blackening of the glass is just from overpowering the bulb. Step up to the higher wattage, for the same price. ;D Ya get 2 filaments in some. Pk light and brake. ;)
Here is a number request. :o ;) What power can the Tx handle? At 12v?
Mags
What power can it handle...
Well, I dunno. The mosfets are IRF44Z and I haven't blown one yet. They don't even heat up appreciably, although at max power they do warm a bit. The capacitors in the receiver seem to get quite hot; I think it's the caps and not just heating from being close to the bulb. I'll try different types of caps here; these should be poly but maybe I got the wrong type.
Right now with the new xmtr loop it's drawing about 2.2 amps from the 12 volt battery at the brightest and I can get at least 4 times farther away before it cuts back to the higher freq. And there isn't much brightness change at that point. When I first turn it on it "defaults" to the brilliant mode if the receiver is anywhere reasonably close but will flip to the now slightly higher less brilliant mode when I start moving further away.
So I think if I add maybe another half an inch to the coil to bring the freq down a bit more, I'll be there. Or perhaps take a bit off the receiver coil.
Very cool. Does it still increase input the further away as before?
Is the light not quite super nova now? ;)
Thanks for building that. ;]
Mags
I've changed the caps in the receiver and found a combination that gives even brighter light, and less heating in the caps. I think my first set have actually failed; when they get really hot the light gets into a dim mode and the full mutual resonance is lost. So I am now experimenting with receiver caps to try to find a combo that will give me 60 nF plus or minus one or two nF, rated at least 250 V and don't heat up so much. And are small... I could put another 6 of the same rolled caps that are in the transmitter but that doesn't seem elegant, somehow.
"Does it still increase input the further away as before?"
No, now as I get to the right tuning the light is very bright, constant, and the current draw stays almost constant at about 2.2 amps until it slips out of resonance at about 8 inches away now.
Chessnyt, you are a reprehensible liar. YOU CANNOT SUPPORT ANYTHING YOU CLAIM ABOUT ME with actual references, facts, or demonstrations of your own.
For example.... post a link to some other forum where I post. Go ahead, you lying troll. Refute a SINGLE ONE of the points I've made in ANY of my demonstrations. YOU CANNOT, you lying troll.
Prove that MH and I are "tag team partners", you lying troll. You cannot. Just because two people see the same mendacity and foolishness and are willing to point it out vociferously... that does not make them partners, you lying troll.
Go ahead, post a link to some of this DISINFORMATION that MH or I have posted and that you want removed, you lying troll. YOU CANNOT.
You people who make outrageous claims without being able to support them, and who falsely accuse others of WHAT YOU YOURSELVES DO ALL THE TIME... you disgust me.
Ainslie has lied over and over, and every day she continues to lie about her circuit and about us here on this thread. And now she's got another liar coming along with some more lies of his own. But what she doesn't have is ANY PROOF OR SUPPORT FOR HER CLAIMS, because her own data show that they are bogus.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2554.html#msg2554
Ainslie, you are truly a bloviating idiot. Do you even possess a dictionary? There are many available on the internet and they ALL AGREE THAT "DATA" is a PLURAL noun, but BOTH USAGES ARE STANDARD. Mine, however, is more correct since your data DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS, and also YOUR DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.
Here, read and learn, or just look at the shapes, you ignorant cross-forum troll.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/data (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/data)
http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF3/334.html
etc, etc.
QuoteUnlike the laws of science, the laws of language are often subject to the will of the people. And while we cannot change carefully tested scientific truths to fit the fashion, grammarian's rules, when they no longer serve clarity or naturalness of expression, we can throw out the window.
Curiously, scientific writing often contains a mixture of wild experimentation with language and strict adherence to aging rules of usage. New words are often coined recklessly by compounding ordinary words or fragments into technical monsters or awkward hybrids. (A paper was once written about "geochronobioclimatopaleomagnetostratigraphy".) But one rule of usage is dear to every technical writer; it concerns the use of the word data.
Did you know that it is correct to say "The data have reached my desk," and "The data are conclusive," but wrong to say "The data has...," "The data is..."? A Latin word, data is the plural form of datum and therefore requires a plural verb.
Nevertheless, many people feel the word has been Americanized, that it now refers to a collective unit, and takes a singular verb. In fact, of the 136 distinguished consultants on usage polled for the 1975 Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, 49% responded that they use "The data is..." in writing. And in casual speech, 65% use data as singular. Those who defend "The data is..." often point to the fact that agenda is also, strictly, a plural, but is nearly always regarded as a single list and takes a singular verb. You'll probably never hear anyone ask: "Are the agenda interesting?
Still, science is a special case; the international transfer of information is vital. Nearly every technical paper will be read by people for whom English is not the primary language, and communication is not served by constant experimentation.
So, on the issue of data in modern American usage, you might say "The data is mixed". But as for consistency in scientific writing, the data are strongly behind it.
There, feel better now? You really should have stayed in school, Ainslie, instead of arguing with your teachers because you already know everything.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2554.html#msg2554
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2555.html#msg2555
Quoting Rosemary:
QuoteI have been rather flippant about the subject of 'trolls' - but it's actually a subject that engrosses me. As Chess has pointed out - these are characters that are well funded by those with vested interests to keep the evidence of over unity 'under wraps'.
it is a matter of considerable importance and no small urgency that this is entirely understood by our members and our readers. The modus operandi - in the past - has been to scoff, mock, deny, criticise, disclaim, insult, allege, insinuate, infer - accuse, distract and above all - DIMINISH - the claim and claimant. It's been a relatively easy exercise to date to orchestrate this with the active assistance of multiple posters with this shared agenda who thereby 'spin' the illusion of a majority opinion. And with democracy now virtually embedded in our genes - we're inclined to defer to majority opinion. It's the arsenal of our disinformation agents.
Rosemary, you have absolutely nothing when it comes to your NERD circuit. I know that you are obsessed and completely deluded and the message is not going to get through to you. You don't even understand how your circuit works, and you are keenly aware of that but unable to admit it directly.
Just like you are so far off when it comes to your circuit, you are equally far off when it comes to your allegations that myself and TK are "agents." It's ridiculous nonsense.
Both you and Chess look like traji-comic clowns when you allege that. Go see the Rossi thread, I just made a long posting addressing that issue again.
MileHigh
This is for MileHigh
Here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2556.html#msg2556 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2556.html#msg2556)
and here
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2557.html#msg2557 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2557.html#msg2557)
and also here. I nearly forgot to add it.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2
:-*
Ainslie, we are not playing this game. If you want to discuss something or reply to something that is happening HERE, then do it HERE. This stupid idiotic thing you are doing, by posting links here over and over to your forum, is not only a violation of the TOS of this site but it is also SPAMMING and is STUPID. But considering the source..... it's expected from you, vile mendacious Ainslie troll.
I don't have to play your stupid games, Ainslie. You lie and misrepresent and make stupid statements all the time, and when you are REFUTED WITH FACTS AND EXTERNAL REFERENCES, as I ALWAYS DO, you just ignore it, and continue on with your lies and falsehoods.
You and your sock puppet Chessnyt make claims, you talk about spin and all the rest.... BUT YOU CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE THING that I've done or said about YOU with a checkable reference or a demonstration of your own.
YOU CANNOT AND HAVE NOT REFUTED A SINGLE THING THAT I'VE DEMONSTRATED OR SAID ABOUT YOU AND YOUR "EXPERIMENTS".
You continue to lie today. Your 5.9 megajoules in 1.6 hours claims is all over the internet, and there has NEVER been a retraction of this obvious lie, to mention just a single point.
Your posts on your censored forum and your crossposting links here WITHOUT ANY PROOF OR SUPPORT FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS ACCUSATIONS AND ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE POSTERS HERE.... is definitely consistent with your trollish persona.
You've got nothing, so you wriggle and squirm inside your own delusions, thinking that a vast organisation is deployed against you... when actually you are nothing and beyond a few internet posters nobody cares one whit about you and your stupid water heater errors. If you didn't continue to open new forums and lie, over and over, to new people who you suck into your folly, you and your stupid claims would fade into nothingness as they deserve. But you continue to LIE, people at first believe you, and IF they ever actually do any testing IN SPITE OF YOUR OBSTRUCTIVENESS, they ALWAYS have and ALWAYS WILL discover that your claims are bogus, your "experiments" are from a sixth grade science fair, your "thesis" is a hallucinatory dream of impossible fairy tales and cartoons, and that you are full of yourself and that your abysmal ignorance and overweening arrogance and mendacity makes it useless to interact with you.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 05:06:48 AM
This is for MileHigh
Here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2556.html#msg2556 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2556.html#msg2556)
and here
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2557.html#msg2557 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2557.html#msg2557)
and also here. I nearly forgot to add it.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2)
:-*
I NEARLY FORGOT TO ADD this continuing LIE, the 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours LIE, the BOILING WATER LIE, in an image taken JUST NOW from the ONLY "official publication" of AInslie's manuscripts.
Ainslie, there is no point in posting links to your lying mendacious fantasy scribblings. We can see them whenever we like, just by looking at what you call their "PUBLICATION" versions right there in the place where you "PUBLISHED" them: Rossi's vanity blog the "Journal" of Nuclear Physics.
RIGHT NOW TODAY YOUR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS STILL CONTAIN THESE LIES, which you have simply edited out of the versions you now continue to cite, MENDACIOUSLY and without explanation, because the "OFFICIAL" publication version still contains the LIES.
You make all kinds of claims and aspersions against the people and the work that's on this thread... but you cannot provide ONE SINGLE ACTUAL DATUM in support of your lousy insulting comments. Whereas I, and the other posters here, CONTINUALLY REFUTE YOU with actual references, demonstrations, and links to educational materials... which you uniformly ignore in your continuing arrogance.
Analyzing the quotation that is found today on Rossi's JNP "official publication" of Ainslie's "papers", imaged above for reference and quoted here with comments interspersed:
QuoteSteam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded
62°C,
Steam, Ainslie, does not occur unless Water Is Boiling... and Water DOES NOT BOIL at 62 degrees C. In other words, your data do not support your contention EVEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE: You lie. There was no steam.
Quote
which points to a secondary exploitable potential.
A false conclusion based on a lie about the experimental observation.
QuoteAt no stage in this test was any energy depleted by the batteries as
measured in the math trace and spreadsheet analysis.
ON THE CONTRARY, AINSLIE: your own data from this trial DO INDEED show "energy depleted from the battery" as evident in the math trace.... and also the battery average voltage determined by examining the BATTERY MEAN VOLTAGE shown on several different scopeshots from the day of the reported trial... which clearly show a decreasing indicated MEAN BATTERY VOLTAGE over the morning of the trials. IN OTHER WORDS: Your own data once again refute your silly mendacious claim. And when you refer to your UNAVAILABLE SPREADSHEET... this is even more useless than referring to a Mickey Mouse cartoon, because at least THOSE can be reviewed and examined-- your original data is UNAVAILABLE except for the few scopeshots you've released. You are not allowed to talk about data that you cannot or will not produce in a scientific publication, Ainslie, but you... not having ever interacted properly in a scientific arena, simply ignore that fact and continue to make stuff up whenever you think you can get away with it.
Quote
Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
YOU NEVER BOILED WATER IN THE TEST YOU ARE REPORTING and it is a BIG LIE to continue to act as if you did, with your left-handed language that gives you plenty of weaselroom. YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT YOU BOILED WATER ON THAT TRIAL, but you did not ACTUALLY do so. There were small bubbles.... you liar.
Quote
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply.
This claim is a lie, is unsupported by Ainslie's own data, and in fact is refuted by them, and ANYONE who repeats the experiment can see that I am correct and that Ainslie is claiming something that her own data refute.
Quote
Given 4.1 joules required to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C then
The one statement in this entire paragraph that contains a hint of the truth. A calorie is imprecisely defined by Ainslie.
Quote
over the entire 1.6 hour test period about 5 904 000 joules
were dissipated.
OH REALLY AINSLIE. You sat next to a 1 KILOWATT HEAT SOURCE in a small closet of a room for 96 minutes, did you... but you don't mention boiling all the water away, or how uncomfortable it got in there....do you.
I DARE YOU TO TAKE A PORTABLE ELECTRIC HEATER INTO THAT ROOM, TURN IT ON AND CLOSE THE DOOR, and REPORT YOUR RESULTS HERE AFTER 96 MINUTES. You won't, though, because even YOU now realize that 5.9 megaJoule claim is stupid.
This 5.9 megaJoule claim in your OFFICIAL PUBLICATION (sic) is such a ridiculous lie that you have removed it WITHOUT RETRACTION OR COMMENT from the version posted on your new forum. BUT IT REMAINS IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION (sic) ON ROSSI'S JNP, you liar.
QuoteThe batteries’ rated capacity is
IS WHAT, AINSLIE? What is the rated capacity of the battery? Isn't that an important bit of data when you are CONTINUING TO CLAIM THAT YOU EXCEEDED THE BATTERY'S RATED CAPACITY on several individual trials?
Your "paper" is a lie from start to finish, and the second "paper" is a hallucination, full of cartoons that DON'T EVEN CORRESPOND to the "corrected schematic" you now claim to have used.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2558.html#msg2558
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2559.html#msg2559
We aren't playing that game, Ainslie, you liar and troll.
Note the designations of the mosfet's "legs". This cartoon no longer corresponds to the schematic you claim to have used, you inconsistent lying arrogant willfully ignorant old woman of a troll.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 11:05:55 AM
(a link to more lies)
Ainslie, we are not playing this game. If you want to discuss something or reply to something that is happening HERE, then do it HERE. This stupid idiotic thing you are doing, by posting links here over and over to your forum, is not only a violation of the TOS of this site but it is also SPAMMING and is STUPID. But considering the source..... it's expected from you, vile mendacious Ainslie troll.
Rosemary,
Attacking or belittling somebody based on sexuality, regardless of what that person's preference may be, is something I find completely tactless, offensive, and downright primitive. You should be ashamed of yourself, and any sympathy I may have had for you regarding what has been said about you, your circuit, or your methods has vanished completely. I have no respect for bigotry and am disgusted that you would stoop so low.
No warm regards here,
polln8r.
TK,
any upcoming videos on the most recent MSM SSM developments?
I hope so!
polln8r
@polln8r:
Well, yes, actually. Later today, after I've made a parts run, I'll make a new video showing what I've been doing with it.
I've improved the tuning and have been experimenting with different capacitors in the receiver. I have gotten to the point where I blew out that first bulb with too much "brilliance", and the system stays in true resonance for a good distance, like eight inches. I'm being careful with the spare bulb until I get some more, so I can't even bring it completely close in any more because it's so brilliant.
I have also successfully transmitted the power through the side of an aluminum briefcase with minimal attenuation.
aluminum briefcase? Only 'agents' have those! :o ;)
perhaps you need a bigger bulb? (or, at least, see how big of one it'll handle?)
As always, looking forward to the next TK video.
brilliantly warm regards,
polln8r
Quote from: polln8r on July 10, 2012, 04:13:30 PM
Rosemary,
Attacking or belittling somebody based on sexuality, regardless of what that person's preference may be, is something I find completely tactless, offensive, and downright primitive. You should be ashamed of yourself, and any sympathy I may have had for you regarding what has been said about you, your circuit, or your methods has vanished completely. I have no respect for bigotry and am disgusted that you would stoop so low.
No warm regards here,
polln8r.
I was one to defend her, till she misread or chose to define another way, a couple of my posts. Even though I tried to point those items out to her, she began making comments as to my intelect, knowledge, even my spelling, of which there are numerous misspelling by her here in the past. Black black kettle kettle, what? ;]
All will eventually flee from her, when it is their time. :o
Like Scientology, as of late. :o :o ;)
Ive waited and waited for her to do her thing and prove them wrong. Well while waiting, I started paying more attn to the arguments, and, well she hasnt provided much against the consistency of others here have, as to their conclusions.
Waited and waited, faught and faught, and more waiting. But it seems all she has left is to just "try" to apply negative agitation and name calling and fib after fib. Just fibbin all ova diss place! Never "really" showing herself to be a step above or even at the level of anyone here, which is what I expected from her.
So, Ive given in to the dark side. ;] Since that is where all the light is. ;] I just had to remove my goofy goggles, to see what is real.
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2012, 10:25:59 AM
I NEARLY FORGOT TO ADD this continuing LIE, the 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours LIE, the BOILING WATER LIE, in an image taken JUST NOW from the ONLY "official publication" of AInslie's manuscripts.
Hmm, what would it take to burn 5.9 MJ in 1.6 hours, for real? How much water boiling would "really" happen in that amount of time with that much energy used? ;)
Mags
Polln8r
Attacking or belittling somebody based on their sexuality - regardless of what that person's preference may be - is INDEED tactless, offensive and downright primitive. I am NOT ashamed of myself as I have NEVER been guilty of this. I strongly adhere to the rights of everyone to express whichever proclivities they desire sexual or otherwise. But always excepting misogynists - ageists - racists and educational elitists. But nor am I trying to salvage your good opinion. If you are in support of the multiple level of personal attack that is staged by TK where all such censure is evident - then I would prefer NOT to have you support.
Rosemary
Quote from: polln8r on July 10, 2012, 04:13:30 PM
Rosemary,
Attacking or belittling somebody based on sexuality, regardless of what that person's preference may be, is something I find completely tactless, offensive, and downright primitive. You should be ashamed of yourself, and any sympathy I may have had for you regarding what has been said about you, your circuit, or your methods has vanished completely. I have no respect for bigotry and am disgusted that you would stoop so low.
No warm regards here,
polln8r.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 10, 2012, 06:02:00 PM
I was one to defend her, till she misread or chose to define another way, a couple of my posts. Even though I tried to point those items out to her, she began making comments as to my intelect, knowledge, even my spelling, of which there are numerous misspelling by her here in the past. Black black kettle kettle, what? ;]
All will eventually flee from her, when it is their time. :o
Like Scientology, as of late. :o :o ;)
Ive waited and waited for her to do her thing and prove them wrong. Well while waiting, I started paying more attn to the arguments, and, well she hasnt provided much against the consistency of others here have, as to their conclusions.
Waited and waited, faught and faught, and more waiting. But it seems all she has left is to just "try" to apply negative agitation and name calling and fib after fib. Just fibbin all ova diss place! Never "really" showing herself to be a step above or even at the level of anyone here, which is what I expected from her.
So, Ive given in to the dark side. ;] Since that is where all the light is. ;] I just had to remove my goofy goggles, to see what is real.
Mags
LOL. Sorry to see this Magsy. You must resist that 'dark side' just a little bit longer. I PROMISE YOU that I'll be starting my tests - just as soon as my apparatus is returned.
Brilliantly (as polln8r puts it) warm regards,
Rosie Pose
Guys, this post is most assuredly for TK's thread. I have some cysts diagnosed that have to be removed. The news is not pleasant - except obviously that our Little TK will be delighted. This was a 'wake up call' for me. I've never really enjoyed a robust good health. But this diagnosis has been a salutary reminder that one is not actually invincible and - the older one gets the more aware one is of one's mortality. In any event. I advise all and sundry that if they can avoid it - better not to grow old. I'm ONLY afraid of dying of old age - so am not that concerned at the possible implications of all this. But I most certainly AM concerned if it means that in my absense, my work in this field will be trashed by the mindless and irrelevant posts that TK indulges in this thread - without any reasonable protester coming to its rescue. It is - most assuredly - the single most disgusting thread that has ever disgraced any forum anywhere at all.
So. Let me re-iterate. We have a paper that shows proof of a measured anomaly - specifically COP infinity. The paper that has been published in JONP included errors. For reasons that I do not understand it has not been corrected. Hopefully, in due course, when those involved have more time - then this will be attended to. That paper unequivocally refers to the evidence of steam at 62 degrees centigrade or thereby. TK is trying to argue that this is incorrect. He is wrong. Steam is simply the evidence of evaporation at an accelerated rate due to increased energy applied to that water. Under pressure steam is ALWAYS exploitable. That was our point. We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water. We ONLY measured the temperature of the element in conjunction with that water. His multiple bases of objections are utterly spurious - offensive - and slanderous. And it is always more than a little insulting to be obliged to answer them. I am SATISFIED that it is this thread that has induced this horrible sickness in me. Effectively TK's unadulterated hate has had it's desired consequence.
His efforts here are so utterly devoid of good intention, reason, or moderation that it is an indictment - not only on Harti Berlin - but on all those posters that contribute in support of TK's hate.
Regards
Rosemary
OK Rosemary,
a quote from you on your site:
"And they're rather sick - phsychologically. All of them. I don't want to go into the personality profiles of any of them - in any depth - but one of them is a closet gay - another is vulgarian of rather disgusting dimensions. A third is a drug abuser and a fourth is - if you can believe it - a religious fanatic."
Is this not meant as an attack on the character of the people you've referred to? Is the phrase "a closet gay" not meant to be belittling the person of whom you speak? The three characterizations that follow surely seem to be, so it's not difficult to assume that was.
Apologies if I misjudged that whole bit,
polln8r
Quote from: polln8r on July 10, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
OK Rosemary,
a quote from you on your site:
"And they're rather sick - phsychologically. All of them. I don't want to go into the personality profiles of any of them - in any depth - but one of them is a closet gay - another is vulgarian of rather disgusting dimensions. A third is a drug abuser and a fourth is - if you can believe it - a religious fanatic."
Is this not meant as an attack on the character of the people you've referred to? Is the phrase "a closet gay" not meant to be belittling the person of whom you speak? The three characterizations that follow surely seem to be, so it's not difficult to assume that was.
Apologies if I misjudged that whole bit,
polln8r
If there is any characterisation that is censorial - it is the 'closet' part of the closet gay and there is nothing intended to belittle anyone. It is simply a schedule of their OBVIOUS personality traits. God knows - someone needs to point out that they're not exactly 'wholesome'.
regards
Rosemary
Here's evidence of ACTUAL 'belittling'. Calling me a liar in every sentence. Suggesting that my diagrams show MOSFETS engaged in sexual congruence. Suggesting sexual congruence in his videos when he illustrated my tests. Shouting to the world that I'm addled and senile and utterly bereft of intellect, reason or education. Showing DELIGHT when I report the death of a close family member. NEED I GO ON?
I'm sure I speak for all Rosemary, that despite all our disagreements and debates, we hope that your health issues are mild and that your recovery is swift and full.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 10, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
I'm sure I speak for all Rosemary, that despite all our disagreements and debates, we hope that your health issues are mild and that your recovery is swift and full.
Thank you Poynty. I am certainly NOT including you in this fiasco. You have the rare and special talent of trying to dig for the appropriate argument.
But time is always of an essence. PLEASE attend to my questions.
Regards,
Rosie
Rosemary,
I was mid-reply when you posted about your health. I do hope your upcoming procedures are successful and that you get well soon.
polln8r
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 10:06:26 PM
LOL. Sorry to see this Magsy. You must resist that 'dark side' just a little bit longer. I PROMISE YOU that I'll be starting my tests - just as soon as my apparatus is returned.
Brilliantly (as polln8r puts it) warm regards,
Rosie Pose
The dark side was a sarcasm. :P
Well, why be involved with all the chatter, and simply get down to the matter? ???
What really gets me is, if you say you know this stuff about your project, then answers to all questions should be a cakewalk for you. If there are questions beyond the scope of your intentions for this project, I would be one to want to learn those things. Or even study them in order to maybe better my case defending my project.
These circuits these guys have put together, sims also(which come close to near mirror image in function and analysis), are proving a lot of fairly consistent results.
If the circuits shown in these threads are NOT the circuit you are using, then you were very wrong in presenting them as such.
Is your actual (present) circuit different than anything presented so far?
Successful people that really want people to embrace their ideas, will always give a straight forward answer to any questions, repeatedly, again and again. They would not say, "Ive already covered that" Never. What, is it too much to keep retyping it all? Well, you been typing a lot anyways. Why not make it count. For the record that is.
This is all a record.
If you keep on writing all that crapola, what do you think those checking you out to see what you are blogging about, will think of the way you carry yourself in these manors?
Its not all clean talk Rose, From either side. Its a BIG pile of doo doo, and you keep dancin in it, and for "EVERYONE" to see. Well thats how seriously people are going to take you.
Its like this. What if Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, were to have been involved in this type of behavior. Do you think it would be a building block in their great success? :o :o
Those guys would turn you for a loop. They would not need rhetoric. If they had to argue their product, they would be able to produce answers to uphold their cases, repeatedly and consistently.
You cant just plead the 5th amendment and win.
Rose, why is that transistor not turning on? Guys, FIFTH! I PLEAD DA FIFF! FIF. Kindest regards :-*
Is that the hand you intend to play Rose? Is it that hard to get a pair, and just do the work and provide answers, even if you have to repeat them, with consistency. Consistency means quality.
But all this mess? This is where you want to do the funny dance? Or do you want to get busy and type out real work, instead of meaningless doo doo on the shoes? All them key presses lately say what Rose? Could you have made better choices in the keys you have pressed? ???
If you think the way you are handling this is going to build your blocks to success, then a good set of glasses isnt going to help you.
The dark sides comin and nothing is real 8) ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWddBTxPDYQ
MaGs :o
Quote from: polln8r on July 10, 2012, 11:33:52 PM
Rosemary,
I was mid-reply when you posted about your health. I do hope your upcoming procedures are successful and that you get well soon.
polln8r
Thanks polln8r.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Magluvin on July 10, 2012, 11:35:35 PM
The dark side was a sarcasm. :P
Well, why be involved with all the chatter, and simply get down to the matter? ???
What really gets me is, if you say you know this stuff about your project, then answers to all questions should be a cakewalk for you. If there are questions beyond the scope of your intentions for this project, I would be one to want to learn those things. Or even study them in order to maybe better my case defending my project.
These circuits these guys have put together, sims also(which come close to near mirror image in function and analysis), are proving a lot of fairly consistent results.
If the circuits shown in these threads are NOT the circuit you are using, then you were very wrong in presenting them as such.
Is your actual (present) circuit different than anything presented so far?
Successful people that really want people to embrace their ideas, will always give a straight forward answer to any questions, repeatedly, again and again. They would not say, "Ive already covered that" Never. What, is it too much to keep retyping it all? Well, you been typing a lot anyways. Why not make it count. For the record that is.
This is all a record.
If you keep on writing all that crapola, what do you think those checking you out to see what you are blogging about, will think of the way you carry yourself in these manors?
Its not all clean talk Rose, From either side. Its a BIG pile of doo doo, and you keep dancin in it, and for "EVERYONE" to see. Well thats how seriously people are going to take you.
Its like this. What if Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, were to have been involved in this type of behavior. Do you think it would be a building block in their great success? :o :o
Those guys would turn you for a loop. They would not need rhetoric. If they had to argue their product, they would be able to produce answers to uphold their cases, repeatedly and consistently.
You cant just plead the 5th amendment and win.
Rose, why is that transistor not turning on? Guys, FIFTH! I PLEAD DA FIFF! FIF. Kindest regards :-*
Is that the hand you intend to play Rose? Is it that hard to get a pair, and just do the work and provide answers, even if you have to repeat them, with consistency. Consistency means quality.
But all this mess? This is where you want to do the funny dance? Or do you want to get busy and type out real work, instead of meaningless doo doo on the shoes? All them key presses lately say what Rose? Could you have made better choices in the keys you have pressed? ???
If you think the way you are handling this is going to build your blocks to success, then a good set of glasses isnt going to help you.
The dark sides comin and nothing is real 8) ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWddBTxPDYQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWddBTxPDYQ)
MaGs :o
The reason I don't answer your questions Mags - is PRECISELY because of the entire lack of respect related to the method of 'asking'. When you can show more respect - then I'd be more inclined to bother.
Rosie Pose
Was mid post also. Sorry to hear also Rose. I dont think anyone wishes something like that for anyone here.
I hope all goes well. ;]
All of this other stuff, is just this other stuff. about the stuff. You know.
Mags
Quote from: polln8r on July 10, 2012, 05:04:31 PM
aluminum briefcase? Only 'agents' have those! :o ;)
perhaps you need a bigger bulb? (or, at least, see how big of one it'll handle?)
As always, looking forward to the next TK video.
brilliantly warm regards,
polln8r
Thanks!
And yes, a bigger bulb, different caps, better tuning. Check out the new video...it's "brilliant" !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqSH_cfrX8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqSH_cfrX8)
I'm saving the briefcase demo for later.
8)
(For some reason the aspect ratio got screwed up. I'll try to upload another take later on, but this one's good enough for an early release.)
Rose, I havent asked you much on a technical basis. Im talking about others questions.
When Pico first came here, he asked you very nicely. Many times. Why many times? No answers. ;)
Is that all you got from that post Rose? Well, at least your young enough to keep on dancin. ;]
Hope all goes well.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 10, 2012, 11:50:36 PM
Rose, I havent asked you much on a technical basis. Im talking about others questions.
When Pico first came here, he asked you very nicely. Many times. Why many times? No answers. ;)
Is that all you got from that post Rose? Well, at least your young enough to keep on dancin. ;]
Hope all goes well.
Mags
Not actually Mags. Picowatt's questions were answered on my locked thread. He simply denied that they'd been answered. I re-answered them - YET AGAIN. And he simply continued to ask them. You really need to see the big picture. It's the fact that these pages are turned so quickly and none of you have the kind of interest that extends past the last page turned. Sadly. Which makes those propaganda techniques HIGHLY efficient.
Rosemary
And as for THIS!!!!!!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2012, 11:48:56 PM
Thanks!
And yes, a bigger bulb, different caps, better tuning. Check out the new video...it's "brilliant" !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqSH_cfrX8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqSH_cfrX8)
I'm saving the briefcase demo for later.
8)
(For some reason the aspect ratio got screwed up. I'll try to upload another take later on, but this one's good enough for an early release.)
HAVE THE COURTESY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'VE ANSWERED YOUR ALLEGATIONS - INSINUATIONS - ACCUSATIONS - RELATED TO STEAM. AND TO YOUR ACCUSATIONS RELATED TO MY PAPER...YOU HORRIBLE LITTLE MAN.
R
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2012, 11:48:56 PM
Thanks!
And yes, a bigger bulb, different caps, better tuning. Check out the new video...it's "brilliant" !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqSH_cfrX8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqSH_cfrX8)
I'm saving the briefcase demo for later.
8)
(For some reason the aspect ratio got screwed up. I'll try to upload another take later on, but this one's good enough for an early release.)
Ya might wanna call it " Sorry About The Light Laboratories Inc." ;] TM
Very cool. I noticed that when you put the original Rx to the side, when your new coil touched the original, the original looked like it was goin super nova. Lol I laughed each time you said it. Ya sound tired and silly. But good show.
Damn numbers. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 11:58:10 PM
And as for THIS!!!!!!
HAVE THE COURTESY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'VE ANSWERED YOUR ALLEGATIONS - INSINUATIONS - ACCUSATIONS - RELATED TO STEAM. AND TO YOUR ACCUSATIONS RELATED TO MY PAPER...YOU HORRIBLE LITTLE MAN.
R
Courtesy? When you NEVER acknowledge my refutations of your absurd claims, like your "Data/datum" howler of yesterday? I owe you no courtesy whatsoever, you have abdicated all rights to courteous treatment by me long ago by your lack of simple and common courtesy and respect for OTHER PEOPLE including me.
You've given rationalizations but YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED. And, for your information, Little Miss MENDACIOUS MOSFET, Steam comes from BOILING WATER, it is by DEFINITION 100 degrees C or hotter, and you CLAIM BY IMPLICATION IN YOUR PAPER to measure the temperature of the WATER... even though we know here that you did not.
In other words, YES, you are a liar, and you have not answered the objections raised AT ALL, you have only rationalized and lied yet again.
You cannot understand why the paper on the JNP is STILL WRONG? It is because YOU DID NOT RETRACT IT when the "errors' were pointed out to you, WEEKS AGO.
AND as for THIS !! ... what, you are indignant that I can actually DO SOMETHING INTERESTING, proving, for example, THAT POWER CAN BE TRANSMITTED WITHOUT WIRE CONNECTING PATHWAYS by mosfets in a circuit oscillating at nearly the same frequency as yours does? Yes, AINSLIE, express your indignation that others CAN and DO understand things a little better that you do. Hold your breath, turn blue, stomp your feet..... MAKE YOURSELF SICK with your mendacity and blackened heart.
You even blame ME for your illness. That is really SICK. Nobody has ever forced you to engage with me and all I have ever demanded from you is the TRUTH, yet you go out of your way to lie and insult me with your garbage and your mendacious claims.
YOU HORRIBLE OLD WOMAN. Stew in your own juices for a while, Ainslie, you bore me, so I've moved on to more interesting things.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 10, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
I'm sure I speak for all Rosemary, that despite all our disagreements and debates, we hope that your health issues are mild and that your recovery is swift and full.
As long as she sees fit outright actually to BLAME ME for her illness.... then I suppose she gets whatever she deserves in this life, as do we all.
QuoteI am SATISFIED that it is this thread that has induced this horrible sickness in me. Effectively TK's unadulterated hate has had it's desired consequence.
Its, Ainslie, grammar queen, not "it's".
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 11:58:10 PM
And as for THIS!!!!!!
HAVE THE COURTESY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'VE ANSWERED YOUR ALLEGATIONS - INSINUATIONS - ACCUSATIONS - RELATED TO STEAM. AND TO YOUR ACCUSATIONS RELATED TO MY PAPER...YOU HORRIBLE LITTLE MAN.
R
Rose, you better go back and look at that quote you posted of TK. It contained nothing in reference to you. Your response is just insane if it is in reference to the post you pasted. LOOK!
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on July 11, 2012, 12:25:29 AM
Rose, you better go back and look at that quote you posted of TK. It contained nothing in reference to you. Your response is just insane if it is in reference to the post you pasted. LOOK!
MaGs
I KNOW THIS MAGS. What is wrong with you? He posted half a page related to the REFUTATION OF STEAM as detailed in our paper. I ANSWERED HIS REFUTATION. HE IGNORED MY ANSWER. I was referring to the fact that he NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES AN ANSWER - OR HE DENIES ITS RELEVANCE. It's DISGUSTING.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 11:55:09 PM
Not actually Mags. Picowatt's questions were answered on my locked thread. He simply denied that they'd been answered. I re-answered them - YET AGAIN. And he simply continued to ask them. You really need to see the big picture. It's the fact that these pages are turned so quickly and none of you have the kind of interest that extends past the last page turned. Sadly. Which makes those propaganda techniques HIGHLY efficient.
Rosemary
You did not answer his questions in the locked thread.
I have been over it several times looking for your "answers" and your "retractions" that you have claimed are there, and they cannot be found.Not only that but I have the entire thread archived for reference locally in case it's removed.
Why don't you simply post a link to the place in the thread where you have answered them? We KNOW you know how to post links, Ainslie.
Why don't you PROVE your contention with an actual REFERENCE for once? Because you CANNOT, that's why.
Do you think that thread is unavailable because it's locked? Contrariwise, it is still available for anyone to read. You can jump in anywhere.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318688/#msg318688
YOU need to see the big picture, Ainslie. You never answered PW's questions AT ALL, nor did you answer the same questions when .99 asked them over a year ago.
IF YOU DID.... refute me by simply posting a link to where you DID answer them.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 12:28:32 AM
I KNOW THIS MAGS. What is wrong with you? He posted half a page related to the REFUTATION OF STEAM as detailed in our paper. I ANSWERED HIS REFUTATION. HE IGNORED MY ANSWER. I was referring to the fact that he NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES AN ANSWER - OR HE DENIES ITS RELEVANCE. It's DISGUSTING.
Rosemary
You are a liar plain and simple.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 11:04:42 PM
If there is any characterisation that is censorial - it is the 'closet' part of the closet gay and there is nothing intended to belittle anyone. It is simply a schedule of their OBVIOUS personality traits. God knows - someone needs to point out that they're not exactly 'wholesome'.
regards
Rosemary
Here's evidence of ACTUAL 'belittling'. Calling me a liar in every sentence. Suggesting that my diagrams show MOSFETS engaged in sexual congruence. Suggesting sexual congruence in his videos when he illustrated my tests. Shouting to the world that I'm addled and senile and utterly bereft of intellect, reason or education. Showing DELIGHT when I report the death of a close family member. NEED I GO ON?
You forgot "And they're
rather sick - phsychologically. All of them. I don't want to go into the personality profiles of any of them - in any depth - but one of them is a closet gay..."
Oh... wait... That was YOU, AINSLIE, that said that, wasn't it. Not intended to belittle anyone, at all, in any way. Just intended to call them... what? Not a belittling comment at all, is it. Not belittling them for their sexual orientation or their desires to keep it "in the closet" or not... are you, Ainslie?
Yes, you hypocritical liar, you ARE.
In addition, you should go back and look again at what I said when you made your last desperate plea for sympathy. I did not express or show DELIGHT as you claim. Rather I pointed out that we all lose loved ones and that it does not entitle you a "pass" on your continued false claims and your continuous misstating the words and meanings of others. I deeply regret that you are such a jerk to use your relative's death as a plea for some special treatment here.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 10, 2012, 11:55:09 PM
Not actually Mags. Picowatt's questions were answered on my locked thread. He simply denied that they'd been answered. I re-answered them - YET AGAIN. And he simply continued to ask them. You really need to see the big picture. It's the fact that these pages are turned so quickly and none of you have the kind of interest that extends past the last page turned. Sadly. Which makes those propaganda techniques HIGHLY efficient.
Rosemary
No, you have never answered my question.
You ARGUED that the 'scope was being read wrong. First you argued the offset numbers needed to be factored in. Then you argued that the 'scope needed to be AC coupled. Neither argument is valid. Check with LeCroy!
There is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, this is a "given".
So,
In FIG3, during the positive portion of the FG cycle, there is +12 volts indicated as beiing applied to the gate of Q1. This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on. Yet, during that same portion of the FG cycle, there is no current flow indicated via the CSR as would be expected if Q1 were fully on.
SImilarly, in FIG7, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn Q1 on, and again no expected current flow is observed via the CSR.
In FIG5, made the month prior, during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approximately +5 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1, and as expected, current flow is indeed observed via the CSR.
Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?
During the FIG3 and FIG7 tests, was Q1 damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic?
Quote from: Magluvin on July 11, 2012, 12:25:29 AM
Rose, you better go back and look at that quote you posted of TK. It contained nothing in reference to you. Your response is just insane if it is in reference to the post you pasted. LOOK!
MaGs
Her "response" is just insane, period. I suppose she has no dictionary, since she thinks that Steam comes from a 64 degree heating element, and she now claims that she is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WATER TEMPERATURE and that they never measured the water temperature? What planet are we on now, Magsy?
Ainslie said,
QuoteThat paper unequivocally refers to the evidence of steam at 62 degrees centigrade or thereby. TK is trying to argue that this is incorrect. He is wrong. Steam is simply the evidence of evaporation at an accelerated rate due to increased energy applied to that water. Under pressure steam is ALWAYS exploitable. That was our point. We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water. We ONLY measured the temperature of the element in conjunction with that water. His multiple bases of objections are utterly spurious - offensive - and slanderous. And it is always more than a little insulting to be obliged to answer them. I am SATISFIED that it is this thread that has induced this horrible sickness in me. Effectively TK's unadulterated hate has had it's desired consequence.
You are caught out in YET ANOTHER LIE, Ainslie. Either you LIE in your paper, or you LIE now, or ...most likely... both.
Can anyone see this image below, taken JUST NOW from the "paper" on Rossi's JNP?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 12:52:35 AM
Her "response" is just insane, period. I suppose she has no dictionary, since she thinks that Steam comes from a 64 degree heating element, and she now claims that she is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WATER TEMPERATURE and that they never measured the water temperature? What planet are we on now, Magsy?
Oh, that planet seemed to go super nova dude. Complete quasar man.
I caint handleit dude. I, welp, caint rightly say. pew.
It is amazing though.
But really, is there anything else to prove here? I guess the ball is(and has been) in her court.
Back to the fun zone. ;]
Mags
Guys, this is in answer to picowatt's post.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg2563.html#msg2563 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg2563.html#msg2563)
Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
MAGS you may want to read it.
added
for those who want to know the objective and relevance of the test here's a transcript
We will then be able to prove that picowatt's repeated reference to this through multiple posts on both TK's hate thread and my own flamed and locked thread - were spurious and intended ONLY to harass me personally and to imply publicly that our measurements are erroneous. It will belie his allegation that experts at LeCroy have validated that this measurement is correctly shown as a DC coupled value. And it will show the relevance of the coupling which picowatt has been anxiously attempting to deny.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 10, 2012, 06:12:24 PM
Hmm, what would it take to burn 5.9 MJ in 1.6 hours, for real? How much water boiling would "really" happen in that amount of time with that much energy used? ;)
Mags
Well, it's not too hard to figure it out, is it?
A Joule is a Watt-second. So if you are burning 5.9 megaJoules
PER 1.6 hours, to get the AVERAGE POWER sustained for that time, you DIVIDE the number of Joules in 5.9 MJ by the number of seconds in 1.6 hours.
In "math language" that is
5,900,000 J / (1.6 hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute) = 5900000 Watt-seconds / (1.6 hours x 3600 seconds/hour)
== a bit over 1024 Watts, and all the unit dimensions work out correctly.
So that is a kiloWatt, continuously, for that 96 minutes. An average electric single element hotplate is about 800 Watts, and will bring a quart of water to a full rolling boil in about 5 minutes or so. In thirty minutes... I don't think there would be any water left, and it would be pretty hot and humid in the closet.
But you could figure it out more precisely than that. If there were 0.85 liters (or 700 mL as claimed by her in another description of the same experiment) of water, and the container wasn't insulated so it takes twice the actual Joules for the same temp rise... Heck just call it a liter of water. So to go from 16 C ambient to 100 C takes 1000 grams x 84 degrees x 4.18 J/gm/deg, doubled for the thermal leakage, gives just a bit over 700 kJ. And the phase change to steam requires 2260 J/gm to turn the water at 100 C into steam at 100 C. So to vaporize that whole liter of water then would take a further 2260 J/gm x 1000 gm == 2,260,000 Joules. Double that for leakage to get 4,520,000 J and add the first 700 kJ to heat the water to 100 degrees and you STILL have some Joules left over, even at 50 percent efficiency due to heat leakage from the container.
In other words, even allowing for HALF THE HEAT to leak away and not affect the water at all, one could boil a full liter of water COMPLETELY TO STEAM AT 100 C and still only dissipate a little over 5 MJ.
What is even more surprising is that her battery pack contains over twice that amount of energy and could, if matters were arranged PROPERLY, boil away that much water quite easily. All you need is Ainslie's heating element, her batteries ... and a couple of stout jumper wires.
I have NEVER stated anywhere EVER - that we dissipate 5 megajoules of power during any test period. Dear God. This is SPIN gone WILD.
Rosemary
ADDED
We most certainly dissipated ABOUT 5 megajoules OVER that entire test period. We omit reference to this in our paper because the quantity of water was not established.
Actually guys
Nothing is going to stop this until I do my tests. Until then may I PLEASE caution you to ignore any allegations made by picowatt - TK or MileHigh. They're lying. To a man.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:33:07 AM
I have NEVER stated anywhere EVER - that we dissipate 5 megajoules of power during any test period. Dear God. This is SPIN gone WILD.
Rosemary
WHAAT??? Look at your PAPER, you idiot. THIS IS UP RIGHT NOW AT ROSSI's JNP.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:35:44 AM
Actually guys
Nothing is going to stop this until I do my tests. Until then may I PLEASE caution you to ignore any allegations made by picowatt - TK or MileHigh. They're lying. To a man.
Regards,
Rosemary
Ainslie, you are never going to do any tests, because YOU DON"T HAVE ANY APPARATUS any more.
AND YOU CANNOT SHOW ANY PLACE WHERE ANY OF US HAVE NOT TOLD THE TRUTH. But you lie right here on this page, AS I HAVE PROVEN YET AGAIN WITH YOUR OWN PUBLICATIONS AND YOUR OWN WORDS.
AND THIS REPLY IS UP ON YOUR THREAD RIGHT NOW.....
Guys, this post is most assuredly for TK's thread. I have some cysts diagnosed that have to be removed. The news is not pleasant - except obviously that our Little TK will be delighted. This was a 'wake up call' for me. I've never really enjoyed a robust good health. But this diagnosis has been a salutary reminder that one is not actually invincible and - the older one gets the more aware one is of one's mortality. In any event. I advise all and sundry that if they can avoid it - better not to grow old. I'm ONLY afraid of dying of old age - so am not that concerned at the possible implications of all this. But I most certainly AM concerned if it means that in my absense, my work in this field will be trashed by the mindless and irrelevant posts that TK indulges in this thread - without any reasonable protester coming to its rescue. It is - most assuredly - the single most disgusting thread that has ever disgraced any forum anywhere at all.
So. Let me re-iterate. We have a paper that shows proof of a measured anomaly - specifically COP infinity. The paper that has been published in JONP included errors. For reasons that I do not understand it has not been corrected. Hopefully, in due course, when those involved have more time - then this will be attended to. That paper unequivocally refers to the evidence of steam at 62 degrees centigrade or thereby. TK is trying to argue that this is incorrect. He is wrong. Steam is simply the evidence of evaporation at an accelerated rate due to increased energy applied to that water. Under pressure steam is ALWAYS exploitable. That was our point. We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water. We ONLY measured the temperature of the element in conjunction with that water. His multiple bases of objections are utterly spurious - offensive - and slanderous. And it is always more than a little insulting to be obliged to answer them. I am SATISFIED that it is this thread that has induced this horrible sickness in me. Effectively TK's unadulterated hate has had it's desired consequence.His efforts here are so utterly devoid of good intention, reason, or moderation that it is an indictment - not only on Harti Berlin - but on all those posters that contribute in support of TK's hate.RegardsRosemary
Seriously... Ainslie says they did not measure the water temperature. But her paper cites water temperature measurements.
Ainslie says she did not claim 5.9 megaJoules were dissipated in ANY TEST EVER. Yet... there it is, in black and white in the OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, which I have been pointing out now for some weeks.
Ainslie lies with every post she makes, as long as those lies are available without being FULLY RETRACTED with explanations.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 01:38:12 AM
Ainslie, you are never going to do any tests, because YOU DON"T HAVE ANY APPARATUS any more.
AND YOU CANNOT SHOW ANY PLACE WHERE ANY OF US HAVE NOT TOLD THE TRUTH. But you lie right here on this page, AS I HAVE PROVEN YET AGAIN WITH YOUR OWN PUBLICATIONS AND YOUR OWN WORDS.
You REALLY need to believe this TK. Because when those tests are completed I PROMISE YOU that I will have you ACCOUNT for your slander. And IF I cannot do it myself - I assure you it will be required in my legacy.
Rosemary
Ainslie you liar. You could very easily post a comment under the paper with an erratum notice that would be read INSTANTLY. BUT YOU HAVE NOT. And I am very sure that if you sent a retraction to Rossi he would make the correction immediately. BUT YOU HAVE NOT SEEN FIT TO DO SO.
And claiming that paper is an "error" does not cancel out your LYING statement that you NEVER CLAIMED 5.9 megaJoules, because anybody can see that you DID in fact claim that, through many separate editions and you only think it's an error NOW, because I have pointed out that it is ABSURD.
But don't you realise that your major claim DEPENDS on that little subclaim? Evidently not. Because you only dissipated a small fraction of your battery's capacity, not the Big Amount you intended to make people believe with your 5.9 MegaJoule howler.
Enough of your mendacity, Ainslie. Go to bed, you need the rest.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:44:21 AM
You REALLY need to believe this TK. Because when those tests are completed I PROMISE YOU that I will have you ACCOUNT for your slander. And IF I cannot do it myself - I assure you it will be required in my legacy.
Rosemary
Link to some false statement that any of us has made. I can link to plenty that YOU have made, and I do so frequently, because you make them so frequently. Why do you NEVER have the "courtesy" to back up your accusations and yes, slanders, with actual references? BECAUSE YOU CANNOT.
Your "Legacy"? I laugh at you and your weak-kneed plea for pity. Do you think that you are the only sick person in the world?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 01:49:25 AM
Link to some false statement that any of us has made. I can link to plenty that YOU have made, and I do so frequently, because you make them so frequently. Why do you NEVER have the "courtesy" to back up your accusations and yes, slanders, with actual references? BECAUSE YOU CANNOT.
Your "Legacy"? I laugh at you and your weak-kneed plea for pity. Do you think that you are the only sick person in the world?
Pity? You think I look for pity? Then you REALLY don't know me.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:33:07 AM
I have NEVER stated anywhere EVER - that we dissipate 5 megajoules of power during any test period. Dear God. This is SPIN gone WILD.
Rosemary
ADDED
We most certainly dissipated ABOUT 5 megajoules OVER that entire test period. We omit reference to this in our paper because the quantity of water was not established.
Preserved for posterity.
Can anyone decode this self-contradictory statement? First she DENYS that she EVER CLAIMED IT, then she MOST CERTAINLY CLAIMS IT.
And as I have shown, both the water quantity AND the 5.9 megaJoule figure ARE given in the paper.
IT'S IN THE IMAGE I'VE POSTED, Ainslie. ANYONE CAN SEE THAT YOU ARE LYING RIGHT NOW !!
And this is all why it is that it's a waste of time posting on this disgusting thread. Cheers all. I'll stick to my references in future.
Regards
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:51:24 AM
Pity? You think I look for pity? Then you REALLY don't know me.
R
If you are not looking for pity, why mention your health? Have I ever mentioned MY health?
You don't even know your own mind, evidently. You are indeed looking for pity and setting up an excuse for NOT TESTING anything, just as you used the earlier report of your relative's death to postpone.. and finally never do... the tests you had promised to do.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:53:47 AM
And this is all why it is that it's a waste of time posting on this disgusting thread. Cheers all. I'll stick to my references in future.
Regards
Rosemary
Because you are continually refuted by your own contradictions and claims and data. Good bye, liar.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:15:30 AM
Guys, this is in answer to picowatt's post.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg2563.html#msg2563 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg2563.html#msg2563)
Regards,
Rosemary
ADDED
MAGS you may want to read it.
added
for those who want to know the objective and relevance of the test here's a transcript
We will then be able to prove that picowatt's repeated reference to this through multiple posts on both TK's hate thread and my own flamed and locked thread - were spurious and intended ONLY to harass me personally and to imply publicly that our measurements are erroneous. It will belie his allegation that experts at LeCroy have validated that this measurement is correctly shown as a DC coupled value. And it will show the relevance of the coupling which picowatt has been anxiously attempting to deny.
Again, as usual, you do not answer the question.
Setting the 'scope improperly by switching the FG channel to AC coupling so that it reads incorrectly is not an answer at all.
Your AC coupling argument is nonsense. You do not even know enough about electronics to realize just how much nonsense that AC coupling argumet is.
Before doing any tests, I suggest you learn how to use a 'scope.
Something is amiss with Q1 in FIG3 and FIG7. I believe just about everyone but you can see that. All the necessary info is right there in FIG3 and FIG7 for all to see.
All data and discussion regarding the tests those captures depict needs to be retracted, corrected, or dismissed by the reader as invalid.
Rosemary,
I actually have taken the time to go all the way back to when this circuit was first introduced in this forum, and I've even looked at the posts in that other forum where concurrent discussions were happening. What I saw was this: Various people did a lot of work to repeat the results you had claimed. A lot of people got excited about the circuit... you even gave credit to TK for having generated this excitement. Eventually, conclusions would be made that the claims, unfortunately, were untrue. And, whenever this happened, you called whichever experimenter incompetent or unqualified.
It is really no wonder that some of these highly trained and obviously well-qualified experts have become soured by your statements, and, though I do not condone nor do I support the way some of them vent this frustration toward you I can hardly blame them.
It should be obvious, by now, that I am a layman at best. Whether your circuit works is nothing I could vouch for or refute. I do, however, see many tests being done, and many results being published and talked about by people who undeniably know what they're talking about. I do not, on the other hand, see much of anything of actual substance from your side of the argument... I don't consider calling into question somebody's credentials substance.
I know you've sent your device off and are awaiting its return and whatnot and this-and-that, but if you really want the general layperson public that looks at these forums to believe you have what you claim, you're really going to have to show us something. I really wish you would.
polln8r.
p.s. @all... I know the red highlighting tool seems like a good tool for expressing anger and frustration, but it is hard as hell to read!
And why do you not know more about electroncs?
This post of your's is a what all have come to expect from you. Note that you provide a quote of what I actually said, and in the next line turn it into your nonsense, as if that was what was actually said.
Guys - I think picowatt is referring to this response. As he's NOT inclined to make you fully conversant with the problem - then allow me...
Quote from: picowatt on July 06, 2012, 04:33:24 PM
Your response is incorrect.
As has been stated over and over and over... Q2 is biased on when the FG output applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2.
Here's the full response which somewhat detracts from his claim that there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q2.
Quote from: Rosie on July 06, 2012, 04:14:32 PM
And may I add - for edification to the picowatts of this world - IF there is a negative signal as NOW CLAIMED - applied to the gate of Q2 it would NOT conduct that forward biased (clockwise) current flow (outlined in blue) PRECISELY because that NEGATIVE SIGNAL WOULD REPEL the current discharge from the battery supply. The battery would not be able to conduct. The blue trace shows the battery conducting.
I took the trouble to emphasise the argument by highlighting it.
Regards,
Rosemary
Nowhere did I say anything about a negative signal to the gate of Q2. No one has ever stated that. Only you.
This post of your makes one question your ability to read as well as comprehend. Or are you intentionally misleading?
If we have to talk in fairy tales for you to understand, Ms Gate is tied to ground by Mr Wire. In order for Ms Gate to be greater than Mr. Source, Mr Source must go below ground.
A negative voltage applied to the SOURCE TERMINAL of Q2 is what turns on Q2.
Everyone has made this point so many times, a pre-schooler could have grasped it by now.
Be well
Another non-answer:
IF there is no validity in my argument then that easy test will prove it. IF there is validity in my argument then that easy test will prove it. Either way - it will be shown. THEN only is it appropriate to comment. Anything that is predicted in advance of that test is spurious and irrelevant and falls under the category of 'fortune telling'. Which as no relevance to science. In effect you can only ALLEGE that I'm wrong. I can PROVE that you're wrong. And I look forward to doing so.
I do not "allege" or "predict" that there is a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and FIG7, I state it as readily apparent fact.
Anyone with the ability to use a 'scope and read a schematic can see that there is sufficient gate drive being applied to Q1 to turn it on in FIG3 and FIG7, and yet the CSR trace indicates Q1 is not turning on.
Q1 is working just fine in FIG5, from the month prior. But something is definitely wrong in FIG3 and FIG7.
In FIG3 and FIG7, Q1 was either non-functional, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic. There are no other possible explnations.
Instead of addressing this in a scientific and ethical manner, you chose to "shoot the messenger".
It's no big deal, it's just another error...
Take a break, be well.
ADDED: Any word from the "lab"?
Quote from: polln8r on July 11, 2012, 02:10:28 AM
Rosemary,
I actually have taken the time to go all the way back to when this circuit was first introduced in this forum, and I've even looked at the posts in that other forum where concurrent discussions were happening. What I saw was this: Various people did a lot of work to repeat the results you had claimed. A lot of people got excited about the circuit... you even gave credit to TK for having generated this excitement. Eventually, conclusions would be made that the claims, unfortunately, were untrue. And, whenever this happened, you called whichever experimenter incompetent or unqualified.
It is really no wonder that some of these highly trained and obviously well-qualified experts have become soured by your statements, and, though I do not condone nor do I support the way some of them vent this frustration toward you I can hardly blame them.
It should be obvious, by now, that I am a layman at best. Whether your circuit works is nothing I could vouch for or refute. I do, however, see many tests being done, and many results being published and talked about by people who undeniably know what they're talking about. I do not, on the other hand, see much of anything of actual substance from your side of the argument... I don't consider calling into question somebody's credentials substance.
I know you've sent your device off and are awaiting its return and whatnot and this-and-that, but if you really want the general layperson public that looks at these forums to believe you have what you claim, you're really going to have to show us something. I really wish you would.
polln8r.
p.s. @all... I know the red highlighting tool seems like a good tool for expressing anger and frustration, but it is hard as hell to read!
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2566.html#msg2566
Rosemary,
The least qualified of everyone in the bunch is YOU. You are so unqualified that you still don't understand how the Q2 array switches on and you still cannot put a single coherent sentence together that references the gates and sources of Q1 and Q2 that makes sense.
The fact that you claim in the name of "science" that we have to wait for your testing about the mechanism for Q2 turning on is laughable and traji-comic. All that you have to do is understand how N-Channel MOSFETs work, period. It's just an example of your ridiculous pigheadedness.
You are a hapless pigheaded woman with zero qualifications pushing nonsense.
Or, you are a well paid agent put here to discredit all free energy research by your outlandish quixotic explosion of ridiculousness.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 11, 2012, 01:33:07 AM
I have NEVER stated anywhere EVER - that we dissipate 5 megajoules of power during any test period. Dear God. This is SPIN gone WILD.
Rosemary
ADDED
We most certainly dissipated ABOUT 5 megajoules OVER that entire test period. We omit reference to this in our paper because the quantity of water was not established.
Emphasis in the original.
Can anyone decode this Ains-lie? Words mean whatever Ainslie wants them to mean at the time she utters them, but usually she at least waits for an intervening post or two before she blatantly contradicts herself Yet Again.
It appears she is making some distinction between "dissipating about 5 MJ
OVER that period" and " we dissipate 5 MJ of power
DURING" a test period.
The claim is perfectly clear, though, and the water quantity IS mentioned (inaccurately) and the Water Temperature is referred to AS A MEASUREMENT, and it's perfectly clear what is meant and that the 5.9 megaJoule claim, OVER or DURING either one, is a lie:
Note the screenshot below from the CURRENT EDITION POSTED ON HER NEW FORUM.
This is the most recent "edit" that I can find, and the image was made at about 8:30 am CDT on July 11, 2012, with my emphasis added.
Note that the Water Quantity IS INDEED SPECIFIED as "about" 0.85 L. When two significant digits of a measurement are cited along with the term "about", usually the "about" uncertainty is in the THIRD least significant digit... that is, in a scientific report "about 0.85 L" would mean somewhere between 0.845 L and 0.855 L. Otherwise the figure would have been given as "about 0.84" or "about 0.86" and so on.
However in other places Ainslie has listed this same quantity of water in this same trial as being 700 mL. "About" indeed.
Note also that the WATER TEMPERATURE and the TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER are given in two places. Yet Ainslie tells us now that the water temperature was never measured.
The lies and inconsistencies are rampant and perpetual and she perpetrates new ones every day, it seems. And it also appears that she herself isn't even all that familiar with what is in the "paper" that she keeps "citing" and posting links to. Maybe she should READ the document, instead of just looking at the shapes of the words and the pretty Etch-a-Sketch scopeshots... that reveal so much more than she ever intended to reveal.
Ainslie said,
QuoteThat paper unequivocally refers to the evidence of steam at 62 degrees centigrade or thereby. TK is trying to argue that this is incorrect. He is wrong. Steam is simply the evidence of evaporation at an accelerated rate due to increased energy applied to that water. Under pressure steam is ALWAYS exploitable. That was our point. We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water. We ONLY measured the temperature of the element in conjunction with that water. His multiple bases of objections are utterly spurious - offensive - and slanderous. And it is always more than a little insulting to be obliged to answer them. I am SATISFIED that it is this thread that has induced this horrible sickness in me. Effectively TK's unadulterated hate has had it's desired consequence.
1: Steam does not occur at a water temperature of 62 degrees C.
2. Anyone can see that the CURRENT EDIT of the "paper" posted on her new forum refers to the WATER TEMPERATURE several times. If this WATER TEMPERATURE was NOT MEASURED, as Ainslie now CORRECTLY states... then the ENTIRE PAPER MUST BE RETRACTED, since a major section of it has to do with "taking water to boil" when no such thing was done and the WATER TEMPERATURE WAS NOT EVEN MONITORED. Yet she has the absolute gall to put a number on the quantity of energy dissipated "during" or "over" that trial period.
3: Blaming me and/or this thread for your "horrible sickness" Ainslie... is a low blow, cowardly and mendacious as usual. I'll be sure to mention YOUR NAME and YOUR FORUM the next time my cardiologist is wondering why my blood pressure is so very dangerously high that I might just die of a stroke at any instant, and it will be AINSLIE'S FAULT.
Won't it.
And WHEN will you learn to put your apostrophes in the right place? "IT'S" is the contraction of "IT IS" or sometimes "IT HAS". "ITS" with NO APOSTROPHE is the possessive. You make this basic grammar error over and over, Ainslie. LEARN SOMETHING BASIC for a change, and fill in one of those yawning gaps in your autodidacticity: here is a perfect opportunity.
TK,
When you have a moment take a look at FIG5.
The only capture that demonstrates a correctly wired or functioning Q1 is FIG5. However, this capture has a few "issues" as well.
During the positive portion of the FG cycle, there appears to be close to 2 amps flowing as per the CSR.
Note the indicated battery voltage during that same portion of the cycle. From the text, all six batteries were used for this test, so Vbatt should be 72 volts or so. During the FG HI period, Vbatt is around 50 volts. It is not reasonable to expect that 6 series connected lead acid batteries of the size used would drop 22 volts with a 2 amp load.
However, if 2 amps were flowing thru Rload as indicated, Rload would drop 22 volts (2AX11R=22V). Therefore, at the drain side of Rload, one would expect to see 50 volts (72V-22V=50V).
So, either less than 6 batteries were used for the test related to FIG5, the battery path had a high DC resistance (poor connection, high battery internal resistance) or, and more likely, the 'scope probe position used to indicate Vbatt was actually on the MOSFET drain side of Rload.
Anyway, have a look at FIG5.
If indeed 6 well connected and healthy 12 volt batteries were used during the FIG5 test, the indicated voltages for Vbatt appear to be more consistent with "Channel 2" being connected to the drain side of Rload and not the battery side of Rload as we are lead to believe.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 09:23:13 AM
Emphasis in the original.
Can anyone decode this Ains-lie? Words mean whatever Ainslie wants them to mean at the time she utters them, but usually she at least waits for an intervening post or two before she blatantly contradicts herself Yet Again.
It appears she is making some distinction between "dissipating about 5 MJ OVER that period" and " we dissipate 5 MJ of power DURING" a test period.
The claim is perfectly clear, though, and the water quantity IS mentioned (inaccurately) and the Water Temperature is referred to AS A MEASUREMENT, and it's perfectly clear what is meant and that the 5.9 megaJoule claim, OVER or DURING either one, is a lie:
One possibility might be that there were several tests run that day or over several days, and the 5.9MJ is quoting the total energy used over that time period, vs. what was used for each separate test run?
Quote from: poynt99 on July 11, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
One possibility might be that there were several tests run that day or over several days, and the 5.9MJ is quoting the total energy used over that time period, vs. what was used for each separate test run?
.99
"over the entire 1.6 hour test period about 5 904 000 joules were dissipated" sure sounds like she is stating a 1.6 hour period, and taken in context, also sounds like she is discussing only Test 3.
Earlier in that same paragraph, while discussing Test 3, she also states "These negative values remained throughout the 1.6 hour test period".
PW
Agreed PW.
We will have to see how Rose makes the distinction between "over" and "during".
I can't figure out how she arrived at the 5.9 MJ figure in the first place. Usually she simply takes all the numbers available and multiplies them together until she gets a figure she likes. But since she so rarely shows her work it's hard to see just what happened here.
She has "calculated" this trial's numbers for us before, showing her work, though:
QuoteSo. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
Er...... Come, let us do the math.
"4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules" This much at least is approximately correct.
Now let's start randomly multiplying stuff and making simple math errors without checking.
" 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules" Joules PER SECOND? Where did that come from? There is no "PER SECOND" resulting from the first multiplication, it is just JOULES. Time does NOT ENTER INTO that calculation.
248 292 x 90 = 22 346 280 indeed. But how do you multiply Joules "PER SECOND" times a number of MINUTES and arrive at a figure in JOULES? You don't.
"Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C "
Sneaky Ainslie here is telling you that the water is raised an additional 88 degrees C.... when it should have been 104 - 82 = 22 degrees C. The water was at 82 degrees C when the 10 minute period began, so it was raised only a further 22 degrees to 104 C (sic). Of course water cannot exist at 104 degrees C in an unpressurized container at sea level, so this temperature figure is ALSO OBVIOUSLY WRONG, but let it stand for the moment.
"4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules." The first part of course counts the cost of the first temperature rise AGAIN and the second part AGAIN multiplies a "J/sec" figure by a "Minutes" figure (not a Seconds figure) and pretends to arrive at a "J" answer. Once again, multiplying everything in sight yields an answer whose NUMBERS check... that is, 4.18x900x88=331156 all right.. (but multiplying that by 10 does not equal 3 310 560) but this number represents nonsense, not Joules.
"Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules." That's right: add the same quantity of energy twice, incorporate several simple math errors, and confound units until the answer is meaningless, then cite it as major evidence for your claim.
Then Ainslie reports THE SAME TRIAL USING DIFFERENT NUMBERS, some of them, IN HER "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION."
But I cannot figure out how the 5.9 MegaJoule figure could have been arrived at using the numbers she has given anywhere, even incorporating her usual units confounds and some plausible math errors.
I know it is useless to ask Ainslie for the derivation of that 5.9 MegaJoule figure (removed without comment from the latest "edit" but not from the official publication) but can anyone else please explain to me where that number came from? I mean, it's there in the paper, I know that, but how was it calculated, exactly?
Quote from: poynt99 on July 11, 2012, 12:32:57 PM
Agreed PW.
We will have to see how Rose makes the distinction between "over" and "during".
You are kidding around again.
We are talking about the Red Queen Ainslie, who makes words mean whatever she likes, regardless of what dictionaries say about it.
According to her, "per" NEVER MEANS DIVISION, so the terms "over" a period or "for" a period certainly will have different meanings as well.
And, as usual, her own "reference" refutes her soundly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_%28mathematics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_%28mathematics%29) Per .... always denotes a RATIO, and when TIME is in the DENOMINATOR, a RATE, like "miles PER hour" which is written mathematically as Miles / hour ..... that is right, Ainslie, a DIVISION operation is what is NORMALLY indicated by the word PER, according to YOUR OWN REFERENCE, the Wikipedia article on rates.
@PW: RE Fig 5:
This is SCRN0150, which I have analyzed based on a 4-battery stack, taking her at her word that the magenta trace is the battery figure, as described when she posted the image in her blog, rather than in the paper.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/50.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/50.html)
QuoteChannel 1 shunt voltage
Channel 2 Battery voltage
Channel 3 Gate voltage
MATH TRACE PRODUCT OF CHANNEL 1 AND 2
No, I don't think that the drain is being monitored here. I believe that only 4 batteries were used in series for this trial, in spite of what the figure's description in the paper says. Note also in the description that Ainslie says the period was 684 ms when in fact it appears to be more like 684 MICROseconds, not milliseconds.
This is another one with sufficient Q1 on time to have overheated Q1 IF a true 72 volt battery had been used.
The image below was taken just now from the "current" "corrected" edition posted on her new forum.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 02:27:41 PM
@PW: RE Fig 5:
This is SCRN0150, which I have analyzed based on a 4-battery stack, taking her at her word that the magenta trace is the battery figure, as described when she posted the image in her blog, rather than in the paper.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/50.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/50.html)
No, I don't think that the drain is being monitored here. I believe that only 4 batteries were used in series for this trial, in spite of what the figure's description in the paper says. Note also in the description that Ainslie says the period was 684 ms when in fact it appears to be more like 684 MICROseconds, not milliseconds.
This is another one with sufficient Q1 on time to have overheated Q1 IF a true 72 volt battery had been used.
The image below was taken just now from the "current" "corrected" edition posted on her new forum.
TK,
Why would you base your analysis on only 4 batteries?
She specifically states in her paper rearding Test 2 that SIX batteries were used.
Is there some evidence or statement that only 4 batteries were used or was this just assumed due to the indicated voltage during Q1 on time?
PW
@PW: I think the total circuit DC resistance is more like 11.1 + 2.0 + 0.25 + leads, batts, clips... so I have been using 14R in my calcs which is still probably low. And I get a little over 2 amps shown on the DC portion of the trace.
IF 72 volts had been used as claimed, the current through the CVR during the Q1 ON time should have been 72/14 == over 5 amps _and at an 18 percent ON duty cycle would have overheated and blown the Q1 mosfet on its small heatsink_. It does not get anywhere near that level in the scopeshot and is much closer to the 3+ amps predicted by a 48 volt pack, and if a bit more resistance is added in... like for Q1 still being in the linear region due to the 5 volt gate drive..... the 2+ amp level shown is easily arrived at.
Quote from: picowatt on July 11, 2012, 02:45:59 PM
TK,
Why would you base your analysis on only 4 batteries?
She specifically states in her paper rearding Test 2 that SIX batteries were used.
Is there some evidence or statement that only 4 batteries were used or was this just assumed due to the indicated voltage during Q1 on time?
PW
EDIT: she also SPECIFICALLY STATES that the period was 684 ms... and it's not.
@PW: In addition, the drain signal behaves just slightly differently enough from the batt trace that one may distinguish them. Here is one shot, one of only a few that I have been able to find, that DOES unequivocally show the drain trace, in green. This is taken from the video demo where we can "see" where the probes are actually attached and the narrator tells us which is which, clearly stating that the green trace is the drain trace.
Note that your voltage drop calculation for the drain trace is borne out, since the batt trace is also shown.
What happened to the CRITICAL Trace 2 baseline indicator? Is this another "compression artefact"?
This image is from the CURRENT, supposedly CORRECTED version on the new forum right now.
This is the most selective compression artefact I have ever seen, to have removed THREE critical baseline markers, and nothing else, from TWO DIFFERENT SCOPESHOTS, in the versions posted on Ainslie's forum. The first instance we found of this egregious "error" was "corrected". But clearly... this highly selective compression artefact has found its way to remove YET ANOTHER CRITICAL INDICATOR on one of Ainslie's published data sets.
I am sickened by this obvious alteration and coverup of conflicting data by Ainslie and her minions.
WHERE IS THE CHANNEL 2 BASELINE INDICATOR? WHY IS IT THE ONLY THING ALTERED BY THIS "ARTEFACT OF COMPRESSION" ???
This is just too much. It is another clear example of her pseudoscientific misconduct.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 03:01:42 PM
@PW: In addition, the drain signal behaves just slightly differently enough from the batt trace that one may distinguish them. Here is one shot, one of only a few that I have been able to find, that DOES unequivocally show the drain trace, in green. This is taken from the video demo where we can "see" where the probes are actually attached and the narrator tells us which is which, clearly stating that the green trace is the drain trace.
Note that your voltage drop calculation for the drain trace is borne out, since the batt trace is also shown.
TK,
Yes, I agree now. The drain pull down time can be seen in the capture you posted and is absent in FIG5. As well, I would suspect the Batt mean would read a bit higher in FIG5 if six batteries were used.
So, I suppose this only means that the stated "SIX" batteries for Test 2 is another error that needs correcting to just "FOUR" batteries. Was this corrected in later "revisions" of the paper?
PW
@.99,
I usually refer to the "FG-" as the "FG signal common" or "FG ground". I prefer "FG signal common". I always refer to "FG+" as "FG output".
I believe FG+ and FG- is confusing her a bit. I believe it makes it difficult for her to understand that the FG output is bipolar.
PW
ADDED for her benefit:
OK, "probe" (FG output) and "terminal" (FG signal common) it is. I can live with that. Don't like it, but can live with it.
The "terminal" as you call it, is always at 0 (zero) volts.
The "probe" is either a positive voltage (greater than zero) or a negative voltage (less than zero). A square wave output, for example, alternately makes the "probe" a positive voltage and then a negative voltage as the waveform swings plus and minus.
The "terminal", however, is always at zero volts.
"Full negative offset" makes the "probe" a negtive voltage as far negative as the FG is designed to output.
Again, the "terminal" is always ZERO volts.
The gate of Q2 is effectively always at zero volts. To turn Q2 on, the FG probe applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2.
Making the source of an N-channel MOSFET negative with respect to its gate turns on a MOSFET.
For example, -5 volts applied to the source, with the gate held at ground, makes the gate +5volts with respect to the source. The gate remains a zero volts, but zero volts is 5 volts more positive than the -5volts applied to the source.
PW,
Agreed.
Although the lead nomenclature could not be any clearer than FG+ and FG- (as labeled on the diagram) I think we have settled on "Probe" and "Terminal".
This is exactly why I recommended "RED" and "BLACK" since those are the colors of her output leads, and we know the "RED" is what she calls the "probe" or center conductor of the RG-58U patch cord terminated with a BNC on one end and the clips on the other end. Each of these can be positive or negative and on many FGs either can be connected to true Earth Ground if the unit can be isolated, like the F43 can be.
RED, and BLACK. She will likely understand those, since she can "refer" to the Demo Video, her photos, the circuit diagrams, and the actual hardware and they will all be consistent.
Quote from: picowatt on July 11, 2012, 03:44:12 PM
TK,
Yes, I agree now. The drain pull down time can be seen in the capture you posted and is absent in FIG5. As well, I would suspect the Batt mean would read a bit higher in FIG5 if six batteries were used.
So, I suppose this only means that the stated "SIX" batteries for Test 2 is another error that needs correcting to just "FOUR" batteries. Was this corrected in later "revisions" of the paper?
PW
Nope, not unless she's corrected it in the last few minutes, which I seriously doubt. The "current" "corrected" version of the paper is where I got those last few images above, downloaded today.
"RED" and "BLACK" is fine with me too.
The colors have been there on my recent diagrams all along.
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker, progress continues, showing just one way in which substantial amounts of power can be transferred from a source to a load, using oscillations in the 800-1600 kHz range and properly wired and driven mosfets -- but without any intervening wires... at all.
Among other things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDszv5t2Bw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDszv5t2Bw)
Quote from: poynt99 on July 11, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
"RED" and "BLACK" is fine with me too.
The colors have been there on my recent diagrams all along.
Yep.
Does she understand the difference between having the BLACK lead connected as shown in the two photos above, and as shown in the circuit diagram that appears above and in the current edition of the "paper"?
After all... it's only a matter of 0.25 Ohm difference... couldn't possibly matter all that much..... RIGHT ?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 06:24:20 PM
Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker, progress continues, showing just one way in which substantial amounts of power can be transferred from a source to a load, using oscillations in the 800-1600 kHz range and properly wired and driven mosfets -- but without any intervening wires... at all.
Among other things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDszv5t2Bw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDszv5t2Bw)
TK,
When you place the loop/bulb between the xmitter and another loop (like the white coil loop, etc) in a position that causes the "supernova" mode, what effect, if any, does it have on the outside receiving loops range?
PW
@PW: It increases the range a bit; that is, I can slide the outer coil a bit further away before the system drops out of mutual resonance.
The total input power when all three bulbs are lit as bright as I can manage is about 60 W (a bit over 5 amps draw from the battery), dropping down to 10W or so when only the one 5 W rx is used and normal "close" to resonance mode is used. And the bulbs are glowing quite a bit brighter than their ratings, I think... call it maybe 30W total at full brightness, instead of the 20W rated... so the losses are really not that bad, considering.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 11, 2012, 06:15:34 PM
PW,
Agreed.
Although the lead nomenclature could not be any clearer than FG+ and FG- (as labeled on the diagram) I think we have settled on "Probe" and "Terminal".
.99,
Most of us can live with and understand FG+ and FG-, but to a neophyte, "when the FG+ is minus" is a bit confusing. As well, FG+/FG- are somewhat misnomers.
Please post your new/modified drawings over here if you would, and if TK doesn't mind. I am unable to see them "over there".
PW
Of course I don't mind. Post away...
Meanwhile... lighting up light bulbs to more than full brilliance, wirelessly, is so Old School. It's just a resistive load, anybody can do that.
http://youtu.be/Hoq5C7ecRdU
(Still uploading, give it a couple of minutes)
BWAHHAAAAhaa haaa I am ROFLING all over the floor, laughing so hard I just might have to ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING.
;D
(The COP>17 circuit from the Quantum article "refers".... ha ha HAAAA.......)
It does work, Gmeast, it just makes an INVERTED duty cycle from what Ainslie has claimed all these years, and if you'd done your homework you would know that already.... since 2009 this has been known.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 08:24:10 PM
Of course I don't mind. Post away...
Meanwhile... lighting up light bulbs to more than full brilliance, wirelessly, is so Old School. It's just a resistive load, anybody can do that.
http://youtu.be/Hoq5C7ecRdU
(Still uploading, give it a couple of minutes)
TK,
Circular track, slot car, loop antenna???
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 11, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
TK,
Circular track, slot car, loop antenna???
PW
I was thinking more like freeways, guard rails, ultracapacitors and full-sized electric automobiles and trains, without batteries.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 08:49:13 PM
I was thinking more like freeways, guard rails, ultracapacitors and full-sized electric automobiles and trains, without batteries.
TK,
Got any I/O efficiency numbers yet?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 11, 2012, 08:54:45 PM
TK,
Got any I/O efficiency numbers yet?
PW
Not officially, no. Back of the envelope, I'm getting at least 50 percent of the input power to the receivers. It is not a broadcast system, as the lack of 1/r
2 falloff shows in the near field. When the coils are properly coupled the power traverses the space between the coils without attenuation, apparently, which means it's not broadcast, I think, and so the transfer to the load(s) can be very high.
But just between you and me, I am amazed. This is undoubtedly the most successful little project I've done in a long time. It's more exciting to me right now even than my SSTCs.
I knew the motor would run... but I didn't expect it to run quite that well.
Oooo Oooo numbers. ::) lol When you put your finger on the motor flapper, and kept the buzzing flapping going, I was trying to figure out what it sounds like and why it was so funny. Who cares, LMAO. It was like a long dragged out IN YO FACE moment that seemed like an end to it may never come, just grinding it in there till it was a stub. lol " See that, theres your light bulb alternative, say hello to stubby!"
Nice show.
So if you put 2 rx loop/lamps, even 3 at different angles, the input always closely represents the output totals?
Lemme ask ya. If I have a 2mh air coil and a 22uf cap that resonates at 758.7hz, or so, would your driver circuit automatically operate at that resonance freq?
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on July 11, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Oooo Oooo numbers. ::) lol When you put your finger on the motor flapper, and kept the buzzing flapping going, I was trying to figure out what it sounds like and why it was so funny. Who cares, LMAO. It was like a long dragged out IN YO FACE moment that seemed like an end to it may never come, just grinding it in there till it was a stub. lol " See that, theres your light bulb alternative, say hello to stubby!"
Nice show.
So if you put 2 rx loop/lamps, even 3 at different angles, the input always closely represents the output totals?
Represents? What an "Ainslie-ese" kind of word... I prefer words with more precise meanings. Like correlation, or linear relationship, or inverse relationship. In other words, yes it represents the output totals closely, scaled. The input depends on the load, directly, with about a 0.5 "scaling" or loss factor, apparently, and with about 0.6 A draw when there's no (obvious, deliberate) load. If I have those bulbs which total 20 watts dissipation at the brightness level they reach when hooked to a fully charged 12 volt battery, and they seem, say, twice as bright when in full resonance mode... call it 30 Watts dissipation? Ballpark? And at that full brightness level the current draw from that same battery is a bit over 5 amps, so something just over 60 Watts input.
Quote
Lemme ask ya. If I have a 2mh air coil and a 22uf cap that resonates at 758.7hz, or so, would your driver circuit automatically operate at that resonance freq?
No, I don't think so, it's much too low. I think that what is happening is that the receiver and the transmitter both change their resonant frequencies through mutual coupling and "meet in the middle" so to speak, and so their natural freqs have to be close, and they have to be what's determined by the low inductance and relatively high capacitance of the tx. I am sure there's also some relationship between the wavelength and the length of wire in the loop as well for optimum performance. I haven't run any numbers yet, but my tx is operating at 812500 Hz about, and the transmitting loop is a circle with a diameter of 7.5 inches.
ETA: Wait, do you mean subbing those values into the tx circuit instead of its 60 nF and single turn? I have no idea if it would work or not.
Some numbers.
8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZtrgXu0nrM
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 12:00:34 AM
Some numbers.
8)
http://youtu.be/LZtrgXu0nrM
(still uploading)
TK,
Have you tried 'scoping xmtr and rcvr yet?
Does the 'scope's common lead grounds spoil the "supernova" mode?
Phaselocking?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 12, 2012, 01:30:35 AM
TK,
Have you tried 'scoping xmtr and rcvr yet?
Does the 'scope's common lead grounds spoil the "supernova" mode?
Phaselocking?
PW
Scoping both xmtr and rcvr simultaneously presents no problems at all. There is no discernible effect on hooking up the scope grounds... wait... yes, the phases are of course locked, and I believe this is true whether or not the scope grounds are connected, but it does seem that the "supernova" mode is _more_ stable with the scope grounds connecting the two units. Hardly fair, that.
I don't have a diff voltage probe here, nor a scope with isolated grounds like the Fluke0Scope.
Both traces indicate nearly the same voltage, too. There is only a couple volts drop (from 50 or so p-p at the tx) across the usual 3 inches I'm using as a "standard" distance.
ETA: Phaselocking: no, the xmtr isn't phaselocked to itself, I don't think. The frequency of oscillation varies a bit with the coupling, getting smoothly lower the closer the loops approach, but at the "supernova" transition there is a little jump in frequency, so maybe it is attempting to phaselock with itself and stabilize its own frequency at the resonance.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 01:53:37 AM
Scoping both xmtr and rcvr simultaneously presents no problems at all. There is no discernible effect on hooking up the scope grounds... wait... yes, the phases are of course locked, and I believe this is true whether or not the scope grounds are connected, but it does seem that the "supernova" mode is _more_ stable with the scope grounds connecting the two units. Hardly fair, that.
I don't have a diff voltage probe here, nor a scope with isolated grounds like the Fluke0Scope.
Both traces indicate nearly the same voltage, too. There is only a couple volts drop (from 50 or so p-p at the tx) across the usual 3 inches I'm using as a "standard" distance.
TK,
With both RCV and XMT simultaneously observed on the 'scope, what are the differences between the waveforms when sliding in and out from "supernova" to normal? Trigger off the xmtr so you can watch rcvr phase.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 12, 2012, 02:00:31 AM
TK,
With both RCV and XMT simultaneously observed on the 'scope, what are the differences between the waveforms when sliding in and out from "supernova" to normal? Trigger off the xmtr so you can watch rcvr phase.
PW
Verrry interesting, thanks for the suggestion.
As I move the RX loop closer to the TX loop, the frequency of both units decreases... but the RX freq tries to decrease a little faster. This results in an increasing phase shift between the two sinusoids... but only about 10 or 12 degrees, then there is a little "jump" and the two freqs synch again ... lather rinse repeat, with a little phase-lock jump every few mm as the loops approach. It's like a little stick-slip ratchet process.
ETA: Sorry, forgot to specify it's the RX that makes the little "jumps"; the TX freq decreases smoothly with increasing closeness.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 02:14:32 AM
Verrry interesting, thanks for the suggestion.
As I move the RX loop closer to the TX loop, the frequency of both units decreases... but the RX freq tries to decrease a little faster. This results in an increasing phase shift between the two sinusoids... but only about 10 or 12 degrees, then there is a little "jump" and the two freqs synch again ... lather rinse repeat, with a little phase-lock jump every few mm as the loops approach. It's like a little stick-slip ratchet process.
ETA: Sorry, forgot to specify it's the RX that makes the little "jumps"; the TX freq decreases smoothly with increasing closeness.
TK,
If you are triggering off xmtr, it is likely the xmtr is doing all the changing in response to the rcvr.
Are you seeing solid phase lock-up?
Do you stay phaselocked all the time or just in supernova?
Can you position rcvr distance/paralellism accurately enough to find a true null whe doing the "ratchet" thing (which I assume is during supernova)?
What is the main observed diff betwee supernova ad normal?
PW
If the tuning is close to begin with the "supernova transition" is just a small twitch, but if the tuning is less close, then the transition is marked, by a sudden definite change in brightness and a snap to a lower frequency and greater amplitude on the scope traces.
I'll just make a video illustrating the scope changes. It will take a while though, I might need to take a nap, it's been a long day.
Thanks for your interest... I'm just really weary right now. I'll make a scope trace video after a while.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 02:33:55 AM
If the tuning is close to begin with the "supernova transition" is just a small twitch, but if the tuning is less close, then the transition is marked, by a sudden definite change in brightness and a snap to a lower frequency and greater amplitude on the scope traces.
TK,
When the "snap to a lower freq" occurs, does the phase change?
("locking" was a bit improper here, I am wondering if a shift in phase occurs when supernova is acheived)
PW
Rosemary:
Because of your recent despicable gutter trash behaviour on your new blog site I am going to repost a few things for us to contemplate:
>>>>
Rosemary:
You know what would be really disgusting?
A headline that makes the day's news all around the world: "Woman obsessed with free energy machine triggers unbalanced individual resulting in the execution-style murder of a fellow Internet chat forum user."
People sometimes murder and chop people up and post it on the Internet and then mail the body parts to schools and political parties. Did you hear?
MileHigh
>>>
Who knows if a crazy or crazies are lurking on these forums that attract all sorts of unusual characters. Nobody knows. I remember the guy a few years ago that claimed in all seriousness that the moon was shifting in its orbit. I have read many comments by people with extremely unusual political or social views. Rosemary has already claimed that some of us are "MIB agents." Then suppose that she reveals someone's identity and a nutcase snaps because he or she can't stand all of the "suppression" that is going on? I am being deadly serious.
http://www.dailytech.com/Man+Murdered+Over+Online+Dispute/article13071.htm (http://www.dailytech.com/Man+Murdered+Over+Online+Dispute/article13071.htm)
An online forum dispute leads to the brutal murder of 21-year old Matthew Pike
Last Friday evening, Matthew Pyke was found stabbed to death in his Nottingham, England flat. Pyke ran an online forum dedicated to Advance Wars, which police believe might have resulted in his murder.
Pyke, an avid enthusiast of the Advance Wars series, operated WarsCentral (http://warscentral.com/)in conjunction with his 20-year old girlfriend, Joanna Witton. Advance Wars is a simple strategy game with releases on Nintendo's DS and GameBoy Advanced handhelds. WarsCentral offers general tips and information regarding the game and hosts an online forum where fans can network.
It is believed that Pyke was murdered by David Heiss, a fellow Advance Wars player and forum user of WarsCentral. According to police, Heiss, who lives in Germany, became acquaintances online with Pyke through the WarsCentral forum.
It is suspected that David Heiss had an argument with Pyke on WarsCentral, and in his rage Heiss allegedly traveled from Germany to England and murdered Pyke. The nature and full extent of the argument is unknown.
Wednesday night, German officials arrested David Heiss near Frankfurt. He is now being prepared for extradition (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3087933/German-faces-extradition-over-murder-of-games-enthusiast.html)so that he can be tried for his charges in the United Kingdom.
All forum registrations for WarsCentral have now been frozen, and the forum is now only viewable to registered members. A message on the front page posted by a friend who helps run the site offers a small tribute to Matthew Pyke and offers condolences to his girlfriend , who found Pyke dead.
MileHigh
QuoteThe 555 part of this circuit doesn't work!
Has anyone actually built and run this 555 circuit?
Rosie Posie responded:
>>>
I have NO idea if that circuit schematic is correct or not. What I do know is that you only need make a typical 555 constructed from ANY schematic off the internet. TK CLAIMED that it doesn't work - but his CLAIM was contradicted by a bunch of people who DID build it. But the 555 switch is simply any STANDARD 555. We would NOT have included it in our paper except that it was called for by our reviewer. I've spoken to other academics who assured us that the 555 need NOT be included.
Did you build it that you found it doesn't work? I thought your earlier results shown were driven by a 555? Is that right? If so - why did you not just use that? In any event Greg - I can't comment.
I have NEVER built a 555 and am entirely satisfied that I never could. So I can't help you. Perhaps Poynty can. Or maybe copone? I know that he's built many. I'll message him.
Kindest regards (my ass),
Rosie
Rosemary,
The least qualified of everyone in the bunch is YOU. You are so unqualified that you still don't understand how the Q2 array switches on and you still cannot put a single coherent sentence together that references the gates and sources of Q1 and Q2 that makes sense.
The fact that you claim in the name of "science" that we have to wait for your testing about the mechanism for Q2 turning on is laughable and traji-comic. All that you have to do is understand how N-Channel MOSFETs work, period. It's just an example of your ridiculous pigheadedness.
You are a hapless pigheaded woman with zero qualifications pushing nonsense.
Or, you are a well paid agent put here to discredit all free energy research by your outlandish quixotic explosion of ridiculousness.
MileHigh
>>>
Little Miss Moral Transgression, suck on that, glitch!
And of course she is a mendacious liar YET AGAIN. This Duty Cycle thing is so basic you would think it would have been put to bed by now. But AINSLIE keeps reviving it by NOT CORRECTING HER SCHEMATIC.... which would of course require retracting that "paper" and the claims entirely.
FURTHERMORE, I never "claimed the 555 didn't work". I have always SAID, and CONFIRMED, and INVITED ANYONE ELSE TO DO LIKEWISE, that the 555 timer circuit given with the Quantum article produced an INVERTED DUTY CYCLE from what was claimed, and that this INVERTED DUTY CYCLE of 96 percent ON at the mosfet DID IN FACT produce the load heating profile that she published. She does not understand to this day that the mosfet DRAIN voltage will be HIGH when the MOSFET is OFF in her circuits. She saw a 96 percent LOW signal at the mosfet drain. So she believed her mosfet was OFF 96 percent of the time, hence the "anomalous" heat. But it was not anomalous at all, and as usual her battery capacity was far greater than she could calculate and her trials used far less energy than she claimed, due to her faulty mathematics and flawed concepts.
AND MANY PEOPLE DID IN FACT CONFIRM THIS INVERTED DUTY CYCLE, even her sycophant Joit. And the schematic is there today, for anyone to build.
EVERYONE WHO USED 555 TIMERS with the COP>17 circuit either used their own designs or radically altered the component values and diode placement of the published design. And finally Ainslie moved everyone away from the 555 because of the controversy.
BUILD THE CIRCUIT EXACTLY AS SHOWN IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES. I have always called for this, and.... everybody who HAS built it exactly as shown AND USED IT IN THE EXPERIMENT has found exactly what I found.
Sorry to shout... but this is the issue that got me so deeply involved in the first place with this Ainslie fanatic. Chet asked me to take a look and the first day, I discovered the duty cycle issue and it was like pulling teeth while running uphill from there on out. NOBODY WOULD BUILD THE THING, they just wanted to argue about it. Sim results started coming in confirming my assertions, she started whining and whinging about errors and this and that, then one or two people built it and found even that their Sound Card PC Scopes were even inverting the input signal and fooling them..... Grr. She has been making errors and lying about them from the very first day I got involved and she will continue to do so as long as she is able to work a keyboard.
Can you imagine claiming that you have a publication showing overunity performance, and you push this "paper" and its data and demand replication and all the rest... and you HAVE NO IDEA whether or not there are errors in the BASIC SCHEMATIC given with the paper, even though DOZENS of people have told you that there ARE errors and that it DOES NOT WORK as you claimed it does? After a DECADE?
Can anyone imagine that?
The woman is a willfull ignoramus. How hard is it to get a breadboard and stick seven dollars worth of components into it? EVEN AN EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD COULD DO IT IN AN AFTERNOON, and use LEDs and her EYEBALLS to see whether I am right or I am wrong.
But Ainslie has no idea, included the circuit blah blah blah, and couldn't even use a standard representation of the 555 itself, instead drawing the pin FUNCTIONS instead of their numbers and using some weird organization that is difficult to read and decode. One would almost conclude that she is OBSCURING rather than revealing and facilitating, with ALL of her "publications", since they contain SO MANY SEVERE AND SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS as to completely invalidate them as they stand, WHETHER OR NOT she is even correct about her absurd "thesis".
@MH: Has she done the "Big Reveal" yet? I wonder what she's been reading about "me" and my transgressions.
Perhaps she'll pay some imaginary lawyers to send an expensive, toothless letter to the address that's been given to her. I hope she does; if it ever actually gets to me it will make a great graphic for the technical text I'm writing on the Dunning-Kruger effect.
And just so the lurking spree killers know: I keep three large aggressive barking dogs that WILL BITE, in and outside the house. There is ALWAYS someone home here, we have security cameras on all approaches, we live in a corner house and we know all our neighbors and we all watch out for each other. And this is TEXAS, we have a "CASTLE DOCTRINE" and a "STAND YOUR GROUND" law. Look those up, please, before you come calling.
@PW: the rx and the tx signals are always exactly in phase except for the phenomenon I described earlier, where the frequencies change at different rates and thus shift phase a bit, then correct back to in phase, and repeat. This shift is never more than 10 or 12 degrees by eyeball. When the supernova transition happens the frequency jumps down abruptly and the amplitudes go up; there is no way that I could tell if the jump is happening when the signals are maximally in phase or have slipped out by the 10 or 12 degrees when it happens because the frequency shift is so large, compared to the phase differences. A good DSO could do the measurement but the best I can do is video it as it happens, and I'll try to get that done this afternoon.
However, I'll be tied up for a bit, changing my name and moving to a different undisclosed location with all my equipment.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 07:54:30 AM
And just so the lurking spree killers know: I keep three large aggressive barking dogs that WILL BITE, in and outside the house. There is ALWAYS someone home here, we have security cameras on all approaches, we live in a corner house and we know all our neighbors and we all watch out for each other. And this is TEXAS, we have a "CASTLE DOCTRINE" and a "STAND YOUR GROUND" law. Look those up, please, before you come calling.
yeah i don't think the "lurking spree killers" are really gonna be too scared of a bunch fruity texans that can't even secure the border of their state... ::) and why would they come knocking on your door when they can just ambush you at the qwikmart down the block? or snipe you with a magnum .22 from 800 yards... even in your paranoid confabulations and delusions, you and milelow are entirely asinine. ::)
p.s. to the "lurking spree killers"... tinselkoala/alsetalokin's dogs aren't aggressive. just bring treats and they are your best bud.
@.99: Do you ever feel like you are starring in a Fractured Fairy Tale?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y12SFBe8Z8U
It appears that your correspondent has gotten all the good understandings that you have achieved, all muddled up again.
If I may poynt out two difficult areas that I see arising over and over again:
1: She does not understand that the mosfet is not acting as a SWITCH when Vgss is just barely enough to tickle it, but rather as a VALVE that can be partially open, having a resistance not of "zero ohms" like she thinks it does when ON, but rather having tens of ohms but still passing substantial current. She does not, in short, understand the critical linear operation mode of a mosfet, and this is critical to understanding her circuit's behaviour.
2: She continues to think that the GATE voltage must itself somehow "pass the gate" in the DC condition or not "pass the gate" depending on some conditions. She fails to realize that it is simply the CHARGE ON THE GATE STRUCTURE that controls the VALVE in the DRAIN-SOURCE conducting channel.
Perhaps the analogy of a Balloon in an Air Duct would be helpful. You have air that flows through a duct, and you have a balloon inserted into the duct, with a hose and a valve so that you can inflate and deflate the balloon. By inflating the balloon you close off the air duct to the passage of its huge draft of air... but the air that you put into or take out of the balloon itself is not involved with that air and doesn't mix with it. You can inflate the balloon more, or less. If more, then the main airflow in the duct is reduced. If less, then it's increased. This is exactly how the charge on the gate influences the drain-source channel in a mosfet: the electric field on the gate, from its applied voltage, "swells up" like a balloon and either blocks or allows passage of OTHER electric charge through the drain-source channel. Her vision of how a mosfet is organized internally and how it works... by FIELD EFFECT.... is seriously flawed and will prevent her from grasping what you are trying to teach... as you have no doubt noticed with today's latest from her.
What is particularly ironic.. and galling... is that I have covered these topics in detail with very simple and easy to understand demonstrations in my videos... which she refuses to watch and understand. The charge on a mosfet gate demo, and the linear operation mode demo go hand in hand and are so simple that even an eight year old child should be able to grasp the concepts. But then again... an eight year old child doesn't already know everything, so you have a chance to insert new knowledge. In Ainslie's case, the cup is already full, so anything you try to pour into it just spills over and makes a big mess.
Hey Wilby... why don't you come over and bring my friendly dogs a treat. They'd love to see you, I'm sure.
And I sure feel like you just threatened me with an attack on my person.
So now the WILBY TROLL is encouraging spree killers to visit my home and bring treats for my dogs.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 08:32:35 AM
Hey Wilby... why don't you come over and bring my friendly dogs a treat. They'd love to see you, I'm sure.
i already did... ::) that's how i know they like treats.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 08:32:35 AM
And I sure feel like you just threatened me with an attack on my person.
i'm sure you 'feel' all sorts of asinine things... that doesn't make them any less asinine. me pointing out how asinine your confabulations and paranoid delusions are... isn't a personal threat. again, tu stultus es!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 08:32:35 AM
So now the WILBY TROLL is encouraging spree killers to visit my home and bring treats for my dogs.
no i wasn't. ::) there you go with your lies again troll... ::) i was letting them know you were lying about your dogs. you are the one that brought it up, not me.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2012, 08:50:12 AM
i already did... ::) that's how i know they like treats.
i'm sure you 'feel' all sorts of asinine things... that doesn't make them any less asinine. me pointing out how asinine your confabulations and paranoid delusions are... isn't a personal threat. again, tu stultus es!
You are a liar and a fool.
Describe my three dogs. You cannot, you have only seen one of them briefly in some videos of mine. The other two... the pit bull/ great dane cross and the australian cattle dog that is attack-trained... you have never seen those dogs.
Just so you don't mistake MY dogs for those little ratdogs of Ainslie's.... here's a picture of my main dog Maggie. She's a feral dog, captured from a feral pack that roams one of the local greenbelt parks. She is probably a chow-coyote mix with some shepherd thrown in. She's fairly aggressive but I can handle her. Like all chows she is very territorial and like all coyotes she is wily, sneaky, and wild. She also barks loudly and at anything unusual, especially strangers walking by. She is not motivated by treats, because she knows perfectly well that she can fill her belly by hunting. I've seen her turn up her nose at all kinds of dog treats.
She also has the sharpest teeth of any adult dog of her size that I have ever seen. The canines are like knives and she has this slashing mode of attack where she doesn't bite but simply opens her mouth and _slashes_ at you with those sharp two-inch points. And the teeth just behind the canines are as sharp as little diagonal cutting pliers.
Did I mention that she is the smallest of the three?
Maggie and Murphy, the pit-dane, caught one of the brown squirrels a couple of days ago, working together to corner and capture the chattering treerat. Murphy got the tasty head and forequarters; he really enjoys crunching their little heads for the fatty brains, I guess. Crunch crunch munch munch, and nothing left of that squirrel but some flecks of fur and a hind foot.
Here, Ainslie, idiot, are some references that you will ignore as usual, but which explain just how abysmally wrong you are about mosfets and how they operate. You couldn't understand them even if you DID read them, but some other people will read them, compare them to your pitiful misunderstanding and misconception, and be amused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_MOSFET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_MOSFET)
http://www.coe.pku.edu.cn/tpic/20103181246218.pdf (http://www.coe.pku.edu.cn/tpic/20103181246218.pdf)
What do you think the FET part of mosfet means, anyway? My balloon in an air duct analogy is a very good one to describe how a mosfet functions. Your description is a mishmash of error and misconception and betrays both your continuing lack of understanding and your overweening arrogance. PEOPLE DESIGN WONDERFUL ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU CLAIM THEY DO NOT HAVE, circuits like.... computers for example, which have millions of mosfets in them, all working by the mechanism that YOU DENY: charge, field effect, and ELECTRON FLOW.
LOOK at the drawing of how the mosfet is constructed inside. THERE IS A SLAB OF INSULATION between the gate structure and the rest of the mosfet. ONLY THE ELECTRIC FIELD can pass this insulator. It is the FIELD, growing and shrinking past this insulator, that allows the DRAIN-SOURCE channel to open or close. In an N-channel mosfet, a positive Voltage at the gate sucks electrons away and leaves the GATE with a positive charge, and the FIELD from this positive charge extends across the insulator and allows the FLOW OF ELECTRONS between the drain and source structures. In a P-channel mosfet it is a negative voltage that supplies ELECTRONS and their negative charge to the gate structure. The FIELD from this charge, extending across the insulator, enables the flow of ELECTRONS between the drain and source structures.
It is also the growing and shrinking of electric fields, past insulating layers, that allow CAPACITANCES to PASS AC CURRENT.
But you will ignore these simple facts because they conflict with your delusional "thesis" and your flawed conceptions of how transistors, especially mosfets, actually WORK.
Explain if you can how I can turn a mosfet fully on just by TOUCHING THE GATE PIN WITH MY FINGER, as I demonstrate several times in my mosfet videos. Under your silly model... you cannot.
@.99: How's that Fractured Fairy Tale going? From here, it looks like you are starting to lose some ground.
Howdy everyone,
I see TK brought up a interesting point here on Rosemary's 2002 Quantum COP>17 article concerning the 555 timing switch ......
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 07:28:55 AM
Can you imagine claiming that you have a publication showing overunity performance, and you push this "paper" and its data and demand replication and all the rest... and you HAVE NO IDEA whether or not there are errors in the BASIC SCHEMATIC given with the paper, even though DOZENS of people have told you that there ARE errors and that it DOES NOT WORK as you claimed it does? After a DECADE?
Can anyone imagine that?
The woman is a willfull ignoramus. How hard is it to get a breadboard and stick seven dollars worth of components into it? EVEN AN EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD COULD DO IT IN AN AFTERNOON, and use LEDs and her EYEBALLS to see whether I am right or I am wrong.
But Ainslie has no idea, included the circuit blah blah blah, and couldn't even use a standard representation of the 555 itself, instead drawing the pin FUNCTIONS instead of their numbers and using some weird organization that is difficult to read and decode. One would almost conclude that she is OBSCURING rather than revealing and facilitating, with ALL of her "publications", since they contain SO MANY SEVERE AND SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS as to completely invalidate them as they stand, WHETHER OR NOT she is even correct about her absurd "thesis".
There is several "QUOTES" from Rosemary ( aka Witsend ) at Energetic Forum .... this is one of the better ones as you read on ....
Quote from: Witsend (aka Rosemary Ainslie)
http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html 07-13-2009, 07:52 AM
Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.
So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.
I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.
So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.
What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.
Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.
As you all can see Rosemary's known about the errors for almost three (3) years now and still hasn't
withdrawn or
corrected the 2002 Quantum COP>17article paper information but she offers it always as a claim to her THESIS. :P
FTC
???
You know, if the 555 circuit simply didn't work, or it produced some random duty cycle, that would be one thing and Ainslie's rationalizaton might be considered plausible (if you didn't know her history of lying). But.... IT DOES WORK, and it produces EXACTLY the inverted duty cycle. It doesn't have to be tweaked or modified; if it's built and hooked up exactly as in the Quantum article it produces the behaviour cited by Ainslie as her heat profile.
The problem is that it is exactly inverted, and the mosfet is ON, conducting, 96 percent, or 96.3 percent of the time, or whatever, in order to do it.
I doubt if there is an electrical engineer in the world who can just look at a 555 timer circuit and tell you just from inspection what exactly it will do. But the duty cycle and period values and ranges can be precisely calculated from the component values, and vice versa. This means that there is NO WAY that a random error could have just coincidentally made the exact inverted duty cycle and there is NO WAY that some professor would inspect the diagram, say that it wouldn't work and not point out WHY. The claims in the Quantum article are HEAVILY DEPENDENT on that duty cycle and if ANY reviewer or ANY editor knew that the 555 circuit as presented was problematic THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD WHY AND HOW.
In other words, Ainslie's story is implausible. The correct story is that the timer was deliberately designed using the component values specified to produce a 96-4 duty cycle. Because of the Ainslie misconceptions of mosfets, duty cycles, oscilloscopes and the rest, she ACCEPTED AND USED the 555 timer as given in the schematic and NEVER REALIZED until I discovered it by actually BUILDING instead of talking and speculating.
And it's astounding that she offered JOIT money. She, and HE, fought me for WEEKS over this issue until he finally shut up and actually BUILT and understood the circuit and proved even to her that I was right. And she offers HIM money for it. What a lying hypocrite she is.
Astounding.
The tales of replication using a function generator are also laughable. NOBODY, using a short duty cycle as Ainslie presented, 555 or FG or even a fast risetime pulse generator, was ever able to get anything like her reported heat results, much less the battery charging that she ASSUMED was happening due to her abysmally bad "power calculations". (I used the original 555 circuit, a F34 Sweep Function Generator, a DP-101 fast risetime pulse generator, and a CORRECTLY built 555 timer circuit in my testing of the claims. Only long duty cycles could produce the heating she claimed, no matter how the pulses were generated. I also tested different mosfets and found a type that worked BETTER for heating and BETTER for external spike siphoning.)
It's disgusting and astounding that these Ainslie lies persist even today, and that is one of the reasons that I'm not going to let it rest. As long as she keeps bringing up the uncorrected, WRONG, diagrams and reports from the past that have been soundly refuted over and over... I'll keep reminding people of the hard, expensive work that's gone before, almost ALL started by her True Believers and ALL failing to produce verification for her vaunted claims--- and therefore all became detractors and ALL are now on Ainslie's blacklist. She cannot produce a SINGLE REPORT of confirmation of her claims in the COP >17 fiasco, in spite of her protestations otherwise. Where are the links to the reports? Where are the reports of these EEs who she claims have approved her circuit? They do not exist. Meanwhile plenty of REAL LIVE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS have indeed looked at and reported their findings about these circuits HERE and on other forums, and they all agree... with each other and not with Ainslie.
Ainslie does not apparently realize that the SAME CIRCUIT built in the SAME WAY using the SAME COMPONENTS will perform in the SAME MANNER, no matter who builds and tests it.
QuoteMy own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.
So once again she has admitted here that she published an article describing an experiment and including a schematic diagram... that was NOT of the apparatus used.
And after all these years it STILL has not been retracted or corrected. REGARDLESS OF THE DUTY CYCLE ISSUE: A component
was in the apparatus but
IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT IN THE DIAGRAM, according to Ainslie now ...yet that diagram is STILL BEING OFFERED TODAY as part of the experimental report.
Is this not astounding? This is once again CLEAR and OBVIOUS pseudoscientific misconduct, and anyone who gets involved with Ainslie should realize that the only thing that can be trusted from her is ACTUAL RAW DATA. Only verifiable instrument readings, like scopeshots combined with photos of the apparatus taken concurrently, can be believed from her, and those must be properly interpreted using knowledge of how they were obtained.
(By the way, the Quantum magazine article is the only legitimate actual publication of anything having to do with her circuits, other than the patent APPLICATIONS, that Ainslie has managed. The Rossi "JNP" is neither a Journal nor a publication... it's a blog and a blog post, and isn't even getting any comments.)
Here, I've taken ten minutes out of my busy schedule to redraw the Quantum schematic in a more conventional manner, representing the 555 as it is generally done and using the conventional POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POWER SUPPLY RAIL style of layout.
I would like someone to go over my drawing to confirm that I haven't made any errors in my transcription and that it corresponds properly to the Quantum diagram as published in the article. I am asking here for someone to check my work and tell me if I've made a mistake so I can CORRECT IT IMMEDIATELY if I've done so.
"Sorry about the Light...."
8)
No comments? Nobody cares?
That's certainly appropriate, but are we really going to let poor gmeast suffer under the illusion that maybe HE made a mistake, since Ainslie assures him all the stuff she assures him of?
Well, I'm not. At this point I haven't found any errors in my REDRAWING of Ainslie's circuit: my drawing is her circuit exactly, only drawn as 555 circuits are most commonly shown.
So... of course I put it together and made a video, just now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-gokjcDQQ
Now... gmeast, if you are reading here, I suggest you go ahead and build and USE the exact 555 timer circuit, set at the 96 percent ... something... setting, just as Ainslie claims, and see what kind of heat in the load you get. I predict that it will closely match the claims of heat in her experiment. Of course... your batteries will discharge, but you can console yourself with this sad fact: so do hers.
Hi TK,
Your redrawn schematic appears to be correct, as a representation of the published October 2002 Quantum COP>17 article thats referenced as part of some proof on a "claim" in Rosemary's THESIS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2012, 09:56:50 PM
No comments? Nobody cares?
That's certainly appropriate, but are we really going to let poor gmeast suffer under the illusion that maybe HE made a mistake, since Ainslie assures him all the stuff she assures him of?
Well, I'm not. At this point I haven't found any errors in my REDRAWING of Ainslie's circuit: my drawing is her circuit exactly, only drawn as 555 circuits are most commonly shown.
So... of course I put it together and made a video, just now.
I'll post the link when it's done uploading.
Now... gmeast, if you are reading here, I suggest you go ahead and build and USE the exact 555 timer circuit, set at the 96 percent ... something... setting, just as Ainslie claims, and see what kind of heat in the load you get. I predict that it will closely match the claims of heat in her experiment. Of course... your batteries will discharge, but you can console yourself with this sad fact: so do hers.
Well ... with one exception outlined in this posting directed at you. ;)
Quote from: Witsend (aka Rosemary Ainslie)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html 07-06-2009, 01:25 PM
TinselKoala - THE ONLY APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM that I can assure you is correct is the diagram in the paper. And the flyback diode is a critical part of the system.
The circuit diagram in the Quantum article was prepared by Brian Buckley. I cannot comment on whether it is right or not as I simply cannot read it. I am hoping that Donovan
will be able to comment in due course. I don't think he has even seen that article - as published.
But it is definitely required as without it we cannot 're-route' the collapsing fields back to the battery to recharge it.
As you can see a usage of the word
"PAPER" which could mean the February 02, 2009
"EIT" paper (attached), or possibly the October 2002
Quantum COP>17 article (attached). ???
Then there's that pesky
"Fly Back Diode" .... for some kind of
're-route' ::)
FTC
;)
Here you go Little TK. Something to give your thread some relevance and gravitas and INTEREST. Go read that updated article and then comment.
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593
The sheer brilliance of it all....
QuoteAnd so it goes. We apparently have yet another need for yet another glove. Here’s the thing. We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘particles’ transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities â€" all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid. That’s a whole lot of work. Which calls for a whole bunch of electrons. And the obvious problem? No utility supply source would be able to access that many. There aren’t any spare electrons manufactured in those great big nuclear generators â€" or indeed, any generators. Again. No matter HOW skilled our scientists are, they cannot manufacture electrons on demand.
Absolutely incredible.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2012, 12:25:18 AM
The sheer brilliance of it all....
Thank you MileHigh. I knew you'd approve - being as you are an arch defender of the principle that evidence trumps theory.
Kindest as best as ever,
Rosie Posie
added :-*
A dose of double-sarcasm does not help Rosie Posie up the learning curve.
The little engine that couldn't.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2012, 12:30:36 AM
A dose of double-sarcasm does not help Rosie Posie up the learning curve.
The little engine that couldn't.
Are you implying that you were being SARCASTIC? Surely not. :-[ :'(
again,
Rosie Pose
aka 'the little engine that couldn't...'
@FTC: The EIT "paper" contains a schematic that DOES NOT INCLUDE the details of the 555 timer used, it only contains THIS STATEMENT:
QuoteAt the junction of the diode and the inductor is an N Channel power MOSFET, (Q1), connected, in
turn, to a 555 switching circuit with variable duty cycles and frequency adjustment.
Since the experiment described is the SAME ONE described in the Quantum article which DOES give the 555 timer circuit.... but does NOT show the recirculation diode..... Well, what are we to believe. Once again, the report CLOSEST IN TIME to the actual experiment... the Quantum article.... has got to be considered the primary source. Especially since the 555 timer As specified in the Quantum article does produce the claimed heat profiles. ... but no other setup will, unless it also makes a LONG ON-TIME DUTY CYCLE.
Is it possible that Ainslie does not realize that as the principal author of all those manuscripts, SHE HERSELF ALONE is responsible for EVERY DETAIL, jot and tittle, in those papers? Well, she is, and she cannot blame others for what appears UNDER HER NAME.
The manuscripts must be retracted, as they are full of errors, inconsistencies, and downright FALSE STATEMENTS.... like the schematics claimed to be used in the experiments.
QuoteAnd so it goes. We apparently have yet another need for yet another glove. Here’s the thing. We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘particles’ transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities â€" all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid. That’s a whole lot of work. Which calls for a whole bunch of electrons. And the obvious problem? No utility supply source would be able to access that many. There aren’t any spare electrons manufactured in those great big nuclear generators â€" or indeed, any generators. Again. No matter HOW skilled our scientists are, they cannot manufacture electrons on demand.
This is a load of crap. The EARTH is an inexhaustible source of electrons, Ainslie.
GOOD GRIEF.
A lot of the components in your COMPUTER, AINSLIE, are manufactured by a process known as electron beam lithography. A BEAM OF ELECTRONS IS DELIBERATELY PRODUCED AND MANIPULATED TO ETCH PATTERNS ON STONES, and these patterns, built up in layers, are what makes your computer work.
https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+beam+lithography
I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH A BEAM OF ELECTRONS, ON DEMAND, at any time, at virtually any power level you like... given the apparatus necessary.
MY OSCILLOSCOPE makes and manipulates a BEAM OF ELECTRONS.
Did I make the electrons? No. Where did they come from then? THEY CAME FROM THE EARTH, and there are so very many of them that you cannot possibly imagine the quantity, and the puny amount that we use in all our generators and utility grids is such a tiny fraction of the total in the EARTH that we can borrow and return them and the EARTH never even notices.
You really need to stop believing in fairy tales and start to think things through. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A COMPUTER, or many of the other conveniences of life, if electrons worked the way you think.
The next time you go for an airplane ride..... ask the pilot if his flight instrumentation works by electrons ... or zipons.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 13, 2012, 12:11:43 AM
Here you go Little TK. Something to give your thread some relevance and gravitas and INTEREST. Go read that updated article and then comment.
Rosie Pose
Logorrhea, plain and simple.
You do not know your subject well enough to discuss it coherently.
And you do not know how to reason correctly either.
Can anyone tell me what this idiot fool Ainslie is talking about?
List of misdemeanors? I'd love to see it. And I'm sure everyone else would too.
Photographic evidence of TK "flaming the environment"? What could that possibly mean? Seen through the disguise? WHAAT?
Flames our threads... she doesn't even know what "flames" means, and I've never posted on what she calls "our" threads at all.
See, she can't make a post without lying about something or other.
And she mentions the "pickle" again... how fascinated she is about my giant pickle. She wakes up in the night, craving giant pickles, in a cold sweat. It's probably been decades or more since she's seen a pickle up close and personal like.
I was not going to gratify her with another pickle image... but since she insists... don't ever let it be said that I won't give a lady.. even a troll lady... what she so fervently asks for.
This is the Quantum 555 timer that I built a few minutes ago and the scope trace from Pin 3 output. I used the EXACT component values specifed in the Quantum schematic except that I used 1n914 diodes instead of 1n4148. Would anyone like to argue that my results are due to this diode substitution?
How, then, can we explain gmeast's claim that ... after working with the circuit all afternoon.... he was able to get a 3.7 percent HIGH output from his timer... USING THE SAME COMPONENT VALUES as specified... or maybe not.
I just put it together as the schematic specified, and it worked the first time, just as I SAID IT WOULD, with a long ON duty cycle.
OF COURSE I could change component values around and arrive at the "claimed" short ON duty cycle ... it's easy to calculate the timing resistors and cap values to give any specified duty cycle within broad limits... but that is changing the circuit.
If it doesn't have the same component values, gmeast... it's not the same timer circuit as she used. Or at least that is PUBLISHED under her name as having been used.
Just in the general but dying hopes of keeping this thread on topic CLICK HERE....
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2592.html#msg2592
Rosie Pose
You have no idea what the topic of this thread is, Ainslie, and YOU are not selecting the topics of discussion. In fact YOU are spamming this thread with your unwanted links to your honeypot forum that is full of your lies and pseudoscientific misconduct.
EVERY WORD that is released under your name, AINSLIE, all those "manuscripts" that you have "published"... YOU are responsible for every word, every image, every little scratchmark on the paper, because YOU are the principal author. YOU CANNOT BLAME ANYONE ELSE for the errors, lies, false claims, WRONG SCHEMATICS and so on.... YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BIT OF IT.
The data deletions, the edited images where trace baselines have been removed to hide data.... EVERY BIT OF IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY and you cannot blame anyone else for your errors.
You claim to use SIX batteries for a trial where it is very clear FROM YOUR SCOPE TRACES that you only used 4, for just ONE single example that has come to light in the past several days. This alone invalidates the entire manuscript.
For the present discussion involving the old COP>17 claims: I used, above, the EXACT schematic that YOU have published and linked to many times. The fact that this EMBARRASSING schematic is OMITTED from the EIT "paper" is another telling omission on your part. The schematic AS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED will make your heat profiles.... and DID. But clearly anyone who builds it EXACTLY will discover what I did.... and instantly realize what happened and that your claims based on the duty cycle are invalid and refuted. SO YOU LEAVE IT OUT....... just as you have more recently with your 5.9 MegaJoule howler that you have removed without comment from your Forum's edition of the "paper" but which STILL REMAINS TO THIS DAY in the official "publication" on Rossi's JNP blog.
And if someone changes component values and struggles for a day and finally makes the CLAIMED duty cycle... using a DIFFERENT 555 circuit... well, that rather proves my point, doesn't it: YOUR ORIGINAL SCHEMATIC DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO YOUR CLAIMS.
However, I can use YOUR EXACT CIRCUIT with the EXACT COMPONENT VALUES SPECIFIED, and EASILY make both the CORRECT and the INVERTED duty cycle at the same time, by adding a single component and its connecting wires. And it took me less than an hour to construct the entire timer AND my addition that fixes your "mistake".
Go ahead, Ainslie, you disgusting fool. It's amusing to watch you in your drunken capers, flailing about, looking for some way to distract from the issue: you are wrong, and no matter who or what I happen to be in your twisted puny mind.... you will still be wrong, for as much longer as you have on this Earth, because you are impossible to educate... you know it all already.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2012, 10:34:57 AM
Go ahead, Ainslie, you disgusting fool. It's amusing to watch you in your drunken capers, flailing about, looking for some way to distract from the issue: you are wrong, and no matter who or what I happen to be in your twisted puny mind.... you will still be wrong, for as much longer as you have on this Earth, because you are impossible to educate... you know it all already.
You forgot to download the upload. Let me help you out here.
Rosie Pose
You want to play, you disgusting scrawny old wench? THAT is the best you can come up with, "flaming the environment", "list of misdemeanors"?
You are truly a joke.
You really should stay out of the sun, at your advanced age.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2012, 10:42:49 AM
You want to play, you disgusting scrawny old wench? THAT is the best you can come up with, "flaming the environment", "list of misdemeanors"?
You are truly a joke.
You really should stay out of the sun, at your advanced age.
That's not me TK. I've got the same shape and size as when I was 16.
Rosie Pose
Yeah, sure you do, Ainslie. Same gravelly cigarrette-roughened voice too, and probably still wearing the same bras, too.
HERE, you useless sedentary troll. Here is an ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH of me, one of only a few that have ever been posted to the internet of me, taken a couple of years ago at an event that you have no hope of understanding.
I don't see anyone in this photo that looks like your fireman boyfriend up there, you flaming troll.
PM me your address Little TK and I'll send you a photograph of me. I KNOW how you appreciate us well toned ladies.
Rosie Pose
You are forgetting several things, troll: First, you supposedly already have my address. Second, I already have pictures, actual pictures, of you, and "svelte" does not do you justice. "Scrawny", "Boyish figure", "frail".... those are more appropriate. Remember your "hello from SA" video? And I even have a picture of your little ratdog, what was his name, Prometheus or something. And third, there is no third thing. Fourth, you remain a trolling, transparent, arrogant fool.
You are, as usual, trying to deflect the thread to BURY THE SIGNIFICANT RESULTS THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN POSTED.
We can play this game a bit but then you know we will get back to the serious business of debunking your bunkum.
Let's see... we have discovered another egregious "error" in your daft manuscript (sic): You claim to have used 6 batteries but the accompanying scopeshot clearly shows that you only used 4, hence invalidating that entire section of the daft manuscript; we have again demonstrated the error and mendacity involved with your Quantum magazine publication -- your ONLY legitimate publication other than the patent APPLICATIONS.... and we have given you another opportunity to display your vileness and corrupt heart, by lying about me and posting the images you post, instead of talking about the issues that have been raised... the VERY SERIOUS ISSUES of your pseudoscientific misconduct.
Meanwhile, I have, as usual, been doing YOUR HOMEWORK for you. Instead of your misleading your builder gmeast as you have done, I show how, in a matter of ten minutes, the ORIGINAL 555 timer with its INVERTED DUTY CYCLE, non-working to make the cycles you claimed to have used... I show, I say, how to make it WORK "PROPERLY" to give whatever duty cycle you might need within its extreme endpoint range. This is accomplished not by some crazy belief in a "model" that doesn't make any useful predictions, but rather by a relatively sound understanding of basic ELECTRONIC principles including HOW COMPONENTS ACTUALLY FUNCTION and just what "things" are flowing inside them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIANNRpl6FA
Howdy all,
Well I can see why Rosemary doesn't publish just "ANY" image attachment to a posting.
Here we have her forum member "gmeast" posting a "QUANTUM" COP>17 device schematic Mosfet_Heater_Circuit_11-26-2009.jpg which isn't but a "MODIFIED" version that I used with my testing and evaluation of Rosemary's claimed device.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat
http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html 02-06-2010, 10:53 PM
Hi everyone,
This Open Source thread is for the advancement of a "Mosfet Heating Circuit" one that is a modified replication of one described in the Quantum October 2002 (http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf) article.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Mosfet_Heater_Circuit_11-26-2009.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/MosfetHeaterCircuitComponents.jpg
The goal is to provide all possible updates and modifications to the existing "Revised 11-26-2009" circuit to find a higher "Coefficient of Performance" or COP using the latest circuit components, technology and equipment available for the advancement of this present circuit being used.
It will also given the time needed to document and fully evaluate previous testing and future testing on a submittal for possible publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine and Scribd the worlds largest on line publisher.
Please .... refrain from cutting and pasting this threads context to other "Energetic Forum" threads with questions or comments.
Best Regards,
Glen
This is just another example of Rosemary not correcting a experimentalist doing a "REPLICATION" on the correct schematic thats used in the October
2002 Quantum COP>17 magazine article. It's totally obvious where this came from and used at, and for Rosemary to hide the facts plus limiting or omitting the posted for the public to view image attachments, shows her true one sided intentions with her personal FORUM. ::)
FTC
Thank you for that, Fuzzy. It is totally typical of Ainslie and her typical supporters not to give credit for the hard work of others, and simply to take what they will and claim it's their own, or that they "came up with it" independently.
So, clearly my point is supported. The original Quantum schematic does NOT work as she claimed, but it DOES work, it just makes the inverted duty cycle with the components specified. It's too bad that gmeast wasted all that time, because as I show in my latest video, a simple 4049 hex inverter allows the use of the ORIGINAL component values and gives BOTH the inverted AND the non-inverted cycles, available to drive heavier loads even than the 555 can drive, and no fooling around or altered component values was needed, just the single chip and its connecting wires.
The alteration of the schematic to make it DIFFERENT FROM THE PUBLICATION THAT CARRIES AINSLIE'S NAME means that it is no longer the same project any more. You had better watch out, Wilby the troll will come after you for doing that. No...wait....he only objects when I use a different component. Others can use whatever they like and do whatever they like, as long as they get the results they WANT.
The "errors" in the schematic have been pointed out TO AINSLIE since 2009, there, gmeast. Why didn't she tell you that the schematic in the article was incorrect? Have you thought about that very much? ANd you do realize that there is YET ANOTHER big lie concerning that schematic -- the missing recirculation diode. Was it used or not? If so, why has it not been corrected on the diagram, since it has been TEN YEARS since the article was published under AINSLIE's good name? If not, why is she now claiming it was used but not included on the published schematic that you are working from, there, gmeast? Thought about that, much?
But no matter, the point is well made, YET AGAIN, by Ainslie's own builder, and in such a mendacious way that gmeast cannot even admit that I was right, and I remain right about the original circuit's inverted duty cycle.
I remain right about a lot of other things concerning that circuit and its performance as well. But if gmeast wants to waste his time by not doing his homework to find out what has transpired before now, that is certainly up to him.
I just want them to stop going around claiming that I am wrong while they are busy proving I am right. It really makes them look rather bad. Don't bother to try a replication, just use whatever circuit you like that gives you the results YOU WANT. Isn't that the way science is done?
A screenshot of the CURRENT EDIT of the Ainslie daft manuscript up on her forum right now, and then a shot from what was up a few days ago.
Note several things in the old shot:
6 x 12 volt batteries claimed in the description of the test.
The purple battery voltage trace has its baseline marker edited out so one cannot tell where the baseline is (unless you know what the offset value in the channels settings box means).
And the scope's calculated MEAN for the battery trace is..... looking very closely at the figure.......... 49.9 volts MAXIMUM.
One of three things therefore must be true:
1. Six batteries were NOT used; rather, only 4 were used, and the reason for this is not given (but I know what it is).
-OR-
2. The purple trace does not represent the battery voltage at all, but rather is perhaps the mosfet drain trace, which would give similar voltage values (but not the overall waveshape).
-OR-
3. The Ainslie batteries are severely depleted in their charge, indicating well under 9 volts each.
Of course we are assuming again that the schematic is reported correctly... something which is increasingly in doubt.
Regardless of the explanation, it is clear that this entire section of the daft manuscript is invalidated, since the conclusions drawn depend on there being 72 volts applied, without failing a mosfet, and without showing battery drain... and none of this is compatible with the 49.9 volts shown as the battery maximum "mean" on the scopeshot.
And of course there is also the egregious removal of the baseline indicator, by the most selective compression artefact in the known universe. THIS, they forgot to replace in the new edit. That smoking gun just keeps popping up, doesn't it. AND of course, milliseconds and microseconds, who cares, they both start with "m" so they must be equivalent, right?
Now that Ainslie has noted our posting of this "error" a couple of days ago, she's "edited" the paper to say "4" batteries were used. With no explanation or retraction. Just cover it up and it will go away, right? I wonder what ELSE is under Ainslie's filthy rugs.
But the internet never forgets, nor does it forgive.
Now... the daft manuscript says that the schematic in Fig. 1 "refers". But that schematic has the FG's black cliplead connected to the mosfet side of the current-viewing resistor. This, I believe, is the correct location so that the CVR can monitor the relevant current flows in the system.
However.... the photographs that we have of Ainslie's experimental setups, both the single mosfet design and all versions of the 5 mosfet design that we have been able to locate... show the black cliplead from the FG connected to the common circuit ground on the BATTERY side of the CVR, meaning that current flows through the FG (which Ainslie for a long time has denied were even possible) were not "counted" by the CVR.
What evidence do we have that the CORRECT location, depicted on the CLAIMED schematic, was in fact used.... especially considering that the issue wasn't even identified or discussed until after the demo.... after the experiment in the paper.... AFTER it could have been incorporated in the manuscript's experiment?
I've tightened up the topology a little more on my revision of the Quantum paper schematic.
I've included the original Quantum image, and a photo of my latest re-draw of it. This is the Exact Same Circuit ! (oscillator section only of my redraw is shown, of course.)
Quote from, well, you know:
Quote
Ok Poynty. Would this test prove your proposal that there's a current flow through the function generator's terminal and probe at Q2?
We disconnect Q1 source leg from the circuit. We then attach the function generator terminal to the gate of Q2 with its probe placed at the battery supply source or negative rail. Therefore in series we'd have the FG terminal at the Gate of Q2 >to the FG probe >to the battery source rail or negative rail >to the 0.25Ohm shunt >to the negative terminal of the battery supply. We then apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2. Bear in mind that under this 'schematic' the source leg of Q2 would be DISCONNECTED.
IF there is clear evidence of a continual >zero current flow - measured across the shunt - then there is unequivocal proof that the current from the battery supply and/or the function generator - can flow through the terminal and probes of the function generator as a DC current and that the probes and terminals effectively maintain a series path to enable this flow.
IF the waveform moves into oscillation mode then the question is still out there as to whether the current can indeed flow through the function generator terminal and probe as proposed.
If you agree with this as a fair test - then I'll list this as one of the proposed tests when that apparatus gets back to me. I'll try and upload that schematic again - so that you can see that I've faithfully duplicated the schematic conditions to test this.
Well, from this post, it looks like all of .99's efforts have been for nought. She struggles with the simplest of concepts regarding electronics, and even basic electricity, yet somehow feels she is more qualified to discuss (argue) a circuit, a schematic, or how to use test equipment than just about anyone else.
Armed with absolutley no idea what the "standard model" (apologies for using her words...) is with regard to the everyday understanding of the operation of electronic circuits, she feels qualified to tell all that whatever that understanding is, it is wrong and she has rewritten it.
I particularly liked her pondering where all those electrons come from that the utility sends us. It made for a good chuckle. I actually think she believes that electrons are somehow created and destroyed as they involve themselves with even the simplest of circuits.
For every electron leaving a battery, there is one returning to the opposing terminal. For every electron leaving a power plant, there is one returning to the opposing terminal of the generator. Electrical or electronic circuits do not create or destroy electrons, they only move electrons about in a manner advantageous to a circuit's operation.
Generators and batteries only act as "pumps", to cause electrons to move within a conductor. A generator uses mechanical energy to "pump" the electrons, a battery uses electrochemical energy to "pump" the electrons.
Electrons are not lost as a battery discharges, nor are electrons added as a battery is charged.
It would seem most logical for one to learn what the current understanding of electronics is before one decides that understanding is incorrect and new theories are required.
ADDED: I see the "lab report" was a bust. TK, you always seem to make accurate predictions...
Well, I don't know about that.... let's just say "usually", and my record with Ainslie is almost like deja vu all over again, because .... I have been here before. :P
But.... the first paragraph describing the proposed connection seems, if I am decoding the Ainslie-ese properly, to simply place the CVR directly across the output of the FG, with the sources of both transistors removed from their connections to the negative rail completely. Assuming the "source of Q1" is disconnected on the transistor side of the junction with the Q2 gate and the FG's "terminal" and CVR.
I think I would be pretty surprised if any oscillations would occur under those circumstances, and of course the CVR will show the current, in both directions through the essentially shorted circuit of the 0.25R across the FG, being sourced by the FG, I should think.
I am having a hard time picturing what she is talking about though, since she refuses to pick up a pencil and draw what she means. Although considering what we've seen in that area before... maybe it's best that she doesn't.
I'll have to try it on Tar Baby, as soon as she is returned from Georgia. I sure hope she hasn't been captured by the extremist FEF Brigade (Free Energy Fanatics).
PW said,
QuoteADDED: I see the "lab report" was a bust. TK, you always seem to make accurate predictions...
Well... I'll try another one.
The lab confirmed that the numbers she got were the numbers she got. (Just like .99 and me and probably you too by now).
They also subbed in a noninductive CVR and filtered the battery and got some real numbers... just like .99 and me and probably you by now.
So now they are sending some noninductive shpeshul reshsisshtorsh and some instructions on proper testing back to Ainslie so SHE can replicate THEIR results and disabuse herself of the notion that she is all that.
And of course... when she DOES see what they've done and suggested, these good Boffins, to a man, will suddenly become ignorant idiots too blind to see what is laid before them as the salvation of Mankind, and that's the last we will hear of their suggested tests and their noninductive CVR. But Ainslie will use their "confirmation" of the numbers she got as an ENDORSEMENT, but of course she will still never mention the actual lab's name or any contact information so that her claims can be checked. And you can be sure that every body is NDA'd up to their armpit hairs, too.
I wonder if any of them are named Tarnow, or perhaps Tarnowski.
MIB Alert! MIB Alert!Paid disinformation agents are actively manipulating us!
From that "Discredit" blog:QuoteOk Poynty. Would this test prove your proposal that there's a current flow through the function generator's terminal and probe at Q2?
We disconnect Q1 source leg from the circuit. We then attach the function generator terminal to the gate of Q2 with its probe placed at the battery supply source or negative rail. Therefore in series we'd have the FG terminal at the Gate of Q2 >to the FG probe >to the battery source rail or negative rail >to the 0.25Ohm shunt >to the negative terminal of the battery supply. We then apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2. Bear in mind that under this 'schematic' the source leg of Q2 would be DISCONNECTED.
IF there is clear evidence of a continual >zero current flow - measured across the shunt - then there is unequivocal proof that the current from the battery supply and/or the function generator - can flow through the terminal and probes of the function generator as a DC current and that the probes and terminals effectively maintain a series path to enable this flow.
Does not compute! The only explanation is a
covert campaign to discredit all free energy research and
the queen of the hive must be Rosie herself!Psyops alert! Psyops alert!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M77HfZu24bw
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2012, 07:21:12 PM
Well, I don't know about that.... let's just say "usually", and my record with Ainslie is almost like deja vu all over again, because .... I have been here before. :P
But.... the first paragraph describing the proposed connection seems, if I am decoding the Ainslie-ese properly, to simply place the CVR directly across the output of the FG, with the sources of both transistors removed from their connections to the negative rail completely. Assuming the "source of Q1" is disconnected on the transistor side of the junction with the Q2 gate and the FG's "terminal" and CVR.
I think I would be pretty surprised if any oscillations would occur under those circumstances, and of course the CVR will show the current, in both directions through the essentially shorted circuit of the 0.25R across the FG, being sourced by the FG, I should think.
I am having a hard time picturing what she is talking about though, since she refuses to pick up a pencil and draw what she means. Although considering what we've seen in that area before... maybe it's best that she doesn't.
I'll have to try it on Tar Baby, as soon as she is returned from Georgia. I sure hope she hasn't been captured by the extremist FEF Brigade (Free Energy Fanatics).
TK,
With the source terminal of both Q1 and Q2 disconnected, not much is going to happen at all. Seems she wants to connect the FG signal common to the gate of Q2 and connect the FG output to the battery negative via the CSR. If you read the involved sentence, it is written in the most confusing of ways. First she says the FG out is connected to the batt neg, and then she says to the CSR. She aso states that the source terminal of Q2 is to remain disconnected.
In any event, it will only prove what we all know, once a gate is charged or discharged, no current flows to or from that gate (other than leakage current).
If she actually understood how Q2 is turned on in her circuit, or a bit more about electronics in general, she would not have proposed this as a test of anything.
It is quite easy to prove current is flowing thru Q2. thru the FG and to the battery negative via the CSR in her circuit. One only needs to look at the captures she herself has provided and observe the voltage drop across Rgen due to current flowing thru the FG.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2012, 07:40:06 PM
PW said,
Well... I'll try another one.
The lab confirmed that the numbers she got were the numbers she got. (Just like .99 and me and probably you too by now).
They also subbed in a noninductive CVR and filtered the battery and got some real numbers... just like .99 and me and probably you by now.
So now they are sending some noninductive shpeshul reshsisshtorsh and some instructions on proper testing back to Ainslie so SHE can replicate THEIR results and disabuse herself of the notion that she is all that.
And of course... when she DOES see what they've done and suggested, these good Boffins, to a man, will suddenly become ignorant idiots too blind to see what is laid before them as the salvation of Mankind, and that's the last we will hear of their suggested tests and their noninductive CVR. But Ainslie will use their "confirmation" of the numbers she got as an ENDORSEMENT, but of course she will still never mention the actual lab's name or any contact information so that her claims can be checked. And you can be sure that every body is NDA'd up to their armpit hairs, too.
I wonder if any of them are named Tarnow, or perhaps Tarnowski.
TK,
Wow, you sure got a lot more out of tha non-existent lab report than I did!
I merely concluded that either there was no such report, or that it did not reflect well in her favor.
Surely if the report confirmed her assertions she would have held it up for all the world to see.
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
MIB Alert! MIB Alert!
Paid disinformation agents are actively manipulating us!
From that "Discredit" blog:
Does not compute! The only explanation is a covert campaign to discredit all free energy research and the queen of the hive must be Rosie herself!
Psyops alert! Psyops alert!
MH,
Quite the proposed test isn't it?
I thought the whole post moreso qualified as a failed midterm...
Ya' just gotta' grin a bit...
PW
I have got to say.... here in South Texas, the lower East side of San Antonio, the city whose patron is the Saint of Lost Souls... we have a word for people who behave in a certain way.
For example, when gmeast first says "the 555 timer doesn't work, has anyone built it".... when I've shown exactly what it does and how it works.... and for her not to inform him immediately.... and then for him to come back and say he's "gotten THE 555 timer circuit to work properly".... by changing components and so on.... and doesn't acknowledge what I have been saying about the ORIGINAL timer circuit for three years now... and then pretends that that is still THE circuit that was used for the Quantum experiment, or that his work with his new circuit will be relevant to the claims made in Ainslie's Quantum article ....
Well, here on the lower East side of San Antonio de Padua de Bexar, we have a word... or two... for that kind of behavior.
Quote from: picowatt on July 13, 2012, 07:49:03 PM
TK,
Wow, you sure got a lot more out of tha non-existent lab report than I did!
I merely concluded that either there was no such report, or that it did not reflect well in her favor.
Surely if the report confirmed her assertions she would have held it up for all the world to see.
PW
Well, it looks to me like she said several things.
She said that they confirmed her numbers.
Big deal, so could Bugs Bunny if he had a Tek DSO and didn't know how to use it. And he's not even a boffin -- he's a _cartoon rabbit_.
She said,
"They are forwarding certain resistors and equipment for us to apply".
A noninductive shunt resistor? What else could it be? Equipment to apply... a filter cap bank, a diff voltage probe, shielded jumpers, a Clarke-Hess power meter?
And she said,
"I'll detail more about those test requirements when I've got them."
So they have asked her to perform certain tests of her own, the details of which she does not yet know (ho ho ho), using the equipment and resistors that they supply. Why on earth would they do that, if not to have HER convince herself of something?
Here, I'm returning your free energy device from our laboratory, along with some of my kit, so that YOU can test your device yourself in your broom closet, since you've demonstrated how competent you are with test equipment in general, because the amount of free energy we found using our special resistors is so astounding that YOU have got to see it for yourself.
Uh huh.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2012, 08:04:15 PM
Well, it looks to me like she said several things.
She said that they confirmed her numbers.
Big deal, so could Bugs Bunny if he had a Tek DSO and didn't know how to use it. And he's not even a boffin -- he's a _cartoon rabbit_.
She said,
"They are forwarding certain resistors and equipment for us to apply".
A noninductive shunt resistor? What else could it be? Equipment to apply... a filter cap bank, a diff voltage probe, shielded jumpers, a Clarke-Hess power meter?
And she said,
"I'll detail more about those test requirements when I've got them."
So they have asked her to perform certain tests of her own, the details of which she does not yet know (ho ho ho), using the equipment and resistors that they supply. Why on earth would they do that, if not to have HER convince herself of something?
Here, I'm returning your free energy device from our laboratory, along with some of my kit, so that YOU can test your device yourself in your broom closet, since you've demonstrated how competent you are with test equipment in general, because the amount of free energy we found using our special resistors is so astounding that YOU have got to see it for yourself.
Uh huh.
TK
So, basically, what I said...
ADDED: I thought she said some time ago that she was going to release the report regardless of what it said? Surely the lab's name can be blacked out, as their desire to remain anonymous is apparently her excuse for not releasing the report.
PW
The whole "lab" scenario is hilarious anyway. Why on earth would anyone in a lab equipped with electronic test equipment and at least one tech who knows the difference between "STBY" and "OFF"... why on earth would they request that a circuit with a handful of commonly available components, wired together in a manner that is known (or so we are assured by Ainslie), be sent halfway around the world to them for testing?
It can only be because they first built the thing themselves with parts they bought at Fry's over the counter, or had delivered from DigiKey by next-day-air, and it DID NOT WORK as claimed. So, they, being honest true believers and/or giving Ainslie all benefit of doubt, decide that IF her claims are true there must be something special about HER particular circuit itself that they have not been able to duplicate, therefore they must test HER specific device itself.
And so they have, and now we are all waiting for the big reveal: her numbers have been confirmed! Yes, the scope does INDEED read those numbers when it is hooked up just like she says !!
I'm telling you, it's that white pegboard, 16x19 grid of 1/4 inch holes on one inch centers, 3/4 inch thick, made of some alien material only found in SA, like MDF or something, and coated with special zipon-generating white paint.
PW:
She is a reptile.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLDY-7TUogk
Quote from: picowatt on July 13, 2012, 08:07:31 PM
TK
So, basically, what I said...
ADDED: I thought she said some time ago that she was going to release the report regardless of what it said? Surely the lab's name can be blacked out, as their desire to remain anonymous is apparently her excuse for not releasing the report.
PW
My my my. An instance of Ainslie not doing something she said she was gonna do.
I wonder if Stefan is still checking his inbox for those spreadsheets that she promised to him last April.
I know that I am still looking forward to her transcripts of all my videos, that she promised to me a couple of months ago.
Answers to questions, releases of data, corrections of errors, open source...... all broken promises of release of something or other. Why should you be surprised that there is no "official" release of any report? There never has been a release of any of the reports of the alphabet agencies that she keeps "citing" as confirmations of her COP>17 circuit, either, and it's been ten years.
Quote from: MileHigh
She is a reptile.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLDY-7TUogk
Good stuff MH! It is delightful to see and hear those
old tunes which were popular when I was a deck seaman
aboard ship home ported in the San Francisco Bay area.
Reptile aye.
You guys may win her over yet with your playful banter.
It is quite obvious that the gang here are enamored of her.
Quote from: dictionaryreferenceLink
1. to fill or inflame with love (usually used in the passive
followed by of or sometimes with); to be enamored of a
certain lady; a brilliant woman with whom he became
enamored.
2. to charm or captivate.
Yeah, sure ... like a favorite inflamed pimple, or an inflamed rotten tooth. Feels sort of good to poke it, but when it's finally popped or extracted, the relief is even more palpable.
Bear in mind that under this "schematic" the source leg of Q2 would be DISCONNECTED. This statement she made while describing the proposed test.
But that source leg Q2 needs to be attached to the function generator's terminal. That's for the test. The statement she made immediately subsequently, on being presented with .99's drawing of what he thinks she might have been describing in the first proposal.
Connected, AND disconnected. That will be some test all right, with the RED FG lead (called "probe" by her for some reason) connected to the battery negative, the BLACK FG lead connected AND disconnected simultaneously to the source leg of Q2... and where are the oscilloscope probes and their "terminals" going to be connected?
Can we be allowed to see your schematic, .99? Because I now have no idea at all what she is proposing, other than it seems a lot more complicated than simply RUNNING THE CIRCUIT AS DESIGNED, and scoping a CVR in series with one or the other of the FG's output leads.
OK, from going through the statements carefully and drawing what I think she means on a schematic with white-out, red and black markers.... it looks like what she winds up with after the second statement is simply switching the RED and the BLACK alligator clips and disconnecting Q1 source at the transistor.
Am I following this correctly, PW and .99?
Is the diagram below anything like what you are discussing?
This constant reference of hers to the Function Generator's "terminal" and "probe" disturbs me greatly.
Is it possible..... please tell me it isn't so...... that she has used, for some trials, an _oscilloscope probe_ , likely attenuated, for the FG's output connection at some point? After all... both the FG's output patch cord and the scope probes have the same BNC male connector on the instrument end......
So maybe, for convenience, she uses a BNC T-connector at the scope. So the FG's output goes to the T with a patch cord, which is on the scope channel input. This eliminates one probe at the circuit, since you are just monitoring the FG's output as the "gate" signal anyway. Then you can use a scope probe from the other side of the T to connect both the scope and the FG to the circuit with one cable !! Briilliant !!
Please tell me it isn't so.
TK - for now I'm obliging you with an answer. But you MUST appreciate that very soon now I won't be able to post in your thread because I'll be too busy doing tests.
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2607.html#msg2607
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 14, 2012, 02:55:27 AM
TK - for now I'm obliging you with an answer. But you MUST appreciate that very soon now I won't be able to post in your thread because I'll be too busy doing tests.
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2607.html#msg2607 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2607.html#msg2607)
I didn't ask YOU anything, troll woman.
And we all know that you aren't going to be testing anything. Oh, you might do some DEMONSTRATIONS of stuff we already know... but just like your present "test" proposal... nothing will be attempted that could have the potential to FALSIFY your silly claims.
First she wants it disconnected then connected then disconnected.....
AINSLIE YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
First you say that the Source of Q2 must be DISCONNECTED.
Then you say that it must be CONNECTED TO THE FUNCTION GENERATOR's " TERMINAL".
And NOW you say that I must "LOSE" that connection and connect it back to the FG's "PROBE" where it was in the first place.
Make up that tiny mind of yours, idiot. YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF CONSTANTLY.
LEARN TO DRAW A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM, you utter ignoramus.
RA POST 62: BEAR IN MIND THE Q2 SOURCE WOULD BE DISCONNECTED.
RA POST 63: THE SOURCE LEG Q2 NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FUNCTION GENERATOR's TERMINAL.
RA POST (in another thread) 22: LOSE THE CONNECTION OF Q2 SOURCE LEG TO THE TERMINAL. CONNECT TO FG's PROBE or OUTPUT.
YOU IDIOT AINSLIE. HOW IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF THREE TIMES IN THREE STATEMENTS?
And then you proceed to lie and insult me when all I am trying to do is to FIGURE OUT YOUR CRAZY DESCRIPTIONS, when anybody ELSE IN THE WHOLE WORLD would simply draw a DIAGRAM.
YOU IDIOT.
Little TK - you are beginning to sound FRANTIC.
Here's another answer. Hopefully that settle your obvious disquiet.
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2609.html#msg2609
QuoteOk Poynty. Would this test prove your proposal that there's a current flow through the function generator's terminal and probe at Q2?
We disconnect Q1 source leg from the circuit.
Look at my diagram. This is shown.
QuoteWe then attach the function generator terminal to the gate of Q2 with its probe placed at the battery supply source or negative rail.
The RED alligator clip of the FG is the "probe", right? This has been shown on my diagram.
QuoteTherefore in series we'd have the FG terminal at the Gate of Q2 >to the FG probe >to the battery source rail or negative rail >to the 0.25Ohm shunt >to the negative terminal of the battery supply.
Exactly WHAT I HAVE SHOWN ON MY DIAGRAM.
QuoteWe then apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2. Bear in mind that under this 'schematic' the source leg of Q2 would be DISCONNECTED.
This of course leaves the circuit open and nothing will happen.
But then she goes on to say, in the next post, after reviewing .99's diagram WHICH I AM NOT ALLOWED TO SEE...
QuoteBUT THAT SOURCE LEG Q2 NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FUNCTION GENERATOR's TERMINAL.
So that is WHAT I HAVE SHOWN IN THE DIAGRAM THAT I AM
ASKING ABOUT.
And now she says that it's wrong and blames ME for getting it wrong.
THIS IS INSANE. THIS WOMAN IS ABSOLUTELY CRAZY, she is not engaging in any rational discussion at all, she is just clowning around.
I ASK AGAIN.... PW, .99.... WHAT is she describing, and WHY does my diagram below NOT correspond to what she asked for in the posts 62 and 63?
All right, is THIS what she is trying to describe?
AGAIN - FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE PARTICULARLY DIMWITTED...
Little TK - you are beginning to sound FRANTIC.
Here's another answer. Hopefully that settle your obvious disquiet.
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2609.html#msg2609 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2609.html#msg2609)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 14, 2012, 03:42:18 AM
Little TK - you are beginning to sound FRANTIC.
Here's another answer. Hopefully that settle your obvious disquiet.
Rosie Pose
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2609.html#msg2609 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2609.html#msg2609)
Get away from me, you disgusting ignoramus. If you cannot OR WILL NOT even draw a single simple schematic, you do not deserve to be in this discussion AT ALL.
BOTH LEADS OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR ARE ITS OUTPUT, for one thing. There is no such thing as a function generator "probe" and "terminal" or "plus" and "minus". There is SIGNAL, and SIGNAL GROUND or COMMON. Since that is so confusing to you I have recommended using RED and BLACK for your FG output designations, as even YOU should be able to keep the colors of the alligator clips sorted in your feeble excuse for a mind.
And the issue that you are pretending to test has been settled in everyone's mind EXCEPT YOURS for a long time, and we can all see that you are deliberately trying to warp .99's tests and demonstrations so that they can't actually test what you don't want them to test, because they will reveal FINALLY EVEN TO YOU that you have been wrong all this time about your conception of FGs and how they work.
YOU ARE REPREHENSIBLE in your conduct in these matters, Ainslie. You should be totally ashamed of yourself.
AND AGAIN
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2610.html#msg2610
You STILL HAVE NOT DONE THIS.
Rosie Pose
Look again, you ignoramus. Had you simply DRAWN what you mean, instead of garbling your usual verbal monstrosities, we all could have understood instantly. But no... you have to use your own madeup language and WE are supposed to try to figure out what you mean.
Take your garbage toy away and go play somewhere else, you disgusting idiot.
IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVEY?
Ainslie said:
QuoteBUT THAT SOURCE LEG Q2 NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FUNCTION GENERATOR's TERMINAL.
AND she said;
QuoteLOSE THE CONNECTION OF Q2 SOURCE LEG to FG terminal.
Well, which is it then, you ignoramus? Connect it, or lose it?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:01:00 AM
Get away from me, you disgusting ignoramus. If you cannot OR WILL NOT even draw a single simple schematic, you do not deserve to be in this discussion AT ALL.
I would like nothing better. But then you would most certainly need to stop referring to either ME or OUR WORK.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:01:00 AMBOTH LEADS OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR ARE ITS OUTPUT, for one thing. There is no such thing as a function generator "probe" and "terminal" or "plus" and "minus". There is SIGNAL, and SIGNAL GROUND or COMMON.
I take it that this is in line with your use of the term MOSFET and your losing battle with understanding the subtleties of a collective noun. And how you wrestle with the problems of impedance which you forget to include in your measure of resistance. And with your reckless and unprofessional malice that's paraded with all the misogyny of Blue Beard and sundry other sociopathic monsters. And it's in line with your preference to even target Poynty - who has ONLY shown you sympathy. And in line with your malice extended to really upright and highly competent experimentalists when they are guilty of doing nothing more than proving you wrong. You are INDEED a piece of work.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:01:00 AMSince that is so confusing to you I have recommended using RED and BLACK for your FG output designations, as even YOU should be able to keep the colors of the alligator clips sorted in your feeble excuse for a mind.
There is NOTHING wrong with my mind. I suspect my GER is considerably greater than your own - notwithstanding your anxious denials. But since your own amounts to very little then that's hardly a boast. Unlike you I have a professional training in at least 3 disciplines - and I'm a reasonably talented dilettante in at least 3 more.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:01:00 AMAnd the issue that you are pretending to test has been settled in everyone's mind EXCEPT YOURS for a long time.
So you say. Repeatedly. And every time your say this you are WRONG. I look forward to doing those demonstrations PRECISELY to prove you wrong.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:01:00 AMand we can all see that you are deliberately trying to warp .99's tests and demonstrations so that they can't actually test what you don't want them to test, because they will reveal FINALLY EVEN TO YOU that you have been wrong all this time about your conception of FGs and how they work.
THIS much is absolute rubbish. Not that it's unusually so. I am INTENSELY grateful to Poynty - because he is prepared to both explain and test. Where you only deny - disclaim and distort. He is PROFESSIONAL. You are NOT.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:01:00 AMYOU ARE REPREHENSIBLE in your conduct in these matters, Ainslie. You should be totally ashamed of yourself.
ON THE CONTRARY. I am immensely proud of the fact that I've resisted your disgusting agenda - alone - and effectively - notwithstanding your disgusting tactics which far exceed decency - let alone forum guidelines.
Rosie Pose
changed inductance to resistance
I have decided that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with Ainslie.
.99 was trying, and may still be trying, in spite of her constant garbling of his explanations and tests. More power to him. Everyone else that has tried to discuss things with her rationally comes up against the same insanity from her: she speaks her own language where words mean what she wants at the moment and might change in the very next sentence.
She has contradicted herself so many times and has misrepresented her work and the work of others so egregiously that one wonders how such a thinker could have survived at all in this modern world.
Well, I'm tired of it all.
I have posted the most significant and exciting thing that I personally have EVER SEEN on this forum: the portable wireless power transmitting system, which offers a lot of opportunity for education, fun, and yes... even understanding some of the principles that I see being fractured daily on various threads in this forum. More than any other device that I've seen proposed or shown here or in just about any other "free energy" site, the transmission of power through space using induction as in the Black Briefcase or by capacitance as in the SassyClassE sstc offers TRUE OPPORTUNITIES to link up with that Wheelwork of Nature that Nikola Tesla talked about.
That's enough for me. Good night.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 14, 2012, 04:28:03 AM
I would like nothing better. But then you would most certainly need to stop referring to either ME or OUR WORK.
I take it that this is in line with your use of the term MOSFET and your losing battle with understanding the subtleties of a collective noun. And how you wrestle with the problems of impedance which you forget to include in your measure of resistance. And with your reckless and unprofessional malice that's paraded with all the misogyny of Blue Beard and sundry other sociopathic monsters. And it's in line with your preference to even target Poynty - who has ONLY shown you sympathy. And in line with your malice extended to really upright and highly competent experimentalists when they are guilty of doing nothing more than proving you wrong. You are INDEED a piece of work.
There is NOTHING wrong with my mind. I suspect my GER is considerably greater than your own - notwithstanding your anxious denials. But since your own amounts to very little then that's hardly a boast. Unlike you I have a professional training in at least 3 disciplines - and I'm a reasonably talented dilettante in at least 3 more.
So you say. Repeatedly. And every time your say this you are WRONG. I look forward to doing those demonstrations PRECISELY to prove you wrong.
THIS much is absolute rubbish. Not that it's unusually so. I am INTENSELY grateful to Poynty - because he is prepared to both explain and test. Where you only deny - disclaim and distort. He is PROFESSIONAL. You are NOT.
ON THE CONTRARY. I am immensely proud of the fact that I've resisted your disgusting agenda - alone - and effectively - notwithstanding your disgusting tactics which far exceed decency - let alone forum guidelines.
Rosie Pose
changed inductance to resistance
You are a damned liar and crazy as a loon to boot. YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE MANIFESTLY WRONG, like your stupid claim that I don't take inductance into account, for just a single example. LOOK AT THE SPREADSHEET I POSTED MONTHS AGO, you disgusting liar. ANd.. .where is YOUR spreadsheet so we can see how well YOU accounted for your inductive reactance? Nowhere to be found.
YOU LIE WITH EVERY POST YOU MAKE and you do not deserve to be spoken to with anything other than contempt.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 14, 2012, 04:28:03 AM
I would like nothing better. But then you would most certainly need to stop referring to either ME or OUR WORK.
When you retract your unsupported claims, correct your ridiculous math errors, and learn to talk about your subject with the correct terminology, and when you start respecting your betters and their educations... then I'll stop referring to YOU, you liar, and your WORK which is a combination of fantasy and delusions and outright lies. That is... never.
Quote
I take it that this is in line with your use of the term MOSFET and your losing battle with understanding the subtleties of a collective noun.
Contentless tripe. YOU don't even know what a mosfet IS. What does "Field Effect Transistor" mean, Ainslie? How is it different from Bipolar Transistors? You have no clue, you still think a mosfet gate can pass a DC current somehow ... but you DENY that they can pass AC. And your ridiculous statement about the plural noun "DATA", which I refuted with THREE DICTIONARY REFERENCES AND A QUOTE FROM A SCIENTIFIC EDITOR..... is just that: ridiculous, and once again shows your abysmal ignorance. DATA ARE, Ainslie. A DATA SET is. The DATA that go into a data set are PLURAL and take PLURAL articles, especially in scientific writing. LOOK IT UP for a change, instead of just making your absurd pronouncements, you arrogant ignoramus.
QuoteAnd how you wrestle with the problems of impedance which you forget to include in your measure of resistance.
This is such a lie that you have been repeating for months. It's really too bad that you are too stupid to download and open MY SPREADSHEET ANALYSES, where your ridiculous lie about my "wrestling" with impedance is clearly shown to be FALSE.
QuoteAnd with your reckless and unprofessional malice that's paraded with all the misogyny of Blue Beard and sundry other sociopathic monsters.
You cannot point to a single instance of misogyny on my part, you ignorant old woman. Blue Beard Indeed! What a disgusting and stupid liar you are.
QuoteAnd it's in line with your preference to even target Poynty - who has ONLY shown you sympathy.
You cannot point to any place where I have been anything other than polite and respectful towards .99-- in STARK CONTRAST to the way you address him. In other words YOU LIE AGAIN about me.
QuoteAnd in line with your malice extended to really upright and highly competent experimentalists when they are guilty of doing nothing more than proving you wrong. You are INDEED a piece of work.
None of your " competent" experimentalists has EVER proven that ANYTHING I've said or done is wrong. INDEED... they have PROVEN THAT I AM RIGHT, gmeast being just the most recent. YOU LIE AGAIN, you reprehensible liar.
Quote
There is NOTHING wrong with my mind.
As a professional psychologist, I beg to differ. You exhibit many classical signs of pathology. You are a pathological liar; you exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect with textbook precision and astounding magnitude; and you have an idee fixe that is delusional and has no contact with reality. I suspect that you are bordering on psychosis due to your lack of reality-checking and your constant "responses" to things you evidently hallucinate other people saying. In short, you are as crazy as a bat in daytime.
By the way, your hospitalization record has been leaked. I'm not going to mention it again out of respect for ... your doctors. But you really should talk to someone about the leak ... having those records in the public view isn't going to be good for you in the long run.
QuoteI suspect my GER is considerably greater than your own - notwithstanding your anxious denials.
Nobody but you knows what you mean by that one, Ainslie. GER? Do you mean the GRE, the GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION, which college GRADUATES must take in order to get into PhD programs in GRADUATE SCHOOL, and which is accepted by MENSA as a vetting exam for membership in their organization? YOU have no GRE scores to compare, since you never attended a college at all, much less graduated. If you are referring to some kind of "intelligence test" comparison ... bring it on, you and me, no calculators allowed, Mensa or the GRE or any other standardized test. You are fairly bright for an autodidact, but you are abysmally undereducated and naive about the world... and you can't add or subtract without a calculator, much less solve a basic algebra problem or an analogy test. You cannot even tell the difference between "its" and "it's".
QuoteBut since your own amounts to very little then that's hardly a boast.
Look up what a GRE score of 1548 means, Ainslie.
QuoteUnlike you I have a professional training in at least 3 disciplines
UNLIKE ME? Ainslie, I have credentials and professional qualifications that you can only dream about. YOU on the other hand, ... have no education, no college degree, no professonal licenses, nothing but a "thesis" that is a delusion and a fantasy. What are your "disciplines", cosmetology, waitressing and life drawing? You are a joke. Your credentials cannot compare with mine. YOU DON"T EVEN HAVE THE PREREQUISITES TO ENTER A TRAINING PROGRAM TO BECOME QUALIFIED IN SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE I HOLD CERTIFICATIONS. You make claims that you once again CANNOT SUPPORT.
Quote- and I'm a reasonably talented dilettante in at least 3 more.
SO stick to the things you know, because you are abysmally ignorant and an incompetent nincompoop when it comes to basic electronics.
Quote
So you say. Repeatedly. And every time your say this you are WRONG. I look forward to doing those demonstrations PRECISELY to prove you wrong.
You have never once been able to SHOW that I am wrong, you only claim it. Well, AINSLIE, you are PURPLE and have Three Ugly Horns on your head. And I claim that with the same authority that you claim I am "wrong". But.. YOU are WRONG all the time, and I always point to PROOF that you are. Like "PER NEVER MEANS DIVISION". You are indeed an idiot.
Quote
THIS much is absolute rubbish. Not that it's unusually so. I am INTENSELY grateful to Poynty - because he is prepared to both explain and test.
You should be grateful to him because he's teaching you what you should have known from the beginning. And I can point to DOZENS of times when you have insulted and denigrated him, most recently just yesterday. YOU LIE AGAIN, as usual.
QuoteWhere you only deny - disclaim and distort.
I DEMONSTRATE and PROVE what I disclaim, and YOU are the QUEEN OF DISTORTION, you unbelievable hypocrite.
QuoteHe is PROFESSIONAL. You are NOT.
It doesn't take a professional to see through you, Ainslie. ANY sophomore EE student that paid attention in class can do it... and do do it. .99 is doing an admirable job withstanding your hurricane of crap. I hope he does succeed in teaching you something... but I doubt he will be able to, because YOU KNOW IT ALL ALREADY.
Quote
ON THE CONTRARY. I am immensely proud of the fact that I've resisted your disgusting agenda - alone - and effectively - notwithstanding your disgusting tactics which far exceed decency - let alone forum guidelines.
Pride goeth before a fall, Ainslie. You are indeed proud, way past the point of extreme obnoxious arrogance. And Pride is indeed one of the seven capital sins.
Quote
Rosie Pose
changed inductance to resistance
But you cannot change your hypocrisy and error into anything worthwhile, or worthy of anything other than the deepest contempt.
All:
It's evident from her recent postings that Rosemary still doesn't understand that the source of a MOSFET passes all of the DC current and the gate passes none. It's also evident that she still does not understand how to turn Q2 on because she is still making references to making the Q2 gate high and she makes no reference to the fact that she needs to apply a voltage across two points.
Note that Poynt tried his best to teach her this material step by step just the other day. It just doesn't register with her. Anything technical that's more than seven minutes in the past is forgotten by Rosie. Plus there is the Dunning-Kruger effect in play also.
It's really hopeless, like I mentioned a week or so ago.
So..... Who cares? It's just a sideshow now.
It's a bloody Twilight Zone episode.
MileHigh
Hi there,
it is not my party, but since this is an official forum, I want to state my opinion.
As a newbie in this forum I am really surprised and a little bit shocked about the fact, that obviously some people (hero members!) are fighting war against each other (I guess you know whom I talking about).
This is not free energy, it is the opposite -> LOST energy :'( From the technical discussions inbetween the "war in words" I assume that you are brilliant engineers/scientists. Why don't you put all "your energy" into the tremendously interesting topic of this thread? Stop fighting, and if not, exchange email adresses and do it there.
Peace (also to you) ;D
Kurt
This is based on Rose's last comments. It appears to be the same as your last one TK.
@.99: Thanks.
So... I simply pull Q1 out of its socket, I remove the horizontal wire at the very bottom of the original schematic, freeing the transistor end of the Rshunt, and I place a jumper between the FG RED and that free end of the shunt, and everything else stays hooked up as before.
Right?
@ Khaeus: did you understand that single sentence of mine describing the changes proposed for the test? Can you explain why it took all those words and all those posts on two different forums to get to this point? Do you really think that this is just a public flame war, and that the participants on the "two sides" are equals in any way? Have you actually read the thread? I wish you would, and get back to me on whether or not Ainslie has lied about anything, distorted or misrepresented anything anyone has said, or made any really really stupid comments like "PER NEVER MEANS DIVISION" or "ONE JOULE IS ONE WATT PER SECOND". And while you are at it, you should check out my video explanations of some of the other absurd claims and statements Ainslie has made, like the one that engendered this present FG argument.
Khaeus, I don't know you or what you know. Do you know anything about power and energy calculations? Here's an example of how Ainslie does it, and where the "tremendously interesting topic" of this thread came from:
QuoteNow. Conservatively speaking on the water to boil test - we're running that battery current at an outside maximum of 0.1 volts over 0.9 Ohms x 60 volts x 18% duty cycle which represents the ONLY measurable discharge from the battery - and that during the ON period of each switching cycle. That comes to a wattage discharged at 1.19 watts. The capacity of each of those batteries is let's say 10 amp hour MAX. Therefore each battery's maximum wattage potential is 120 watts - being 10 amps x 1 hour. We use 5 in series to get it to that 'water to boil' point. The batteries are in series. So. 1.19/6 = 0.199 watts per battery. Again. Each battery has a capacity of 10 amps x 1 hour = 120 watts. This means that each battery will last 120/0.19 = about 630 hours or so. Theoretically. 5 batteries will therefore last a mere 3150 hours or so. 3150 hours / 24 means the test should be proved after a test run of only 131 days. So now the three of us will be able to give you a conclusive result over a little under a 4 months. That's assuming that any energy at all is being discharged at the battery. Because we can't find that in the results.
Alternatively - let us assume that we're dissipating not less than 100 watts as measured in the heat discharged. That would be the amount of energy needed to get a little under 1 liter of water to boiling point. Now we get to the following sum. The battery's capacity is 120 watts. We've got 6 in series giving us a maximum capacity of 720 watts. We're dissipating 100 watts as evident in the temperature of the water. Therefore in a mere 7 hours and 12 minutes we would have ENTIRELY discharged all those batteries.
(sic)
See.... 10 amps x 1 hour = 120 Watts, the maximum wattage potential of the battery. I'll bet you didn't know that, for sure.
Ainslie's CLAIMS are based on "calculations" like that. Her own DATA refute her claims. The only things of tremendous interest remaining are the Ainslie pathologies, and those are playing out in these forums. There is no point whatsoever in sending emails.
Thanks for your interest though. I hope you are learning something about human behaviour, if not about electronics, here.
Just for fun... a 12 volt, 10 A-H battery contains how much energy? 12V x 10 A x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min == 432000 JOULES, or wattseconds.
What is the "maximum wattage potential" of such a battery? Well... how much current would flow if you just dropped a crowbar across the terminals? 100 A? More? DO THE MATH (tm Ainslie).
TK,
Please understand that I do not defend anybody's standpoint here. I am certainly not qualified enough to enter this technical discussion in this super-long thread. But I went through most of it and found it very interesting, but it's becoming quite tidious to sort out the highlights from the rest of your battle.
Again, for me it's not about he or she is ultimately right, it's about living in peace with Each other and make this world a better place. Free Energy is of great importance, but consciousness will be required as well to make the right use of it.
Peace,
Kurt
@KHaeus: I think I understand your viewpoint. Do you understand mine?
To the extent that anyone is suckered into believing her, they are wasting their time being hopeful because they are responding to _math errors_ that lead to _wrong conclusions_ based on a fixed idea that is held regardless of external evidence. This is much worse than simply tinkering along with one's pet project and theory... because no matter how whacky your theory might be, it is absolutely necessary that whatever _math_ you use MUST BE CORRECT, else you might as well be in a cartoon fairy tale.
Certainly the forum would be a quieter and gentler place if Ainslie and her ilk were allowed to make just any old claim at all without being challenged. Or if, having been challenged, she would consider the merits and correct her errors. But, as the monk asked... is that right?
I am strongly of the opinion that one should not make claims that one cannot support with evidence. Conclusions illogically based upon error-filled math done on badly collected data, performed with the expressed purpose of proving an agenda... is not right. Pretending to discuss a topic with experts, when one cannot even communicate in their common language or understand their concepts due to a lack of basic knowledge... is not right. Blatantly lying about her own work and the work of others, not giving credit where due, hiding information about historical events, refusal to provide original data for inspection.... is not right.
Ainslie presents all these behaviours and more to such an extent that I have (with some help) coined a new phrase to describe it:
It's pseudoscientific misconduct.
And allowing that to persist unchecked... that is just not right.
Cheers--- and thanks for watching, sorry about the light...
--TK
(Did you watch Her video of the demonstration from last March? There was one schematic shown in the video ( a single mosfet without specifying the FG black lead's connection point); another schematic verbally described ( "5 mosfets in parallel"); a third schematic posted on the internet (5 in parallel but with the FG black lead misplaced) and finally, .99's discovery and reveal, after almost a MONTH, of the ACTUAL schematic used in the video demo. So there were FOUR different schematics claimed, given, and finally discovered, before that demonstration could be understood. Over four hundred thread comments mistakenly discussing the "wrong" schematics happened, including .99's attempts at simulating the scopeshots and being puzzled why he couldn't quite get it... before the correct schematic was known... and then Ainslie claimed that she knew it all along and was just "testing" to see if .99 could figure it out. Think about that little escapade, and ask yourself... is that right?)
Guys - in the light of TK's previous comments - and MileHigh and picowatt's - for that matter - and since they are all MOST anxious to ignore this follow of post of mine - I've decided to transfer it here - directly. Just to serve the very real requirement of countering their endless spin.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosie on July 14, 2012, 01:45:02 AM
Guys, I think I need to elaborate here to prevent any further wild speculation that's going on elsewhere.
While that lab have indeed replicated our numbers they have NOT yet done comparative draw down tests. They most certainly have seen a depletion of battery voltage - but not tested against it's watt hour rating. The only comments on hand related to what was observed is that there's a negative voltage which is unarguable. And that they've measured the voltage directly across their batteries to find that the oscillation across there is - indeed - as robust as we've reported. You will recall the earlier concern that oscillation was not actually across those batteries.
They are well aware of the 'public' nature of our proposed tests and the fact that this is being 'open sourced'. They have suggested that we apply a resistor - not sure of it's details - that is heat sensitive. I think - the idea is that this gives an accurate measure of wattage. But I'm not sure if I've got this right. And I'm not sure if it measures output or input or what? They'll send me the required.
In the event that we show a marked improvement between the control and the experiment in those live screening tests - then they will be MOST interested in taking this technology further. But as required - they'll wait for our own test results on that. They'll monitor those tests - have requested us to apply some software to the filming - for their easy viewing - and will engage as and when they need any specific measurements made. And I say that it's 'required' for us to do those comparative draw down tests - is because it's the courtesy to our open source community. They are under no obligations to cater to this cause.
They asked for the equipment for another week. I was unable to oblige them. We compromised on a short 3 extra days. And there IS no report from them. I'm hoping to get some data on a floppy - but it's not entirely certain yet that I'll get this. They were under no obligations to supply anything at all. But they now know enough about the apparatus to build their own and any required variants.
It has been an ABSOLUTE pleasure dealing with them. Would that our forum trolls could learn from their professionalism. It would advance this and any such energy efficient technologies - exponentially. But we all know why they prefer NOT to advance this. Indeed. Our trolls' agenda is diametrically opposed to this. THEIR intention is to simply quash any possible evidence of any benefit at all.
Again,
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Rosemary:
You are still stuck in the paradox of claiming "COP infinity" which means that no power is being consumed by the batteries - in fact you claim power is being returned to the batteries - and then claiming that an increased rundown time has significance.
Your claim is that the batteries will never run down, not that they will run down more slowly.
Beyond that, the rate that you draw current from a battery, and in fact even the waveform of the current itself, will affect how long the batteries will last. With these complications, doing draw-down tests on a "level playing field" between the control and the test is very complicated.
And of course to go back to the original point, you have a paradox that means you shouldn't even be doing draw-down tests. If what you say is true, a small set of batteries should be able to drive your test setup for one full year non stop and the batteries should still be fully charged.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2012, 01:10:51 PM
Rosemary:
You are still stuck in the paradox of claiming "COP infinity" which means that no power is being consumed by the batteries - in fact you claim power is being returned to the batteries - and then claiming that an increased rundown time has significance.
Your claim is that the batteries will never run down, not that they will run down more slowly.
Beyond that, the rate that you draw current from a battery, and in fact even the waveform of the current itself, will affect how long the batteries will last. With these complications, doing draw-down tests on a "level playing field" between the control and the test is very complicated.
And of course to go back to the original point, you have a paradox that means you shouldn't even be doing draw-down tests. If what you say is true, a small set of batteries should be able to drive your test setup for one full year non stop and the batteries should still be fully charged.
MileHigh
MileHigh - while I've no objection to disclaiming whole chapters of pure calumny directly onto this forum - and that only occasionally - but I would rather NOT engage in a serious discussion here. I've posted my answer to this on our own forum.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2614.html#msg2614
Quote from: KHaeus on July 14, 2012, 06:56:19 AM
Hi there,
it is not my party, but since this is an official forum, I want to state my opinion.
As a newbie in this forum I am really surprised and a little bit shocked about the fact, that obviously some people (hero members!) are fighting war against each other (I guess you know whom I talking about).
This is not free energy, it is the opposite -> LOST energy :'( From the technical discussions inbetween the "war in words" I assume that you are brilliant engineers/scientists. Why don't you put all "your energy" into the tremendously interesting topic of this thread? Stop fighting, and if not, exchange email adresses and do it there.
Peace (also to you) ;D
Kurt
Dear Kurt,
I've answered you here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2615.html#msg2615
Quote from: KHaeus
Please understand that I do not defend anybody's standpoint here. I am certainly not qualified enough to enter this technical discussion in this super-long thread. But I went through most of it and found it very interesting, but it's becoming quite tidious to sort out the highlights from the rest of your battle.
Again, for me it's not about he or she is ultimately right, it's about living in peace with Each other and make this world a better place. Free Energy is of great importance, but consciousness will be required as well to make the right use of it.
Peace,
Kurt
Well said Kurt. Your heart is definitely in the right place.
Unfortunately (and sadly) those who are addicted to
mischief and the "high" it is able to generate will
find it very, very difficult to relinquish such behavior.
Or even to admit that there is any mischief going
on.
But then, (on the brighter side) not all is as it seems.
Often what appears to be mischief is simply crude
sounding hyperbole among friends.
Let us all be hopeful...
Think about it.
If Ainslie's device was made of some unusual parts or substance, or was put together in some not-well-understood manner or with uncommon tooling, or needed special environmental conditions to work.... that would be one thing.
A laboratory trying to understand such a device might NOT be able to "replicate" or reproduce it or its behaviour easily. They might try, get something that looks close.. but just isn't right somehow since it doesn't do what the claimant claims. So THEN there IS a reason for an interested lab to want to examine the ORIGINAL DEVICE, since there "must" be something special about IT in particular that is important for success.
However.... IN THIS CASE..... the device in question is made from thirty dollars worth of COMMONLY AVAILABLE well understood electronic components and an RV water heater element, and is assembled with all the skill and technique that an eight-year-old mind can muster. It can be built from OFF THE SHELF PARTS in an afternoon, and all the parts can be delivered to your location ANYWHERE IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE inside of three days from placing the order from DigiKey. And all the various schematics we are assured were used are available.
Yet this laboratory NEEDED TO SEE AINSLIE's ORIGINAL APPARATUS. Why? It can ONLY be because they tried to build their own-- costing less than the POSTAGE to send Ainslie's halfway around the world.... and IT DID NOT WORK as advertised. So they, in good faith, needed to see Ainslie's itself to see what the Special Sauce could have been. (I've told them it's the pegboard, but nobody listens to me).
And now that they have seen and "tested" it.... yep, they discover that identical apparatus tested the same way give the same results. Duh, let's apply for the Nobel Prize now.
So they tested, and confirmed BOTH Ainslie's numbers AND.... that the battery charge was depleting, NOT staying constant or recharging.
(In other words they DISCONFIRMED and FALSIFIED Ainslie's main claim, right there, and CONFIRMED what the rest of us have been saying all along: the NUMBERS can be easily obtained, and do NOT indicate what Ainslie claims, since THE BATTERIES DO DISCHARGE. The laboratory has ALREADY falsified Ainslie's claim... BECAUSE THE BATTERIES DO DISCHARGE.)
Under those conditions.... what possible reason would they have to send THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS to South Africa to be used BY AINSLIE... someone who cannot even draw a schematic diagram properly (documented), and who cannot even FIND THE KNOB to make her FG produce an offset sometimes (documented), and who blew up two batteries and a bunch of mosfets by SHORT CIRCUITING THROUGH AN INSTRUMENT GROUNDLOOP, requiring replacing the FG and sending the scope off for repair (all documented) ...... Yes, these scientists are sending their stuff half way around the world so it can be used by Ainslie in a demonstration... of what?
We already know that the numbers can be obtained, and how. We already KNOW that the batteries are discharging.
The only thing that remains to be demonstrated PUBLICLY is that the device does not work as she claims. And the only person who NEEDS that demonstration is Ainslie herself.
And now we are told.. AGAIN... that there won't be a report.
DO THE MATH...... one conclusion just sort of LEAPS out at one, doesn't it. And other conclusions are much much more far-fetched.
Sorry. I see I made a duplicate post.
R
My dear Little TK
WHY would I lie about this? I just DON'T GET IT? I'm not trying to con anyone out of their money. So WHY? And what about my colleagues - those collaborators - all us free energy nuts? IF I was lying then they'd know all about it. Surely? They visit me. They know the house. They know when the apparatus is here. And they CERTAINLY see when it's not? Do I HIDE IT? Somewhere? So that they just THINK that I've sent it. And then? What about the free circulation of our emails that I copy them? Even to members of this forum? I wouldn't know HOW to fabricate that. All those contactable numbers - those referenced names?
AGAIN. WHY WOULD I LIE? I am simply reporting on the good news that our apparatus is now getting the attention that it so richly deserves. It's good news for most of us. It's just you and your colleagues here who are rather distressed at these new developments. Quite honestly you attribute me with considerably more inventiveness than I'm capable of - I assure you.
Rosie Pose
And by the way - the reason they gave me for needing that equipment is that they need to evaluate a claim against a demonstration BEFORE they invest. They're in America. It's cheaper to get that demonstration to them than to get 3 scientists to Africa to a demonstration. Surely that's not difficult to wrap your mind around? To me it seems like a reasonable proposal and it certainly has financial merit.
R
And another little addendum. They're well aware of your thread. They think it's despicable. NOT ONLY THAT - but they could see that your arguments against this are SPURIOUS. You can't claim a measured COP infinity and then PRETEND THAT IT MEANS NOTHING. UNLESS OF COURSE YOU'RE A FOOL. OR. UNLESS YOU THINK THAT EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM IS A FOOL.
And here's a download of the apparatus just unpacked - that they sent me...
I KNOW you are a fool... and also a LIAR, AINSLIE.
QuoteWHY would I lie about this? I just DON'T GET IT? I'm not trying to con anyone out of their money.
Do you not recall why and how I got involved with you this time?
IT WAS BECAUSE YOU WERE CLAIMING THREE DIFFERENT MONETARY PRIZES, based on your INCORRECT CALCULATIONS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS.
Why would you lie and distort? Because you have a classic IDEE FIXE delusional system and are a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think that a lot of the time you don't even realize that you are lying. Just like NOW.
Your laboratory told you that the battery charge most certainly declined during their tests, didn't they. That means that they falsified your hypothesis and your main claim. You can try to spin that however you like, call me whatever names you like but the fact remains: they falsified your claim. As has everyone else.
And as to those "contactable" references you always ALLUDE TO but never give... I have them right here as you gave them out at one point several years ago. Phone numbers too.
Colin Bower
John Tarnowski (remember that name)
Eddie Petrie
Viv Crone (ha!)
J Wilson (John, I believe)
J Marriot, formerly of SASOL
Eddie Tarnow... . (tarnow, tarnowski...hmm, just a coincidence, surely.)
Dr Garrett, formerly of CSIR and now heading their lab in Australia
John Greene at BP
Would you like to know the results of inquiries to these "contacts" that you have given?
You must do your damnedest TK. God knows you have NO INTEGRITY. This is PRECISELY why I don't release the name of that laboratory. I trust our members see this for themselves. But we all KNOW WHY YOU WORK THIS HARD. And that's far more beneficial to the general cause than your disgusting efforts at destroying this our work.
And I saw in an earlier post that you ALSO HAVE PROOF OF SOME HOSPITALISATION related to WHAT? I require you to prove that claim TK. Show me that proof. Show me this documentation. I have NO OBJECTION to it being published in these forums because I KNOW that there's no such. Not ANYWHERE. I have never been hospitalised. And I am ENTIRELY sane. Which satisfies me that you're most certainly NOT the psychologist that you claim.
Rosemary
Guys,
My own reputation is not the issue. The worst that TK can do there is IRRELEVANT. I am old. And quite frankly - it is NOT likely to make a blind bit of difference in my life. What's important. What's really at issue is the importance of these numbers that we're getting. Please keep that in full focus. We have repeated and demonstrated proof of COP infinity. There is NO reasonable explanation for this in terms of standard physics. This fact is acknowledged by every self-respecting scientist in the world. Yet we have three or four dedicated contributors to this thread who repeatedly advise you that this is NOT IN FACT HAPPENING - or alternatively - IT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE.
THIS REACTION IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE. So. I beg you all. You may read TK's calumny and I'm sure there are many of you who are even amused by it. I don't know. I don't even care any more. But Please. On bended knees - just know this. He is also trying very hard to assure you that there's no significance in our work. And he does this at the cost of your own best interests and in the best interests of your children and grandchildren and your own futures. And he does this at the cost of the best interests of science itself. And what it particularly disgusting is that he PRETENDS that he is an authority on science.
It is ONLY IMPORTANT that the work survives - notwithstanding this unmerited and orchestrated and I believe well funded ATTACK. It is the thing that keeps me awake late into the night. I would be very sorry to find that these disinformation tactics ACTUALLY work. Not when I've gone to such extraordinary lengths to keep this information OPEN SOURCED. It means that Open Source is NOT the way to go. And that would be a tragedy of ENORMOUS proportion.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 05:07:52 PM
I KNOW you are a fool... and also a LIAR, AINSLIE.
Do you not recall why and how I got involved with you this time?
IT WAS BECAUSE YOU WERE CLAIMING THREE DIFFERENT MONETARY PRIZES, based on your INCORRECT CALCULATIONS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS.
And are you forgetting that we also stated that our claim was to force acknowledgement of over unity? And that any prize money would be donated to those members - chosen by our members - who would be able to advantage themselves from the purchase of much needed zut instrumentation. It's an unfortunate truth that these benefits require broad bandwidth oscilloscopes. And they cost. And the most of our members - yourself included - DO NOT OWN THIS. I do. And neither I nor my collaborators will EVER lay claim to any prize money for ourselves. It is intended for someone who REALLY needs to get equipment for furthering this and similar research into energy efficiencies.
Again
Rosie Pose
SO. Far from resisting this you should be doing your very best to ADVANCE IT. Your reasons for your multiple level attack on me and my good name - are UTTERLY SPURIOUS.
Rosemary:
You are not some kind of free energy Joan of Arc that stumbled across a circuit that you now have to give to mankind. You are just incompetent and obsessed.
You can try to shrug off making outrageous mistakes about your circuit when the material was taught to you in painstaking detail just two days before. You don't understand your circuit, you don't understand MOSFETs, and you are completely clueless when it comes to electronics. These are things that you demonstrate every single day, day in and day out. You can try to ignore these facts and show a brave face and push on, but these blatant facts register with the people reading this thread.
If we are "paid disinformation agents" then surely you are a paid agent whose job it is to discredit all free energy research with your technical buffoonery, belligerence, and outrageous stupidity, because the latter is a hell of a lot more likely than the former.
You can't be selective about what you want to see and put on blinders to all information that is contrary to your "cause."
There are important principles relating to the truth about your circuit and science and technology and the scientific method and the application of knowledge and reason and we simply can't allow ourselves to become mindless guppies led off to slaughter by a false prophet like you.
You have nothing and you talk like an electronics crazy person.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2012, 06:26:44 PM
Rosemary:
You are not some kind of free energy Joan of Arc that stumbled across a circuit that you now have to give to mankind. You are just incompetent and obsessed.
You can try to shrug off making outrageous mistakes about your circuit when the material was taught to you in painstaking detail just two days before. You don't understand your circuit, you don't understand MOSFETs, and you are completely clueless when it comes to electronics. These are things that you demonstrate every single day, day in and day out. You can try to ignore these facts and show a brave face and push on, but these blatant facts register with the people reading this thread.
If we are "paid disinformation agents" then surely you are a paid agent whose job it is to discredit all free energy research with your technical buffoonery, belligerence, and outrageous stupidity, because the latter is a hell of a lot more likely than the former.
You can't be selective about what you want to see and put on blinders to all information that is contrary to your "cause."
There are important principles relating to the truth about your circuit and science and technology and the scientific method and the application of knowledge and reason and we simply can't allow ourselves to become mindless guppies led of to slaughter by a false prophet like you.
You have nothing and you talk like an electronics crazy person.
MileHigh
Seconded.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 14, 2012, 06:26:44 PM
Rosemary:
You are not some kind of free energy Joan of Arc that stumbled across a circuit that you now have to give to mankind. You are just incompetent and obsessed.
You can try to shrug off making outrageous mistakes about your circuit when the material was taught to you in painstaking detail just two days before. You don't understand your circuit, you don't understand MOSFETs, and you are completely clueless when it comes to electronics. These are things that you demonstrate every single day, day in and day out. You can try to ignore these facts and show a brave face and push on, but these blatant facts register with the people reading this thread.
If we are "paid disinformation agents" then surely you are a paid agent whose job it is to discredit all free energy research with your technical buffoonery, belligerence, and outrageous stupidity, because the latter is a hell of a lot more likely than the former.
You can't be selective about what you want to see and put on blinders to all information that is contrary to your "cause."
There are important principles relating to the truth about your circuit and science and technology and the scientific method and the application of knowledge and reason and we simply can't allow ourselves to become mindless guppies led off to slaughter by a false prophet like you.
You have nothing and you talk like an electronics crazy person.
MileHigh
Third
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:35:55 AM
I have decided that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with Ainslie.
.99 was trying, and may still be trying, in spite of her constant garbling of his explanations and tests. More power to him. Everyone else that has tried to discuss things with her rationally comes up against the same insanity from her: she speaks her own language where words mean what she wants at the moment and might change in the very next sentence.
She has contradicted herself so many times and has misrepresented her work and the work of others so egregiously that one wonders how such a thinker could have survived at all in this modern world.
Well, I'm tired of it all.
I have posted the most significant and exciting thing that I personally have EVER SEEN on this forum: the portable wireless power transmitting system, which offers a lot of opportunity for education, fun, and yes... even understanding some of the principles that I see being fractured daily on various threads in this forum. More than any other device that I've seen proposed or shown here or in just about any other "free energy" site, the transmission of power through space using induction as in the Black Briefcase or by capacitance as in the SassyClassE sstc offers TRUE OPPORTUNITIES to link up with that Wheelwork of Nature that Nikola Tesla talked about.
That's enough for me. Good night.
@TK: That wireless system is about the coolest damn thing I have seen yet. Kudos to you for having the electronic knowhow to build (and explain!) what you're working on. Sharing knowledge is what OPEN SOURCE is all about. Bravo! I wanna build one, where do I get the parts list and schematic (or do I need to try and figure it out watching your vids?)? That thing is badass!!
Happy experimenting,
PC
P.S. It is definitely worthy of a thread of it's own (IMO) and RA seems to be 'stuck' here linking to her site at every opportunity... Just an idea. 8)
Quote from: PhiChaser on July 14, 2012, 07:33:02 PM
@TK: That wireless system is about the coolest damn thing I have seen yet. Kudos to you for having the electronic knowhow to build (and explain!) what you're working on. Sharing knowledge is what OPEN SOURCE is all about. Bravo! I wanna build one, where do I get the parts list and schematic (or do I need to try and figure it out watching your vids?)? That thing is badass!!
Happy experimenting,
PC
P.S. It is definitely worthy of a thread of it's own (IMO) and RA seems to be 'stuck' here linking to her site at every opportunity... Just an idea. 8)
I also enjoyed TK's wireless transmission technology progress, and for me it get's even better...
This:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=181024
Plus this:
http://www.overunity.com/10609/i0tomax/#.UAIGWPV8T2k
Can be integrated with TK's wireless transmission electricity technology, to form a hydroelectrolytic turbine with a sealed casing, via a magnetic coupler to provide drive and can act as a hydroelectrolytic pump, creating fluid pressure and phase change, controlled release of fluid via a flow control valve located at the traditional rotary exhaust outlet will control pressure in relation to turbine RPM.
Not had any time to develop the design yet, busy on something else, but “you guys†might wanna run with it...
Thanks, EA and PC. The link to Marko's schematic and the template for the PCB is given in the "description" part of the first of my Wireless Power Demo vids showing the device.
All the parts are easily available or improvised. The IRFZ44N mosfets can be had for as little as 2 dollars each if you are willing to order from Singapore. I paid 4 each for these, over the counter at my local component supplier, but I have another lot coming on that slow boat from Singapore. Use the highest quality poly caps you can find, and use good quality cores for the chokes. The value of the choke isn't critical but the pair should match. Mine are only 60 uH and the design calls for 100 uH... so there is a "bit" of leeway !
Cheers... and thanks for the support and good wishes. They seem to be few and far between these days.
--TK
TK:
It is becoming a bit lonely. I am sure that you can understand the fatigue factor about the whole damn thing.
So, how about a little musical interlude, a great classic tune? If you share my sense of humour you might find the geekish looks and dancing somewhat amusing. It's obvious that it hadn't yet "hit" when this clip was recorded.
Patty Dukes on the cusp of becoming hippie girls with flowers in their hair with tie-dye t-shirts and jeans.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toBl4rvTgs8
Forgot to mention, if you want to transmit power through a pressure wall you can also do it with this device using TK's wireless transmission technology:
http://www.seabirdadventure.com/tesla-turbine/superheated-electrolysis-and-adiabatic-compression
The difference is that in the SEC the pressure is static, whereas in the hydroelectrolytic turbine it is dynamic. Simplified construction due to no electrode gland with variable control over resonant frequency. AC or DC becomes a user defined variable, both having different properties, each being required in sequence, or not, for the desired effect(s).
Resonance of the internal tubular structure might also become interesting, to some.
Quite a few applications opening up for your new toy TK!
I always thought the ultimate irony would be a viable technology arising from the ashes of a perpetual pseudoscientific fraud.
Fatigue, yes.
Here's a new one I just built.
I am still waiting for that 'proof of hospitalisation'. You need to show this Little TK. Together with some reason that you allege is associated with my lack of sanity. And while you're at it - then send us some proof of your qualification as a psychologist.
And are you telling us that your new toy performs at over unity? Or that you're measuring COP infinity? Get explicit - on both allegations.
Rosie Posie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:08:47 AM
I am still waiting for that 'proof of hospitalisation'. You need to show this Little TK. Together with some reason that you allege is associated with my lack of sanity. And while you're at it - then send us some proof of your qualification as a psychologist.
And are you telling us that your new toy performs at over unity? Or that you're measuring COP infinity? Get explicit - on both allegations.
Rosie Posie
No. I need show you nothing at all except the contempt you so richly deserve and have earned, in spades.
You are somewhat behind.
FIRST, you must PUBLICLY start retracting some of the LIES that you have been telling about me.
Let's start with that continuing canard that I do not take inductive reactance into account in my calculations. My spreadsheet SHOWING MY WORK, including the correct calculation of the total impedance of my CVR, was posted on the day I did it, and several times since, and it has been PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FOR MONTHS.
Now, you will retract the lie that you have been spreading with a POLITE STATEMENT HERE AND ON YOUR FORUM that you have been WRONG about that particular point and that you apologise to me.
Once you've taken care of THAT LIE that you keep spreading, which by the way is ACTIONABLE... then we can discuss some of the OTHER LIES that you have been spreading about me.
I need show YOU nothing at all. You retract the lies that you have been telling.
You also need to do something about your "publication" on Rossi's JNP. It needs to be RETRACTED because it is FULL OF ERRORS AND LIES, and does not agree in many places with what you are NOW claiming.
YOUR LABORATORY IN THE USA FALSIFIED YOUR CLAIMS. They found that their batteries RAN DOWN USING YOUR OWN APPARATUS.
Anything other than a COMPLETE RETRACTION of your claims, from you, is a continuing lie.
PUBLISH THAT PROOF - OR KNOW THAT EVER SINGLE PERSON WHO READS HERE ALSO KNOWS THAT YOU'RE THAT LIAR.
AND THEN TELL US YOUR RESULTS ON YOUR NEW TOY. ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT IT PERFORMS AT COP INFINITY? OR ARE YOU TRYING TO DISTRACT EVERYONE BY PRETENDING THAT YOU'RE GETTING INFINITE COP ON YOUR NEW TOY?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:08:47 AM
I am still waiting for that 'proof of hospitalisation'. You need to show this Little TK. Together with some reason that you allege is associated with my lack of sanity. And while you're at it - then send us some proof of your qualification as a psychologist.
And are you telling us that your new toy performs at over unity? Or that you're measuring COP infinity? Get explicit - on both allegations.
Rosie Posie
R
Next, you will IMMEDIATELY do something about that 555 schematic in your Quantum magazine article. You will post a public statement that will GO ALONG WITH EVERY COPY OF THAT ARTICLE, telling people about that 555 circuit: that it is in "error", that it produces an INVERTED DUTY CYCLE from what you claim, and therefore it CANNOT BE USED. Or.... admit that YOU DID USE IT and you made the error about the duty cycle in your experiment report... in which case the entire paper needs to be retracted.
And further, you will issue a public apology to all those builders over the years who TOOK YOU AT YOUR WORD and built that timer circuit that appears under YOUR NAME in YOUR ONLY REAL PUBLICATION.
And while you are at it, you can tell everyone that I IDENTIFIED THIS PROBLEM in 2009.
NEXT, you will go back and CORRECT and EXPLAIN EVERY ONE OF YOUR BAD CALCULATIONS. You will READ the WIKI article on JOULES and WATTS and, finally, show that you understand the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM and can USE THEM PROPERLY IN CALCULATIONS.
Otherwise, AINSLIE, you continue to lie. EVERY bad calculation that is under your name must be corrected and identified as such.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:23:11 AM
PUBLISH THAT PROOF - OR KNOW THAT EVER SINGLE PERSON WHO READS HERE ALSO KNOWS THAT YOU'RE THAT LIAR.
AND THEN TELL US YOUR RESULTS ON YOUR NEW TOY. ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT IT PERFORMS AT COP INFINITY? OR ARE YOU TRYING TO DISTRACT EVERYONE BY PRETENDING THAT YOU'RE GETTING INFINITE COP ON YOUR NEW TOY?
R
You STATED PUBLICLY that you have PROOF THAT I WAS HOSPITALISED BECAUSE I WAS/AM INSANE. PUBLISH THAT REPORT. I REQUIRE IT. OR ADMIT THAT YOU LIED.
THEN. TELL US WHETHER YOUR NEW TOY SHOWS COP INFINITY. OR ADMIT THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO CREATE A DISTRACTION.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:23:11 AM
PUBLISH THAT PROOF - OR KNOW THAT EVER SINGLE PERSON WHO READS HERE ALSO KNOWS THAT YOU'RE THAT LIAR.
AND THEN TELL US YOUR RESULTS ON YOUR NEW TOY. ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT IT PERFORMS AT COP INFINITY? OR ARE YOU TRYING TO DISTRACT EVERYONE BY PRETENDING THAT YOU'RE GETTING INFINITE COP ON YOUR NEW TOY?
R
Shut up, you ignorant wench.
You are in no position at all to demand anything. YOU HAVE BEEN ULTIMATELY DISCREDITED by your USAan laboratory, as well as by me, and as well as by your OWN DATA, properly examined and interpreted.
You want something from me? THEN YOU FIRST HAVE TO RETRACT THE OBVIOUS LIES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING ABOUT ME, WITHOUT ANY PROOF, FOR
MONTHS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 01:28:07 AM
Shut up, you ignorant wench.
You are in no position at all to demand anything. YOU HAVE BEEN ULTIMATELY DISCREDITED by your USAan laboratory, as well as by me, and as well as by your OWN DATA, properly examined and interpreted.
You want something from me? THEN YOU FIRST HAVE TO RETRACT THE OBVIOUS LIES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING ABOUT ME, WITHOUT ANY PROOF, FOR MONTHS.
IF THE LABORATORY HAD DISCREDITED OUR CLAIM THEN THEY WOULD HAVE MADE IT PUBLIC. IT'S REQUIRED IN THE INTERESTS OF GOOD SCIENCE PRACTICE. THEY WILL NOT ALLOW THE CLAIMS IN A PAPER TO STAND IF THEY'RE PROVED TO BE INVALID.
NOW. WHERE IS THAT PROOF OF HOSPITALISATION REQUIRED BECAUSE I AM INSANE? AND DOES YOUR NEW TOY OPERATE AT COP INFINITY? OR EVEN COP >1?
R
Quoteall those contactable numbers, all those referenced names
All what contactable numbers, all what referenced names? As far as I am aware, you have NEVER, but the one single time, given any contactable numbers or referenced names. If you have, and I missed it, please post a link, because the people below... either apparently don't exist or claim never to have heard of you.
Colin Bower 919 856 2416
John Tarnowski (remember that name) 919 856 2467
Eddie Petrie 919 859 2434
Viv Crone (ha!) SPESCOM 011 266 1711, cell 083 625 3988
J Wilson (John, I believe) SPESCOM 083 652 0770
J Marriot, formerly of SASOL
Eddie Tarnow... . (tarnow, tarnowski...hmm, just a coincidence, surely.) 012 841 3138
Dr Garrett, formerly of CSIR and now heading their lab in Australia
John Greene at BP 021 408 2058
All of these names and numbers have been given out by Ainslie at one time or another, claiming that they can be contacted and that they will verify the claims of Ainslie re the testing they supposedly performed.
I think it is extremely interesting, Ainslie, that you claim a contact in North Carolina, named John Tarnowski... and another contact in South Africa at CSIR named Eddie Tarnow.
It's a small world.. but not that small.
Shall I post the results of my inquiries about you and your COP >17 circuit which you have claimed they all tested and VALIDATED?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:35:06 AM
IF THE LABORATORY HAD DISCREDITED OUR CLAIM THEN THEY WOULD HAVE MADE IT PUBLIC. IT'S REQUIRED IN THE INTERESTS OF GOOD SCIENCE PRACTICE. THEY WILL NOT ALLOW THE CLAIMS IN A PAPER TO STAND IF THEY'RE PROVED TO BE INVALID.
NOW. WHERE IS THAT PROOF OF HOSPITALISATION REQUIRED BECAUSE I AM INSANE? AND DOES YOUR NEW TOY OPERATE AT COP INFINITY? OR EVEN COP >1?
R
YOU said that they affirmed that the batteries did discharge. YOU said that. YOU.
YOU said that they found that the batteries DID discharge. YOU said that. YOU.
And you are continuing to prove that you are mentally ill right now.
I didn't say that you are insane, YOU CONTINUING LIAR.
That word is not a psychological term, but it has a precise legal definition. You might like to research the McNaghten rule.
What I said was that you are as
crazy as a bat in daytime. And I gave specifics: your pathological lying, your delusional idee fixe, your lack of reality checking, and your hallucinations, to which you continually respond, instead of to the reality.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 01:43:54 AM
All what contactable numbers, all what referenced names? As far as I am aware, you have NEVER, but the one single time, given any contactable numbers or referenced names. If you have, and I missed it, please post a link, because the people below... either apparently don't exist or claim never to have heard of you.
Colin Bower 919 856 2416
John Tarnowski (remember that name) 919 856 2467
Eddie Petrie 919 859 2434
Viv Crone (ha!) SPESCOM 011 266 1711, cell 083 625 3988
J Wilson (John, I believe) SPESCOM 083 652 0770
J Marriot, formerly of SASOL
Eddie Tarnow... . (tarnow, tarnowski...hmm, just a coincidence, surely.) 012 841 3138
Dr Garrett, formerly of CSIR and now heading their lab in Australia
John Greene at BP 021 408 2058
All of these names and numbers have been given out by Ainslie at one time or another, claiming that they can be contacted and that they will verify the claims of Ainslie re the testing they supposedly performed.
I think it is extremely interesting, Ainslie, that you claim a contact in North Carolina, named John Tarnowski... and another contact in South Africa at CSIR named Eddie Tarnow.
It's a small world.. but not that small.
Shall I post the results of my inquiries about you and your COP >17 circuit which you have claimed they all tested and VALIDATED?
DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE ENTIRELY BEREFT OF INTEGRITY. AND THAT LIST OF NAMES WERE GIVEN TO HARVEY GRAMM IN CONFIDENCE. YOU ARE BOTH UTTERLY DESPICABLE. AND THERE'S NOT A PERSON LISTED THERE WHO WOULD ASSOCIATE WITH THE LIKES OF YOU.
NOW. AGAIN. PUBLISH THAT REPORT THAT YOU ALLEGE PROVES MY INSANITY. AND THEN TELL US WHETHER YOUR NEW TOY EVEN MEASURES COP >1?
R
I didn't get it from Harvey, you blowhard.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 01:48:47 AM
YOU said that they affirmed that the batteries did discharge. YOU said that. YOU.
YOU said that they found that the batteries DID discharge. YOU said that. YOU.
And you are continuing to prove that you are mentally ill right now.
I didn't say that you are insane, YOU CONTINUING LIAR.
That word is not a psychological term, but it has a precise legal definition. You might like to research the McNaghten rule.
What I said was that you are as crazy as a bat in daytime. And I gave specifics: your pathological lying, your delusional idee fixe, your lack of reality checking, and your hallucinations, to which you continually respond, instead of to the reality.
YOU IMPLIED AND INFERRED THAT YOU HAVE A REPORT AT HAND THAT PROVES I WAS HOSPITALISED AS A RESULT OF MY INSANITY. NOW. PRODUCE THAT REPORT. OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU LIED.
And as to my "new toy"... I can light up a lightbulb with NO INPUT THAT YOU COULD MEASURE. NONE. WITHOUT ANY WIRES CONNECTING IT.
I can do the same with a MOTOR.
YOU cannot measure the input power, it is beyond your capability. SO... DO THE MATH. I am lighting up a lightbulb and running a motor WITH NO WIRES, and YOU could not measure the input power at all. IN FACT, since there are not even any INPUT WIRES.... well, DO THE MATH.
What then is the COP?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 01:51:05 AM
I didn't get it from Harvey, you blowhard.
HE IS THE ONLY PERSON TO WHOM I MADE A FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE HISTORY OF THIS.
AGAIN. WHERE IS THAT REPORT THAT ALLEGES THAT I WAS HOSPITALISED AS A RESULT OF MY ALLEGED INSANITY. AND KINDLY ADVISE ALL AND SUNDRY AS TO THE MEASURED EFFICIENCY OF YOUR NEW TOY.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:53:09 AM
YOU IMPLIED AND INFERRED THAT YOU HAVE A REPORT AT HAND THAT PROVES I WAS HOSPITALISED AS A RESULT OF MY INSANITY. NOW. PRODUCE THAT REPORT. OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU LIED.
When will you retract the lies that you have been telling about me? DO THAT FIRST, and then we'll talk about your little problem.
Maybe.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:55:18 AM
HE IS THE ONLY PERSON TO WHOM I MADE A FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE HISTORY OF THIS.
YOU LIE AGAIN, ha ha ha, because I have the documents right here that show that YOU DID INDEED disclose all that to some other people, PUBLICLY, and you gave your explicit permission to contact those people.... however difficult it might be.
Quote
AGAIN. WHERE IS THAT REPORT THAT ALLEGES THAT I WAS HOSPITALISED AS A RESULT OF MY ALLEGED INSANITY. AND KINDLY ADVISE ALL AND SUNDRY AS TO THE MEASURED EFFICIENCY OF YOUR NEW TOY.
R
Don't you mean your alleged SANITY ?
And I don't have to tell you or anyone else ANYTHING AT ALL about my "new toy" if I don't wish to.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 01:56:10 AM
When will you retract the lies that you have been telling about me? DO THAT FIRST, and then we'll talk about your little problem.
Maybe.
You have charged through multiple posts CLAIMING that I am MAD. You then CLAIMED THAT YOU'VE GOT PROOF OF MY HAVING BEEN HOSPITALISED. I REQUIRE THAT YOU PUBLISH THAT PROOF. ELSE WE ALL WILL KNOW YOU TO BE ON SOME KIND OF MISSION TO DISCREDIT ME AND OUR WORK - FOR REASONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTERESTS OF SCIENCE NOR THE INTEREST OF OUR MEMBERS.
THEN. You have attempted to create a new distraction related to the findings on your new toy. Is this showing measured COP INFINITY?
r
Of course I am on a mission to discredit you and your work. It SUCKS, that's why. Your "work" as you call it, gives this entire area of research a bad name. Anyone coming across it will likely think that all Free Energy researchers are as ignorant and arrogant and uneducated and mendacious as you are.
You MUST correct your errors, RETRACT AND APOLOGISE for the lies you have been telling about me, and ultimately... retract your silly mendacious daft manuscripts that are so riddled with errors that you change something in them weekly, to conform to your latest set of lies.
You really should look to your own household, Ainslie. Ask yourself... who is in a position to have and release the kind of information that you are seeking to keep hidden?
Somebody close to you is working against you, I am afraid. No.. wait... perhaps YOU should be afraid, if there is someone in your own household, or among your professional contacts, that has it in for you.
Look to your own house, Ainslie. People who live in glass houses, and all that.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 02:04:33 AM
Of course I am on a mission to discredit you and your work. It SUCKS, that's why. Your "work" as you call it, gives this entire area of research a bad name. Anyone coming across it will likely think that all Free Energy researchers are as ignorant and arrogant and uneducated and mendacious as you are.
You MUST correct your errors, RETRACT AND APOLOGISE for the lies you have been telling about me, and ultimately... retract your silly mendacious daft manuscripts that are so riddled with errors that you change something in them weekly, to conform to your latest set of lies.
OUR WORK HAS BEEN CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED AND ALL THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT NO COST WHATSOEVER AND IN THE INTERESTS OF SCIENCE
YOU HAVE ALLEGED THAT I AM MAD. YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU HAVE PROOF OF MY HOSPITALISATION. WHERE IS THAT PROOF.
YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU LIKE TESLA HAVE FOUND THE SOURCE OF INFINITE ENERGY. THAT YOUR BEST WORK IS IN THIS NEW TOY. I THINK YOU DESCRIBED YOUR WORK AS BEING BRILLIANT. OR YOU MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO YOUR VIDEOS. WE ALL NEED TO KNOW IF THAT WORK SHOWS MEASUREMENTS OF INFINITE COP OR EVEN COP>1
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 01:59:14 AM
(snip a bunch of desperate nonsense)
You have attempted to create a new distraction related to the findings on your new toy. Is this showing measured COP INFINITY?
r
Hey, AINSLIE...
DO THE MATH.No wires, therefore no measurable input, right? How can something that is NOT CONNECTED, like a mosfet gate and a mosfet source/drain, possibly pass power?
DO THE MATH, you ignoramus.
"YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU LIKE TESLA HAVE FOUND THE SOURCE OF INFINITE ENERGY."
Link please.
I really can't recall saying any such thing, AINSLIE. And...neither did TESLA, actually.
IN OTHER WORDS... you continue to lie and respond to your hallucinations instead of to reality.
Therefore...you are indeed crazy as a bat in daytime. Insane... no, you know the difference between right and wrong, and you are mentally sound enough to be culpable for your actions.
Good. Now we know that there's nothing of interest in your toy.
NOW. PRODUCE THAT REPORT THAT YOU THREATENED YOU WOULD. I REQUIRE IT. I WANT TO SEE FOR MYSELF EVIDENCE OF HOSPITALISATION THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. I WANT TO SEE ON WHAT EVIDENCE YOU BASE THOSE MULTIPLE CLAIMS ABOUT MY INSANITY. I REQUIRE IT - OR I REQUIRE A RETRACTION AGAINST YOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT I AM MAD
R
OUR WORK HAS BEEN CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED AND ALL THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT NO COST WHATSOEVER AND IN THE INTERESTS OF SCIENCE
HAH... you lie over and over. How much did it cost Glen, and Harvey? How much did it cost Ashtweth?
HOW MUCH HAS IT COST ME?
And... "science" isn't interested in you at all. Remember all those rejections of your daft manuscripts?
I am ONLY interested in seeing that report that you allege you have related to my insanity. SHOW IT.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:18:24 AM
Good. Now we know that there's nothing of interest in your toy.
NOW. PRODUCE THAT REPORT THAT YOU THREATENED YOU WOULD. I REQUIRE IT. I WANT TO SEE FOR MYSELF EVIDENCE OF HOSPITALISATION THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. I WANT TO SEE ON WHAT EVIDENCE YOU BASE THOSE MULTIPLE CLAIMS ABOUT MY INSANITY. I REQUIRE IT - OR I REQUIRE A RETRACTION AGAINST YOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT I AM MAD
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:18:24 AM
Good. Now we know that there's nothing of interest in your toy.
NOW. PRODUCE THAT REPORT THAT YOU THREATENED YOU WOULD. I REQUIRE IT. I WANT TO SEE FOR MYSELF EVIDENCE OF HOSPITALISATION THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. I WANT TO SEE ON WHAT EVIDENCE YOU BASE THOSE MULTIPLE CLAIMS ABOUT MY INSANITY. I REQUIRE IT - OR I REQUIRE A RETRACTION AGAINST YOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT I AM MAD
R
The lies that you have been spreading about me, on your forum where I cannot respond, have been going on since the first day you posted there. The lies that you have been spreading about me go back YEARS.
You start retracting some of those, and we shall see what we shall see about your little insignificant complaint....AFTER I SEE YOUR RETRACTION. Start with the inductive reactance calculation lies that you tell about me. RIGHT NOW, AINSLIE.
KINDLY SHOW THAT REPORT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NONE.
R
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
The lies that you have been spreading about me, on your forum where I cannot respond, have been going on since the first day you posted there. The lies that you have been spreading about me go back YEARS.
You start retracting some of those, and we shall see what we shall see about your little insignificant complaint....AFTER I SEE YOUR RETRACTION. Start with the inductive reactance calculation lies that you tell about me. RIGHT NOW, AINSLIE.
YOU MOST CERTAINLY DID DO YOUR CALCULATIONS WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO IMPEDANCE. I HAD TO ALERT YOU TO THE REQUIREMENT. YOU HAD NO CLUE. NOR DID PICOWATT.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
I am ONLY interested in seeing that report that you allege you have related to my insanity. SHOW IT.
R
WHO CARES what you are interested in. Certainly not I.
I care about the continuing LIES that you spread about me and about things like YOUR QUANTUM MAGAZINE ARTICLE which includes many lies, the LEAST of which is the 555 timer circuit.
Start with a public retraction of the Quantum article, with a full explanation of the 555 timer situation. Then... we'll consider the documents I have.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:23:04 AM
KINDLY SHOW THAT REPORT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NONE.
R
No.
I don't feel particularly "kindly" toward LIARS who insult and LIE IN PUBLIC about me and my work.
"YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU LIKE TESLA HAVE FOUND THE SOURCE OF INFINITE ENERGY."
That is a lie, AINSLIE, you know it is a lie (therefore you are CULPABLE since you claim not to be insane) and I want your apology RIGHT NOW along with a retraction of the statement here and on your forum. A POLITE retraction and a SINCERE apology.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:23:04 AM
KINDLY SHOW THAT REPORT OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NONE.
R
YOU MOST CERTAINLY DID DO YOUR CALCULATIONS WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO IMPEDANCE. I HAD TO ALERT YOU TO THE REQUIREMENT. YOU HAD NO CLUE. NOR DID PICOWATT.
R
YOU ARE A BALDFACED LIAR AND THE PUBLIC RECORD PROVES IT. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE EVEN WHEN PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE LYING. This means that you are a pathological liar.... therefore you have a mental illness, right out in front of God and everybody.
WHERE is your spreadsheet showing YOUR calculations? Or rather those of the person who DID YOUR WORK FOR YOU.
HERE'S YOUR CLAIM...
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2012, 04:35:55 AM
I have posted the most significant and exciting thing that I personally have EVER SEEN on this forum: the portable wireless power transmitting system, which offers a lot of opportunity for education, fun, and yes... even understanding some of the principles that I see being fractured daily on various threads in this forum. More than any other device that I've seen proposed or shown here or in just about any other "free energy" site, the transmission of power through space using induction as in the Black Briefcase or by capacitance as in the SassyClassE sstc offers TRUE OPPORTUNITIES to link up with that Wheelwork of Nature that Nikola Tesla talked about.
QuoteGood. Now we know that there's nothing of interest in your toy.
That's right. That must be why I am deluged with PMs and YT comments from people trying to buy it from me. In fact, the unit I showed in the last set of pictures is being sent out to its new owner... PROUD owner... on Monday.
Nothing of interest here, just move along, keep moving, don't notice what's happening, don't notice that AINSLIE HAS HER APPARATUS BACK but STILL ISN'T DOING ANYTHING WITH IT, don't notice that successful measurable useful POWER is being extracted FROM THE THIN AIR right before your eyes by the receiver section, to turn a MOTOR or light up a brilliant light, or both ....
NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE IT IN YOUR CALCULATIONS - YOU ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THE OMISSION.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 02:30:49 AM
YOU ARE A BALDFACED LIAR AND THE PUBLIC RECORD PROVES IT. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE EVEN WHEN PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE LYING. This means that you are a pathological liar.... therefore you have a mental illness, right out in front of God and everybody.
WHERE is your spreadsheet showing YOUR calculations? Or rather those of the person who DID YOUR WORK FOR YOU.
NOW. You hide behind an internet identity. You trash my name which is NOT HIDDEN. I have CAUSE to defend my good name. You have advised everyone that I am MAD. SHOW THAT PROOF.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:32:50 AM
HERE'S YOUR CLAIM...
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO COMPARE CLAIMS?
OK, HERE IS YOUR CLAIM:
QuoteNOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:37:48 AM
NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE IT IN YOUR CALCULATIONS - YOU ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THE OMISSION.
NOW. You hide behind an internet identity. You trash my name which is NOT HIDDEN. I have CAUSE to defend my good name. You have advised everyone that I am MAD. SHOW THAT PROOF.
R
You are doing a fine job of showing the proof right now yourself, Ainslie. Since when did you need MY help for anything?
Look at the date of my spreadsheet. Look at the calculations therein.
WHERE IS YOUR SPREADSHEET, that you promised to release MANY TIMES?
Your repeated reference to an acknowledged error is TIRED.
You claimed that you have documented evidence related to my lunacy. Produce that evidence or we will all KNOW that it is not me who lies - BUT YOU.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:32:50 AM
HERE'S YOUR CLAIM...
QuoteI have posted the most significant and exciting thing that I personally have EVER SEEN on this forum: the portable wireless power transmitting system, which offers a lot of opportunity for education, fun, and yes... even understanding some of the principles that I see being fractured daily on various threads in this forum. More than any other device that I've seen proposed or shown here or in just about any other "free energy" site, the transmission of power through space using induction as in the Black Briefcase or by capacitance as in the SassyClassE sstc offers TRUE OPPORTUNITIES to link up with that Wheelwork of Nature that Nikola Tesla talked about.
Yes, AINSLIE, that is a quote from me. Would you like to dispute any of it?Is it NOT the most significant and exciting thing that I personally have ever seen on this forum?
Is it NOT a wireless power transmitting system? Does it NOT offer opportunties for education, fun and understanding? Is there another system than wireless power transmission through space that DOES offer true opportunities to link up with Tesla's Wheelwork of Nature? Did Nikola Tesla NOT talk about that?
Just what part of this "CLAIM" is a claim, and what part do you object to, you hallucinating crazy fool?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 15, 2012, 02:42:00 AM
Your repeated reference to an acknowledged error is TIRED.
You claimed that you have documented evidence related to my lunacy. Produce that evidence or we will all KNOW that it is not me who lies - BUT YOU.
R
BUT YOU DO lie, Ainslie, over and over again. LIES DON'T GET TIRED, they must be RETRACTED AND CORRECTED. YOUR ONLY "acknowledgement" of error related to that calculation was that it was a "tad" out. But it's a bit more than a TAD out... repeat the calculation PROPERLY, and see what becomes of the CONCLUSION.. which you have NEVER RETRACTED OR CORRECTED.
In other words, YOU LIE AGAIN, with every single post you make.
What's the matter, getting tired? I am just getting warmed up.
Remember the MONTH between March 22 and April 19, 2011? A lot of people DO remember that MONTH, during which over 400 posts were made in discussion with YOU, AINSLIE.... about a schematic diagram that was NOT THE ONE USED in the demo video.. .the video you claimed NOT to have posted but which you clearly DID post......
YOU DELIBERATELY LIED AND MISLED DOZENS, PERHAPS HUNDREDS of people for a solid MONTH, carrying on useless discussion about a non-existent circuit.
OR... you actually had NO CLUE AT ALL until .99 elucidated the issue and you LIED about it when he did, in an absurd attempt to save face.
A Tired Old Lie... but one that still festers in your soul like a rotten tomato, Ainslie.
Was it the gardener? The maid, perhaps?
Was it the receptionist at the outpatient clinic? The pharmacist? Your best friend? Donny?
I really don't know, myself, so I can't help you there.
But if I were you, I'd be asking the people around me some harsh questions.
"YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU LIKE TESLA HAVE FOUND THE SOURCE OF INFINITE ENERGY."
That is a lie, AINSLIE, you know it is a lie (therefore you are CULPABLE since you claim not to be insane) and I want your apology RIGHT NOW along with a retraction of the statement here and on your forum. A POLITE retraction and a SINCERE apology.
Well, so what's become of the Ainslie claims?
She claimed in the Quantum paper to have used the 555 timer circuit to make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle to do the experiment. That is MANIFESTLY not true, as has been shown several times by both her detractors AND her supporters. Perhaps some other system or circuit was used instead. Whatever... Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME, and the Quantum article is FALSE.
She claimed lots of things in the present case.
She claimed to "bring water to boil". But by her own admission she did no such thing. The water wasn't boiling, and in spite of WHAT IT SAYS IN THE PAPERS, the water temperature was never even measured, by her own admission.
Yet... Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME, and the paper's claims are FALSE.
She claimed to have measured COP>infinity. This is also MANIFESTLY UNTRUE. The NERDS, whoever they are, CALCULATED their COP>Infinity result, from measurements of VOLTAGE and VOLTAGE ONLY. All else is INFERRED and CONCLUDED from the results of calculations performed on VOLTAGE and TIME readings ONLY. (Oscilloscopes ONLY measure voltage and time, that is all. All else: frequency, current, phase, all the rest is CALCULATED from measurements of Voltage and Time only.)
And the CALCULATION of a COP> or = infinity was performed incorrectly on improperly gathered data. Thus, the CALCULATION of COP is bogus, wrong, and irrelevant, since ANYONE, making measurements with the same innocence of training, reason and education as Ainslie, will obtain the same values on systems that are manifestly UNDER unity in performance. Thus, these claims too are bogus and refuted. Yet...Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME.
She claimed that her batteries do not discharge. Well... they do. Her laboratory in the USA reported that their batteries DID discharge using AINSLIE's OWN APPARATUS. Thus, her main claim and all her hypotheses based on it are soundly REFUTED AND FALSIFIED. And of course... Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME.
Certainly... there are no Ainslie claims left that are of importance here. She's been soundly put away, on the shelf with the other pickled oddities and freaks of nature.
"I, Rosemary Ainslie, did state and assert the following, addressed to TinselKoala:
"YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU LIKE TESLA HAVE FOUND THE SOURCE OF INFINITE ENERGY."
This is an untrue assertion on my part; I did not read carefully what TK actually said, and I now acknowledge that he neither said that thing, nor implied or suggested it. I therefore RETRACT the statement made in error, and herewith extend my sincerest and heartfelt apologies to TK for distorting and misinterpreting his words. I know that TK would never make such a claim casually and without the strongest of proofs, unlike some others I could mention but won't. TinselKoala, please accept my apology, and I promise to strive to read carefully and accurately from now on, because I recognize that this has been a continuing problem with me, and not just with your posts, TK, but with everyone's."
SIGNED...................................................................... "
Well, Ainslie... I've done your homework for you AGAIN. All we need now is your signature.
Or perhaps you cannot tell that it is WRONG to make assertions like that, putting words into people's mouths that they did not say, and then arguing with them about it. If you cannot tell RIGHT from WRONG, and expect to NOT be held responsible for your actions... well, like I said before, look up the McNaghten rule.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 14, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Guys,
My own reputation is not the issue. The worst that TK can do there is IRRELEVANT. I am old. And quite frankly - it is NOT likely to make a blind bit of difference in my life. What's important. What's really at issue is the importance of these numbers that we're getting. Please keep that in full focus. We have repeated and demonstrated proof of COP infinity. There is NO reasonable explanation for this in terms of standard physics. This fact is acknowledged by every self-respecting scientist in the world. Yet we have three or four dedicated contributors to this thread who repeatedly advise you that this is NOT IN FACT HAPPENING - or alternatively - IT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE.
THIS REACTION IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE. So. I beg you all. You may read TK's calumny and I'm sure there are many of you who are even amused by it. I don't know. I don't even care any more. But Please. On bended knees - just know this. He is also trying very hard to assure you that there's no significance in our work. And he does this at the cost of your own best interests and in the best interests of your children and grandchildren and your own futures. And he does this at the cost of the best interests of science itself. And what it particularly disgusting is that he PRETENDS that he is an authority on science.
It is ONLY IMPORTANT that the work survives - notwithstanding this unmerited and orchestrated and I believe well funded ATTACK. It is the thing that keeps me awake late into the night. I would be very sorry to find that these disinformation tactics ACTUALLY work. Not when I've gone to such extraordinary lengths to keep this information OPEN SOURCED. It means that Open Source is NOT the way to go. And that would be a tragedy of ENORMOUS proportion.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added
Well, then. You will
OF COURSE provide a statement or two from some of these
self-respecting scientists who acknowledge that there is no explanation for your results in terms of standard physics.And, since your project is
OPEN SOURCE... you will
OF COURSE immediately provide the spreadsheets where your calculations are performed and your raw data is preserved.
Won't you.
Of course, you won't.
Guys, TK has published the names and telephone numbers of a list of players associated with our early COP>17 accreditation and even on our earlier circuit before we built the COP>17 apparatus. Here's the the thing. There are at least 3 and possibly 4 of those players still in the active business - one of them being the technical director of a public company. I am entirely satisfied that I have NEVER made their names public. Nor will I. I must, however and sadly, report to them that TK - a member of this forum - has not only put their names on public view but that he as also included their telephone numbers.
He could ONLY have got this information from Harvey Gramm or from rifling my computer - if not directly - then indirectly. His culpability is in making that list public. I am now obliged to report this to them which I will do on Monday. Meanwhile, for the record - I am entirely satisfied that they will NOT tolerate having their names bandied around on a thread - and in public - and CERTAINLY not on a thread of this disgusting standard. It not only has rather unfortunate racist implications - but the standard of posting is considerably less than legally or morally acceptable. I disclaim ANY RESPONSIBILITY in making their identities public and INDEED have resisted any mention of them.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rosemary:
QuoteGuys, TK has published the names and telephone numbers of a list of players associated with our early COP>17 accreditation and even on our earlier circuit before we built the COP>17 apparatus. Here's the the thing. There are at least 3 and possibly 4 of those players still in the active business - one of them being the technical director of a public company. I am entirely satisfied that I have NEVER made their names public. Nor will I. I must, however and sadly, report to them that TK - a member of this forum - has not only put their names on public view but that he as also included their telephone numbers.
He could ONLY have got this information from Harvey Gramm or from rifling my computer - if not directly - then indirectly. His culpability is in making that list public. I am now obliged to report this to them which I will do on Monday. Meanwhile, for the record - I am entirely satisfied that they will NOT tolerate having their names bandied around on a thread - and in public - and CERTAINLY not on a thread of this disgusting standard. It not only has rather unfortunate racist implications - but the standard of posting is considerably less than legally or morally acceptable. I disclaim ANY RESPONSIBILITY in making their identities public and INDEED have resisted any mention of them.
Regards,
Rosemary
Well, that makes you a hypocrite then because you have threatened to reveal TK and PW's identity several times and I think you may have made the same threat towards me. Also, just recently you have been dropping hints on your new blog that you might reveal TK's identity.
I don't condone any revealing of identities and there is at least one individual on this forum that I would speculate is borderline unstable. That's in reference to my earlier remarks about this issue.
MileHigh
TK,
Posting names and phone numbers as you did crossed a line and should not be condoned by anyone.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 15, 2012, 11:09:06 AM
TK,
Posting names and phone numbers as you did crossed a line and should not be condoned by anyone.
PW
I am only repeating information that AINSLIE HERSELF RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Remember how she always says that there are these CONTACTABLE persons and organizations that have vetted her claims? But somehow she always...lately... forgets to give the CONTACT INFORMATION.
These names and phone numbers have been available to ANYONE WHO LOOKS FOR THEM, they were posted by AINSLIE HERSELF in 2007. She refers to them all the time, as you can see from reading her posts.
Most of them were made up by her anyway, or the numbers are bad.
SHE HERSELF GAVE OUT THESE NAMES AND NUMBERS WITH THE EXPRESS PERMISSION AND EVEN DIRECTION TO HAVE THEM CONTACTED. SHE IS LYING AGAIN when she says that ONLY Harvey had them. Just like the scopeshots that I have collected, each and every one of those names and phone numbers has been put into the public domain in the specific context of discussing AINSLIE's COP>17 claim.
EVERY ONE OF THEM has been made public before, BY AINSLIE HERSELF, with the URGING that they be contacted, and when the lawyers come calling, I WILL PROVE IT TO THEM, because I have the documentation right here in front of me.
And MH is right.... Ainslie has been trying to discover MY personal information for quite some time now, and has threatened me several times. In fact, since her pet troll Wilby has some information, I am surprised that she has revealed so LITTLE of what she (thinks) she knows.
Sorry to shout... but after all, PW, you did come in rather late to this affair. I have a two page document from Ainslie citing these names and numbers and giving express permission to contact them, and she REPEATEDLY, even so late as YESTERDAY, said that these people are CONTACTABLE -- but of course she omitted the contact information, as she always has SINCE 2007.
So... if you think that reposting information that AINSLIE herself has posted, is somehow unconscionable... well, sorry, I disagree.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 14, 2012, 04:35:03 PM
My dear Little TK
WHY would I lie about this? I just DON'T GET IT? I'm not trying to con anyone out of their money. So WHY? And what about my colleagues - those collaborators - all us free energy nuts? IF I was lying then they'd know all about it. Surely? They visit me. They know the house. They know when the apparatus is here. And they CERTAINLY see when it's not? Do I HIDE IT? Somewhere? So that they just THINK that I've sent it. And then? What about the free circulation of our emails that I copy them? Even to members of this forum? I wouldn't know HOW to fabricate that. All those contactable numbers - those referenced names?
AGAIN. WHY WOULD I LIE? I am simply reporting on the good news that our apparatus is now getting the attention that it so richly deserves. It's good news for most of us. It's just you and your colleagues here who are rather distressed at these new developments. Quite honestly you attribute me with considerably more inventiveness than I'm capable of - I assure you.
Rosie Pose
And by the way - the reason they gave me for needing that equipment is that they need to evaluate a claim against a demonstration BEFORE they invest. They're in America. It's cheaper to get that demonstration to them than to get 3 scientists to Africa to a demonstration. Surely that's not difficult to wrap your mind around? To me it seems like a reasonable proposal and it certainly has financial merit.
R
And another little addendum. They're well aware of your thread. They think it's despicable. NOT ONLY THAT - but they could see that your arguments against this are SPURIOUS. You can't claim a measured COP infinity and then PRETEND THAT IT MEANS NOTHING. UNLESS OF COURSE YOU'RE A FOOL. OR. UNLESS YOU THINK THAT EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM IS A FOOL.
And here's a download of the apparatus just unpacked - that they sent me...
All those contactable numbers - those referenced names? I have listed what Ainslie has been omitting lately: the contactable numbers and referenced names that she so frequently alludes to but never actually lists.... but she did list them several years ago and I have the list, with the express permission stated in the list that these people ARE CONTACTABLE about her story.
If that's wrong... well, you've got some very selective blinders, that's all I can say.
Why, after saying YESTERDAY that "all those contactable numbers and all those referenced names" are there... does she NOW resist any suggestion that they actually be contacted?
Well for one reason, many of them do not appear to exist.
A "Tarnow" in North Carolina. A "Tarnowski" in South Africa. Yeah, right.
Quote from: picowatt on July 15, 2012, 11:09:06 AM
TK,
Posting names and phone numbers as you did crossed a line and should not be condoned by anyone.
PW
She lies when she says that she herself did not make them public. I am only reposting information that she herself posted ON THE INTERNET. The link to the original post has been EDITED AWAY by her, as she so often has done in the past. Nevertheless, I have the original documents and references.
If she is constantly going to REFER to these contacts, and even say that they are CONTACTABLE... well, then shouldn't the contact info be public? Well, it is, and SHE HERSELF made it so. Perhaps now... she has thought better of HER DECISION TO RELEASE THOSE NAMES AND NUMBERS.
Well, sorry, the internet never forgets.
Do you all really think that I have some secret source of information about AINSLIE? Do you really share her paranoid fantasies?
Come on, get real. SHE POSTED THAT STUFF HERSELF, all of it, with the urging to have people looking into her claims CONTACT THEM and ask about her. I think AINSLIE believed that nobody would actually do it, so some of the names, like Tarnow-Tarnowski, are probably just made up, or garbled by her as she often does. Ditto the phone numbers, which I have reproduced just as she posted them (but I included some blanks to make them easier to read).
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2012, 11:21:19 AM
I am only repeating information that AINSLIE HERSELF RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Remember how she always says that there are these CONTACTABLE persons and organizations that have vetted her claims? But somehow she always...lately... forgets to give the CONTACT INFORMATION.
These names and phone numbers have been available to ANYONE WHO LOOKS FOR THEM, they were posted by AINSLIE HERSELF in 2007. She refers to them all the time, as you can see from reading her posts.
Most of them were made up by her anyway, or the numbers are bad.
SHE HERSELF GAVE OUT THESE NAMES AND NUMBERS WITH THE EXPRESS PERMISSION AND EVEN DIRECTION TO HAVE THEM CONTACTED.
Sorry to shout... but after all, PW, you did come in rather late to this affair. I have a two page document from Ainslie citing these names and numbers and giving express permission to contact them, and she REPEATEDLY, even so late as YESTERDAY, said that these people are CONTACTABLE -- but of course she omitted the contact information, as she always has SINCE 2007.
So... if you think that posting information that AINSLIE herself has posted, is somehow unconscionable... well, sorry, I disagree.
TK,
Providing only links to information made public is much more appropriate, and even then not always so.
If identities are exposed by others without expressed permission, the use of those identities by others is also not appropriate. If she has made these names public, then you should have only provided links to her statements or documents wherein these names were made public.
Just as she has recently threatened to expose identities without permission, one cannot know if any identities revealed in the past by her, or anyone else, were done so with permission.
Posting the names and phone numbers of individuals without the expressed consent of those individuals cannot be condoned. Someone else posting an individual's identity online is not permission from that individual for others to do so.
This is not a legal opinion, but one based only on ethics and morals. The Golden Rule, so to speak...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 15, 2012, 11:50:09 AM
TK,
Providing only links to information made public is much more appropriate, and even then not always so.
If identities are exposed by others without expressed permission, the use of those identities by others is also not appropriate. If she has made these names public, then you should have only provided links to her statements or documents wherein these names were made public.
Just as she has recently threatened to expose identities without permission, one cannot know if any identities revealed in the past by her, or anyone else, were done so with permission.
Posting the names and phone numbers of individuals without the expressed consent of those individuals cannot be condoned. Someone else posting an individual's identity online is not permission from that individual for others to do so.
This is not a legal opinion, but one based only on ethics and morals. The Golden Rule, so to speak...
PW
Here is just one link to a post where AINSLIE recently cited some of the names and their corporate affiliations.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/555/ (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/555/)
I guess you can see where she says that she herself urged all and sundry to contact someone.. someone who I forgot to list, thanks for reminding me.
Other links that she has posted have been edited or removed by her. This, as anyone will tell you, is a continuing tactic of hers. She will go back YEARS if possible to edit and change the meanings of posts that she made in the distant past. This is why I've banned her from commenting on my YT video channel... years ago when I caught her trying to remove comments or change forum posts that she made to alter their meanings. You can see her doing the same thing today with her "edits" of the daft manuscripts.
Do you think it is conscionable for her to threaten me... and you... with the revealing of OUR personal identities, when neither of US has posted that info before? To run a forum site with the expressed intent of harvesting and running down IP addresses?
I'm just curious as to how many people you can tar with the same brush at the same time.
All this has happened before, you know. This is an interesting series of posts, starting here:
http://www.overunity.com/9442/rosemary-ainslie-cop17-circuit-a-first-application-on-a-hot-water-cylinder/255/ (http://www.overunity.com/9442/rosemary-ainslie-cop17-circuit-a-first-application-on-a-hot-water-cylinder/255/)
Executive summary: Omnibus asked Ainslie to name some of the experts who she constantly alludes to. She did.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:42:37 PM (http://www.overunity.com/9442/rosemary-ainslie-cop17-circuit-a-first-application-on-a-hot-water-cylinder/msg252201/#msg252201)
QuoteRosemary,
I'd like to talk to these experts in the art. Name some.
Ainslie replied,
Quote
Professor Gaunt and Professor Tapsen (UCT) - start with them. I have a whole lot more.
I'd like to talk to these experts, sez he.
START WITH THEM, sez she.
So.. .he does. He looks up the publicly available email for Gaunt and announces his intention to send off an email inquiry.
What follows is extremely interesting. It appears that she encourages checking with these people.... UNTIL SOMEBODY ACTUALLY TRIES TO DO IT.
Then...as now... she freaks out. Read it... it's a hoot, especially considering that it's a threeway between Ainslie, Omnibus, and Wilby.
PW, you don't know Omnibus... but the rest of us do......... it's definitely a HOOT to read this exchange.
Hi TK,
I've had some computer issues and haven't been able to post in a while, but I've been wondering how well your wireless units could light up other types of bulbs (CFL's, those fancy LED ones, regular household bulbs, etc.) and whether the supernova mode can be achieved with any of them (or be enough to light up higher wattage bulbs more than expected). And I agree, this subject has indeed been one of the most interesting I've seen here. It is certainly applicable in many areas and there are a lot of things about it that merit a whole lot of research. Very fun stuff to see.
Cheers, I hope you're planning more vids!
polln8r.
Burning in the new unit.
Howdy everyone,
The divulging, disclosing or doing so called "name dropping" by Rosemary goes clear back to the beginning of the "Quantum" October 2002 COP>17 magazine article that was written (self or own correspondent) by her and as the "Pretoria News" paper article dated Thursday November 14, 2002 which has many collaborators names attached to it.
As everyone has seen posted in forums and Rosemary's blogsites that "NO" collaborators or experimentalist listed and referred to by her have ever came forward backing and agreeing with her claims of device operation on any creation she is or has been involved with. The access to any of the testing and evaluation documentation to support the device claims by Rosemary has always been withheld, never totally given to the open source or scientific community with and including all or enough excepted scientific testing and evaluation documentation that a device could be reproduced by anyone with a electronics background and prove said claim(s). ::)
"Quantum" October 2002 COP>17 magazine article [attached - quantum_october_2002.pdf]
"Pretoria News" paper article dated Thursday November 14, 2002 [attached - 28663707-Rosemary-Ainslie-Pretoria-News-2002.pdf]
FTC
???
Beautiful work, mr. TK.
8)
Quote from: polln8r on July 15, 2012, 07:54:56 PM
Hi TK,
I've had some computer issues and haven't been able to post in a while, but I've been wondering how well your wireless units could light up other types of bulbs (CFL's, those fancy LED ones, regular household bulbs, etc.) and whether the supernova mode can be achieved with any of them (or be enough to light up higher wattage bulbs more than expected). And I agree, this subject has indeed been one of the most interesting I've seen here. It is certainly applicable in many areas and there are a lot of things about it that merit a whole lot of research. Very fun stuff to see.
Cheers, I hope you're planning more vids!
polln8r.
This is a low voltage, inductively coupled high current AC system, and in the near field, line-cast (no dispersion or falloff with distance). As the motor demo shows, if necessary this can be rectified at the receiver and any load that meets those requirements can be driven wirelessly.
For fluorescents, that is high voltage and capacitative coupling, and broadcast. The Sassy ClassE sstc handles those.
The "supernova" mode is a matter of getting mutual exact resonance coupling between the tx and rx. Ideally, the system would be in this mode all the time, with the rx and tx precisely tuned to each other.
Of course there will be more vids !! Thank you for your interest... and check out the schematic.... properly switched mosfets are capable of a lot of things. Unfortunately.... they only use ELECTRONS to do the work in this mode.
8)
Quote from: polln8r on July 15, 2012, 09:17:21 PM
Beautiful work, mr. TK.
Thank you!
I even color coded some of the wires.
Got a couple IRF1010e today from an old UPS board. They look like they will work as good as the IRFZ44.
In the original guys vid, his Tx loop looked like maybe some 3/4 in. pipe. lol. Seems like he is getting some good distance also.
Nice job of circuit redraw. ;]
Thanks T
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 15, 2012, 10:40:25 PM
Got a couple IRF1010e today from an old UPS board. They look like they will work as good as the IRFZ44.
In the original guys vid, his Tx loop looked like maybe some 3/4 in. pipe. lol. Seems like he is getting some good distance also.
Nice job of circuit redraw. ;]
Thanks T
Mags
Thanks.... look familiar, does it?
C1-C8 High quality polypropylene totalling about 60 nf, 400 V or better (they get hot and lesser caps will melt down and fail)
C9 100nF poly 100 V
D1, D2 1n914 or 1n4148 or similar
L1, L2 Radio Shack 100 microHenry, a dollar forty nine each
R1, R2 Gate pulldowns, 10K 1/4 W
R3, R4 Gate bias, 100R, 1Watt
Q1, Q2 IRFZ44N on heatsinks (important)
Transmitting loop # 12 house wiring, STRETCHED to straighten ( a trick I'll give you for free) and then doubled and twisted with an electric drill, trimmed to 22 1/2 inches and terminated with 12-10 ring connectors, soldered
Receiving cap should be of the same capacitance as the total in the tx, but it only needs to be single and 200 V or 300 V is ok... but watch the temp on long runs. I've blown 2 rx caps but no tx caps.
Let me know how your misfoots work out. I've got an order of Z44s coming from Singapore.
The first one is neater I think, but the second one is smaller and I used a prefab pad-per-hole circuit board that is laid out just like a breadboard, cost about 3 dollars, and I used about half of it. Some copper strips to reinforce the drain lines to the loop. The whole source-drain-cap circuit should be as heavy as you can manage, it will be carrying many amperes of current from the reactive power just looping around, leaking a little out as heat in the caps and mossfeet as it does so.
I made a pipe loop out of hardware store 1/2 copper 45 degree elbows, like a stop sign octagon shape, and the twisted wire I never expected to work well, it was just for testing... until I saw how well it DID work. I may yet try the pipe loop. Have you priced plumber's solder lately ? I can't believe it, thirty dollars a pound or more... which is why I haven't tried the pipe loop yet!
You know Ainslie thinks I'm faking this whole thing, don't you...... I mean... how dat zipon knowhow liteumup dat lite anyhow? Ain got no worrs, no resisticators, ain even got no magent or core. An run da motor.... no way haole, you ono-ono, smoke da kine pakololo bit much potboy.
Familiar? Yes, thats Rosemary's baby. ;]
Auto parts stores have copper oil line kits with a few feet of copper tube already bent into a coil of loops. It can be cut and with a little shaping you can have near perfect loops without a bending tool to keep it from kinking.
It not big pipe, but it makes nice loops. ;]
Thanks again.
MaGs
Hey, .99.... and gmeast too... do you now see why I considered the best way to refer to the function generator's output leads as RED and BLACK.... since that's what her cliplead patchcord has on its ends? There is no PROBE, no TERMINAL. There are two identical alligator clips, one with a black rubber sheath on it and the other with a red rubber sheath on it. The red one's wire disappears into the RG58-U cable, as does the black one's wire. Only a more sophisticated instrument user than Ainslie understands that the Black wire is the cable's outer shield or sheath of braided and tinned copper and ultimately connects to the FG's chassis ground (sometimes selectable by a switch) and ultimately to the Earth through the line cord ground wire. And that the RED wire connects to the output of the function generator's electronics, the poynt of the big triangle. Equivalent to the Pin 3 output of a 555, only much more sophisticated... and that can swing both ways, unlike a 555's only positive output.
But the Red and the Black leads are always connected visibly in the photos and it should be easy for everybody to picture these. The use of the symbols + and - on the FG's symbol in the original schematic is hugely misleading as you all can probably understand by now ....well, most of you anyway. I mean, from gmeast's comment it seems that he's not even clear that they are referring to a FG instead of an oscilloscope when they say "probe" and "terminal" in the present discussion.
And... not all FGs have the BLACK lead always connected to the chassis and earth ground. But when it is connected to a fixed reference point like the negative pole of a 72 volt battery, THAT becomes the ground reference about which all other voltages are RELATIVE, positive or negative. So the RED clip's output is positive, or negative, relative to the Black clip's output.. or rather, REFERENCE.
A couple of other points. First, one of my YT commenters, flapjackbatter, has pointed out an elegant solution to the inverted 555 timer issue in the Quantum circuit... that actually has relevance to this discussion and is one I hadn't thought of, it's so obvious.
If the 555 power supply floats wrt the mosfet power section.... one can just hook the 555's Pin 1 _ground reference_ to the mosfet gate rheostat and the Pin 3 "output" to the power section's negative or ground, the mosfet source. Facepalm. Then the exact circuit values used in the Quantum schematic work to make the exact CORRECT short ON time duty cycle. Double facepalm: two wrongs could have made a right, which turned out to be wrong anyway.
And finally.... she is still getting things confused and putting words into people's mouths they didn't say. I think it's a hoot that she uses my diagram but complains that the colors are too simplistic... then gets confused all over because of the terminology in the very next posts.
But in THIS post reproduced below she says that which I never said. The FG has a SIGNAL and a GROUND, I have said that, and generally if the switch in back isn't flipped to isolate the chassis, it's true. I have never called the pair COMMON and GROUND... the GROUND IS the common, silly. SIGNAL and COMMON is also sometimes used, but nobody... except Ainslie... has ever said COMMON AND GROUND as the names for the pair... and she attributes it to me.
A lie, in plain words, since I am calling them RED, and BLACK, anyway.
RED, and BLACK. That is what they ALWAYS are, for Ainslie, unless... she... did... use... a...(maybe even attenuated)....oscilloscope probe.... as the FG output wire at some point, since they both have the BNC connector on the instrument end.
And it is amazing what one learns, slumming.
Look at this: an actual admission of a deliberate intent to deceive, a collusive plot actually, foiled only by .99's illconsidered analysis and publishing of the correct schematic. And her arrogance allows her to openly admit it, thinking that it's not a terribly wrong thing to have planned and done.
I am truly flabbergasted, giant pickle and all. Kind of makes you wonder what Ainslie's Dictionary defines as "open source".
Pseudoscientific misconduct applies to this Ainslie work a lot more than does "open source".
TK,
A supplement to the a.s VR18, to help illustrate the concept in your video in case it wasn't clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhEcRrMA-M
MIB! That's preposterous! (Everybody knows they really wear grey).
polln8r
Great! You should post that as a video response, I'm sure I'll approve it instantly!
One of my all time favorite characters.
Meanwhile... it seems we've attracted some more attention from the Southern Hemisphere. Some one down under seems fascinated by the brilliance of the Light:
Flawed concepts of fundamentals will prevent the interested student from being able to understand further ideas that depend on a proper underpinning. To get the more complicated ideas, like "what is voltage" or "what is current" , one absolutely must have a grasp of some very basic concepts, and if these concepts are misunderstood... or even DENIED.... then further understanding of even seemingly simple things like relative voltages and how current flows and in which direction will be severely impeded. Please bear with me while I review some of these vital fundamental concepts.
Electric charge is fundamental, and is a conserved quantity. It is the interaction between charges of opposite polarity, and the motion of these charges, that comprise quantum electrodynamics (QED) in its entirety. QED is the "standard model" of electricity, electronics, electromagnetism, electrostatics, ion chemistry, molecular bonding... all of that is covered by QED and is understood well enough under that model so that we can calculate.... CALCULATE... based on a few fundamental quantities, the behaviour of any electrical circuit (and much more). The basic relationships amongst charge, motion, and force are contained in what is perhaps the most "sacred" and elegant set of equations in all of mathematical physics: Maxwell's Equations (ME). These equations take as input charge and motion (relative direction and magnitude) and return forces, directions and rates. Using ME and the further math that is derived from them, like Ohm's Law and KCLs, we are able to PREDICT with incredible accuracy the behaviour of circuits, devices and systems of these things. That is why circuit simulators actually work accurately: they are based on QED, which describes Charge, Motion, and Force.
Notice that ME don't talk about electrons at all. Charge, Q, is independent of its carrier in its relationships described by ME. Physicists have also been able to determine through an elegant (and huge) set of experiments that Charge is Quantized, that is, it comes in little discrete packets that have a smallest size and every Unit Charge is the same as every other. And they come in two flavors, Positive and Negative, and due to an accident of definition (thanks to Ben Franklin for a hundred years of confusion) it happens that it is the electron, a particle, that carries the Negative Unit Charge. And it also turns out that the Unit Charge is inseparable from the electron; take it away somehow and you no longer have an electron at all, but some other particles from the PZ (particle zoo) and some energy. (The standard model of particle physics (PP) is properly called _The_ Standard Model with capital initials.)
So ME describe the motions and interactions and forces involved in MOVING CHARGES and how they effect each other. Charge is conserved; it takes energy to move things against opposing forces... but the charge is not the energy.
Now.... how do these Unit Charges happen to move, if they are attached to physical things like electrons and atoms that exist in solids like copper metal?
Well, it turns out that METALS, due to the structure of the electron shells around the individual atoms... have a lot of so-called "free electrons" that can be thought of as a kind of electron "gas" that is free to move around inside the metal's lattice formed by its atoms. These electrons are charged, each carrying its own little Unit Charge, and although the entire chunk of copper is "neutral" or balanced wrt P and N charges, the negatively charged electrons in the "conduction band"-- that electron gas-- are free to be pushed around however the forces applied make them go. In a copper wire, for example, it's like a bunch of little mutually repulsive pingpong balls in a tube, just big enough so the balls are free to move along the tube but can't push past one another. The balls are the electrons, the charges are what makes them repel each other.
So... if you push one of the balls in one end of the tube, this "wave" of mutual repulsion travels down the tube, as one ppball pushes the next one in line, never touching but transmitting the push through the mutual repulsion of the Unit Charges that are "stuck" to each electron. The electrons themselves need not move either far nor fast !! The repulsion of the charges causes the Last Electron at the far end of the tube to get pushed OUT at practically the same instant as you are pushing your First Electron IN to the tube at your end, even though you've only pushed yours in a tiny bit. The FORCE you use to push in is transmitted by the charge repulsion all the way down the line to the far end and thence to whatever that electron is going to push against.
All of this and much more is contained in precise mathematical relationships described in ME. They can be calculated, and give values that agree with experiment to an amazing degree of precision and accuracy. THIS is what is meant by a MODEL, in the physics and math sense. It agrees with observation, it makes predictions that can be checked by experiment, and most importantly it contains a means... mathematical relationships.... to quantify those predictions precisely and accurately. Models are accepted, to the degree with which they conform to experiment. When experiments and measurements become so precise that they reveal that the current model in use is not complete, then PERHAPS someone can come up with a new, better model... but that model has to be both CONSISTENT with what is previously known and also make BETTER, more precise or accurate or additional predictions of the behavior of experiments. That's what is meant by a MODEL, and that's what is needed for a better one to replace an old one: it really DOES have to be better, and it really DOES have to make numerically calculatable predictions that not only describe ALL previous behaviour that the old model did, quantitatively, but also must do its new thing too.
Enough for now. Thank you for your attention, and please think about Charge. Charge is fundamental and conserved; voltage, current, induction, capacitance, and all the rest emerge from the interactions of Unit Charges with one another.
Next: the Hydraulic Analogy.
The Hydraulic Analogy.
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
OK, stand up and stretch, take three deep breaths and put on your bathing caps..... for The Hydraulic Analogy.
Electrical current, voltage and all that stuff is really esoteric, you can't really see them or, usually, feel them; they are just parts of some weird nonintuitive arbitrary description that some boffins came up with, who never go outdoors to water the garden at all, and might as well be totally imaginary. Right?
But everyone has some basic experience with garden hoses, buckets and barrels of water, waterfalls and calm lakes, elevated water tanks that use gravity to provide pressure at your hose, ocean waves, water pressure at the ocean depths, evaporation, condensation .....
And it just happens that the flow of Charge in electrical circuits can be described -- imperfectly but often adequately -- by the so-called Hydraulic Analogy (HA), where circuit components are modelled by things like tanks and reservoirs, hoses and pipes, pistons and cylinders, water balloons and waterwheels and so on, and the Charge is modelled by the water itself. And of course the Energy comes from whatever is pushing the water through the pipes: an elevated head (gravity or springyness) or an active pump of some kind converting outside energy into the "push" of the water.
It can be very instructive to analyze simple circuits and component combinations using the Hydraulic Analogy, both to understand how it conforms, and also to see just where it breaks down in analyzing circuit behavior. I still haven't figured out how to analogize inductive effects across space in the HA, for example, although the simple behavior of an isolated inductor is an easy fit to the HA.
OK, so this is just a teaser. Some electrical/electronic components and their HA analogues:
Water = negative charge, carried by electrons.
Pipes = wires.
Pockets of Air in the pipes = positive charge, the absence of negative charge where it normally should be.
Tanks, reservoirs = batteries, capacitors.
Rubber Water Balloons = simple inductors.
Active external pumps = power supplies, the ion chemistry in batteries.
Valves = switches, transistors, diodes, vacuum tubes.
Partial blockages and constrictions in the plumbing = resistors.
There is more to the HA yet, like waves and their characteristics. But we'll save that for later; life intrudes upon us all and so we shall dismiss for now and resume later this afternoon. Thanks again and have a nice lunch.... thinking about the HA while you suck your Pepsi up a straw or pour your tea into a (hopefully not already overfull) teacup.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 16, 2012, 09:02:52 AM
Flawed concepts of fundamentals will prevent the interested student from being able to understand further ideas that depend on a proper underpinning. To get the more complicated ideas, like "what is voltage" or "what is current" , one absolutely must have a grasp of some very basic concepts, and if these concepts are misunderstood... or even DENIED.... then further understanding of even seemingly simple things like relative voltages and how current flows and in which direction will be severely impeded. Please bear with me while I review some of these vital fundamental concepts.
Electric charge is fundamental, and is a conserved quantity. It is the interaction between charges of opposite polarity, and the motion of these charges, that comprise quantum electrodynamics (QED) in its entirety. QED is the "standard model" of electricity, electronics, electromagnetism, electrostatics, ion chemistry, molecular bonding... all of that is covered by QED and is understood well enough under that model so that we can calculate.... CALCULATE... based on a few fundamental quantities, the behaviour of any electrical circuit (and much more). The basic relationships amongst charge, motion, and force are contained in what is perhaps the most "sacred" and elegant set of equations in all of mathematical physics: Maxwell's Equations (ME). These equations take as input charge and motion (relative direction and magnitude) and return forces, directions and rates. Using ME and the further math that is derived from them, like Ohm's Law and KCLs, we are able to PREDICT with incredible accuracy the behaviour of circuits, devices and systems of these things. That is why circuit simulators actually work accurately: they are based on QED, which describes Charge, Motion, and Force.
Notice that ME don't talk about electrons at all. Charge, Q, is independent of its carrier in its relationships described by ME. Physicists have also been able to determine through an elegant (and huge) set of experiments that Charge is Quantized, that is, it comes in little discrete packets that have a smallest size and every Unit Charge is the same as every other. And they come in two flavors, Positive and Negative, and due to an accident of definition (thanks to Ben Franklin for a hundred years of confusion) it happens that it is the electron, a particle, that carries the Negative Unit Charge. And it also turns out that the Unit Charge is inseparable from the electron; take it away somehow and you no longer have an electron at all, but some other particles from the PZ (particle zoo) and some energy. (The standard model of particle physics (PP) is properly called _The_ Standard Model with capital initials.)
So ME describe the motions and interactions and forces involved in MOVING CHARGES and how they effect each other. Charge is conserved; it takes energy to move things against opposing forces... but the charge is not the energy.
Now.... how do these Unit Charges happen to move, if they are attached to physical things like electrons and atoms that exist in solids like copper metal?
Well, it turns out that METALS, due to the structure of the electron shells around the individual atoms... have a lot of so-called "free electrons" that can be thought of as a kind of electron "gas" that is free to move around inside the metal's lattice formed by its atoms. These electrons are charged, each carrying its own little Unit Charge, and although the entire chunk of copper is "neutral" or balanced wrt P and N charges, the negatively charged electrons in the "conduction band"-- that electron gas-- are free to be pushed around however the forces applied make them go. In a copper wire, for example, it's like a bunch of little mutually repulsive pingpong balls in a tube, just big enough so the balls are free to move along the tube but can't push past one another. The balls are the electrons, the charges are what makes them repel each other.
So... if you push one of the balls in one end of the tube, this "wave" of mutual repulsion travels down the tube, as one ppball pushes the next one in line, never touching but transmitting the push through the mutual repulsion of the Unit Charges that are "stuck" to each electron. The electrons themselves need not move either far nor fast !! The repulsion of the charges causes the Last Electron at the far end of the tube to get pushed OUT at practically the same instant as you are pushing your First Electron IN to the tube at your end, even though you've only pushed yours in a tiny bit. The FORCE you use to push in is transmitted by the charge repulsion all the way down the line to the far end and thence to whatever that electron is going to push against.
All of this and much more is contained in precise mathematical relationships described in ME. They can be calculated, and give values that agree with experiment to an amazing degree of precision and accuracy. THIS is what is meant by a MODEL, in the physics and math sense. It agrees with observation, it makes predictions that can be checked by experiment, and most importantly it contains a means... mathematical relationships.... to quantify those predictions precisely and accurately. Models are accepted, to the degree with which they conform to experiment. When experiments and measurements become so precise that they reveal that the current model in use is not complete, then PERHAPS someone can come up with a new, better model... but that model has to be both CONSISTENT with what is previously known and also make BETTER, more precise or accurate or additional predictions of the behavior of experiments. That's what is meant by a MODEL, and that's what is needed for a better one to replace an old one: it really DOES have to be better, and it really DOES have to make numerically calculatable predictions that not only describe ALL previous behaviour that the old model did, quantitatively, but also must do its new thing too.
Enough for now. Thank you for your attention, and please think about Charge. Charge is fundamental and conserved; voltage, current, induction, capacitance, and all the rest emerge from the interactions of Unit Charges with one another.
Next: the Hydraulic Analogy.
Hi TinselKoala,
I am curious and have a question. (I enjoyed your description above). My question is about the movement of electrons vs. movement of charge or electrical potential. How do we know that electrons actually move like ping pong balls, instead of the charge moving from electron to electron? I know (or I think I know this) that electrical potential always wants to equalize difference in potential. If distance and/or resistance between a difference in electrical potential is low enough, then the difference in potential will tend to equalize. Can you please give me your view and understanding on this?
Thank you,
Liberty
Quote from: Liberty on July 16, 2012, 10:13:37 AM
Hi TinselKoala,
I am curious and have a question. (I enjoyed your description above). My question is about the movement of electrons vs. movement of charge or electrical potential. How do we know that electrons actually move like ping pong balls, instead of the charge moving from electron to electron? I know (or I think I know this) that electrical potential always wants to equalize difference in potential. If distance and/or resistance between a difference in electrical potential is low enough, then the difference in potential will tend to equalize. Can you please give me your view and understanding on this?
Thank you,
Liberty
Hi Liberty and thanks for your question.
You are asking, I think, how we know that (first that electrons even exist as individual entities) the electrons move like pingpong balls in my analogy, instead of just transferring that Unit Charge, or simply Charge, along between more or less stationary electrons. Right?
Well, that's a complicated issue. The proof of the existence of the electron itself and its carrying the unit charge is given by electrolysis experiments, where exact ratios of input and output chemical ion species exactly correspond to the current (charge per unit time) doing the electrolysis. In addition electrons themselves, and current-carrying beams of them, are very common in electronics... but not so common as they used to be, when every television set had one or three or four of them constantly painting pretty moving pictures for us all day long.
The issue of the conduction band electrons moving sedately in the metals at essentially the speed of sound, while transferring charge at the speed of light, is something that perhaps people like Feynman understood... but I just have to take their word for it, since the explanation is consistent with the things I do think I understand.
Now...voltage, tension, potential difference, and charge. I think you are asking about what voltage is, and why and how it tends to equalize, overcome resistance, and cause current to flow. Right?
This is a topic that I will be covering in the next little mini-essay, so that the HA analogies to voltage and current will make sense. Please hold your question until I've had a chance to deal with the issue of voltage and what it is and how it relates to the fundamental conserved and quantized Charge. I hope that's acceptable.
I really appreciate your interest and questions, and also that you wait until I have actually been able to cover some small details before asking them.
As an aside, I'm glad to entertain questions but this is not the place for challenges or alternative theories. I am, I hope obviously, trying to clarify some pertinent points having to do with the CURRENT, most successful physical model that humans have ever invented: Quantum Electrodynamics, and its relationship to common ordinary circuit behavior. QED predicts, from first principles, the results of experiments with great reliability and precision. Some of the predictions and calculations of QED are so precise that they have as many as thirteen or more significant digits of precision. If the Moon is 384500 km away exactly... that is six sig digs of precision. Add another seven digits to the right of the decimal point.... and we are talking about knowing the Earth-Moon distance with a precision to the ten-millionth of a kilometer, or one ten-thousandth of a meter, or one tenth of a millimeter... about the diameter of a coarse human hair. THAT is how accurate and precise some of the predictions of QED are.
So.... if you've got something better.... it's gonna take some convincing, for me to believe it, and this isn't where it's gonna happen.
Charge and current; charge and voltage; current, voltage, resistance: Ohm's Law.
Sen no Rikyu, a tea-master, wished to hang a flower basket on a column. He asked a carpenter to help him, directing the man to place it a little higher or lower, to the right or left, until he had found exactly the right spot. "That's the place," said Sen no Rikyu finally.
The carpenter, to test the master, marked the spot and then pretended he had forgotten. Was this the place? "Was this the place, perhaps?" the carpenter kept asking, pointing to various places on the column.
But so accurate was the tea-master's sense of proportion that it was not until the carpenter reached the identical spot again that its location was approved.
Nobody could adjust the picture on a colour TV like me! lol The sweet spots.
Charge and voltage; charge and current; current, voltage, resistance: Ohm's Law.
First: Charge and voltage, charge and current.
OK, I hope everybody had a nice break and that we are all back again, ready and eager to find out what a Koala thinks voltage is.
Let's all play a little game. Come with me, you brave class of three hundred warriors, down the hall to a small 30-desk classroom.
Out here in the hall, I'll tell you the rules and the reward. I have here ten Benjamins, totalling ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS in cash, and a guaranteed "A" for the course, for the last person remaining at the end of the game. And here are the rules. I'll be sending people into the room one at a time. If anybody actually TOUCHES anybody else, your are both out and have to exit the room, you get no money and of course you fail the course. Trapdoors have been provided in the floor so that you just vanish and don't disturb the rest of us.
OK... got the picture? You are acting like a bunch of repulsive little identical negative Unit Charges, confined to the space within a finite volume of conductor like a "gas" of nonbound conduction band electrons in a lattice of bound metal atoms (the desks). But you cannot under any circumstances allow yourselves to touch each other, or you lose your chance at the ten Bens and the easy A. The first thirty people inside can of course find seats at the desks and sit down and stop moving if they like, but the same no-touching rule still applies and of course you can't have two people at the same desk.
Right. Now I'll send a few people into the room and let them mill around. There, that was easy, there was nothing in the room preventing or pushing back and the three people are in there milling about with plenty of room and no pressure and can even find safe seats and stop moving.
Notice how I snuck that word in there... pressure.
Let's continue to send people in, one or a few at a time. Pretty soon that little classroom has a lot of nervous people in there, under considerable _pressure_ to avoid one another, and this pressure is caused by nothing other than their mutual desire to stay away from each other as far as possible (because that is how to minimize your chance of touching somebody else and knocking you both out of the running.)
Of course we aren't letting anyone out the entry door. And everybody is pretty good at the game, nobody gets eliminated, so the pressure continues to rise as we send more and more people into the room. In fact... we notice that it even takes more and more work to send each additional person into the room, because all the little bubbles of space around each repulsive person have to shrink and jostle with each new entry, and that pressure pushes back against the newcomers at the door.
But wait... somebody inside found the door in the party wall that leads to the next... empty... classroom, and people immediately begin spilling out that door into the area where the pressure is much less and they can get comfortably far from each other again. Now I can send even more people in through the entry door because the pressure in the original small room is decreased. In fact, if I am careful, I can actually balance the RATE at which I send new people in, to the RATE at which people find the other door and exit into the less full classroom next door. In this case, obviously (I hope it's obvious, anyway) the pressure in the original room doesn't change, because the number of people doesn't change, because I am adding at one end just as fast as they are subtracting at the other end.
OK? Got the picture of the Voltage Game?
Charge is fundamental, charge is conserved, charge is quantized, charge is attached to physical carriers of some kind, charge comes in two flavors, and like flavors of charge repel like. (And of course opposites attract.) I haven't really mentioned the two flavors much but if you like, you can think of the negative flavor as the Unit Charge on the electron, and the positive flavor as some place where an electron _should be_ along with its negative charge, but isn't.... so any negative charges wandering by will fall into that "hole". Ultimately, the positive charge that attracts the negatively charged electron comes from the positively charged protons in the atomic nucleus, but this charge waay down there in the center of the atom makes itself felt at larger range by the action of the "holes" in the electron orbital shells where one should find electrons in a neutral (unionized, unbonded) atom, but where the normally present electrons have been knocked away by adding energy to them or are elsewhere participating in an interatomic bond.
Now... in the Voltage Game, the people are of course the electrons and their Unit negative Charges. Mutually repulsive, the lot of them. And there is a measurable pressure from packing the repulsive charges together in a tight space. And there is even a "suction"... a RELATIVE suction... that causes a flow of these repulsive little charge carriers into the other reservoir where the pressure is lower. You could even view this relative suction as a negative pressure, as long as you remember where your reference pressure value is. It makes no difference to the behaviour of the people at all, all they know is that they don't want to touch.
The PRESSURE, or the suction or the tension, is of course VOLTAGE. The Voltage arises from the mutual repulsion of a lot of like charges confined to a volume of a conductor. The more charges you pack in there, the higher the voltage. The higher the voltage the harder it is to pack additional charge in there, and the more eager the charge that IS in there is to escape to some region...any region.. where the pressure is lower. It's not that easy to get an A in my classes!
And the FLOW of the unit charges into the other room, or into the first room, is of course CURRENT. And we measure a flow by its RATE, that is a count of the flowing things PER a unit of time. If I have seventeen schmoos passing me every second, then I have a RATE of seventeen schmoos PER second, and by multiplying by the number of seconds I am interested in I can count the total number of schmoos that have passed my measurement point during that interval. Conversely, if I count, say, ten thousand schmoos every ten seconds, then I know that I am seeing an average RATE of a thousand schmoos per second. Same with the Unit Charges and the Current, except we are measuring, usually, negative unit charges bound to electrons, one each, passing our measurement point.
Right? With me so far? Good.
So it's not very convenient to keep saying "a bunch of schmoos per second" all the time, so a bunch of boffins, to a man, got together one rainy afternoon and decided to name all these complicated units after revered scientists of the past, and they decided that the Rate of Electron (or negative unit charge) flow was to be called, for ever after, the Ampere, after André-Marie Ampère (1775â€"1836), the French mathematician and physicist who is considered to be the father of electrodynamics. (They also named the Volt, the unit of electrical pressure or tension, after the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta (1745â€"1827), who invented the voltaic pile, an early form of chemical battery.)
So the Ampere, then, refers to the Rate at which unit negative charges flow past your measuring point, per second. Well, then, how many negative charges have to flow by in a second to make one Ampere? A great many. A very great many, in fact. One whole Coulomb of negative charge has to flow per second to make one Ampere of current.
Well, that's helpful you say, what the heck is a Coulomb then when it's at home?
Well, it's a quantity of charge of course. How much? It's the quantity of charge carried by 6.241 × 1018 electrons. So that many unit negative charges passing your measurement point in one second is an Ampere of current. It doesn't really matter what the charge carriers are; if you had a beam of protons carrying their positive charges going by at 1 Coulomb per second (but of course counting positive charges now) you would also have a current of one Ampere in your proton beam. (And you'd be attracting a lot of attention, too.)
OK, that is at least a Coulomb of information for you to meditate upon and digest, so we will pause here for dinner. Thanks for your attention; this is a difficult part of the story here but in order to go further it is absolutely vital to understand where and how Voltage (electrical pressure or tension) arises and that Current is the flow of charge, lots of little unit negative charges all flowing past your point.
Next will be Voltage, Current, and Resistance: Ohm's Law.
A quick aside: Charge is conserved.
What is meant by such a statement? Well, we've heard the same thing about energy haven't we. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form, yada yada yada. Believe it, or not. The Universe doesn't care one way or the other what you believe, it _acts_ like energy is conserved in every observation we've been able to make so far.
Charge... ditto. Charge is neither created nor destroyed; the unit negative charge on the electron and the exactly equal but opposite unit positive charge on the proton are deep and fundamental mysteries of nature and all we can do is to describe how they behave, using very careful observations indeed. Various nuclear processes that happen in extreme energy environments cause transformations, emissions and absorbtions and all the rest, emitting weird particles and stranger rays, but Charge, Momentum (angular and linear separately), Mass/Energy and almost always Parity are all conserved and must balance on both sides of whatever transformation occurs, always (at least so far and except for a rare interaction that does not conserve parity.)
And Charge is not Energy. It takes Energy (work) to move charges around against the forces produced by the interaction of that mysterious bubble of repulsive space: the Electric Field.
Charge, motion, field: one thing. One.
After Kakua visited the emperor he disappeared and no one knew what became of him. He was the first Japanese to study Zen in China, but since he showed nothing of it, save one note, he is not remembered for having brought Zen into his country.
Kakua visited China and accepted the true teaching. He did not travel while he was there. Meditating constantly, he lived on a remote part of a mountain. Whenever people found him and asked him to preach he would say a few words and then move to another part of the mountain where he could be found less easily.
The emperor heard about Kakua when he returned to Japan and asked him to preach Zen for his edification and that of his subjects.
Kakua stood before the emperor in silence. He then produced a flute from the folds of his robe, and blew one short note. Bowing politely, he disappeared.
Current, voltage, resistance: Ohm's Law.
V=IR
Ohm's Law isn't like a speed limit or the requirement to attend Mass on Sunday. It's not a Law in that proscriptive sense. Rather it is a set of circular _definitions_ that are interlocked inextricably like the physical quantities they represent.
In the math expression of Ohm's Law, Voltage is designated by V in Volts, current by I in Amperes (don't ask why, I dunno) and resistance in Ohms, named for... guess who. And Power, which is the Rate at which energy is expended or converted or dissipated, however you look at it, is measured in Watts, W.
OK, so Ohm's law is a simple algebraic expression that defines each of the three units (or four if you include Power) in terms of the others.
DOING THE MATH, we get a family of equations, all equivalent algebraic expressions of the same underlying definition.
V=IR. Volts equals current times resistance (recalling the units of each).
I = V/R. Current in Amperes equals Voltage divided by the Resistance in Ohms.
R = V/I. The Resistance of a circuit in Ohms equals the Voltage divided by the Current in Amperes.
and further, since DC power is just P = V x I, voltage times current, we arrive at
P = I2R. Power in Watts equals the square of the current, multiplied by the resistance. (sorry, edited the usual typo here)
Now from our discussion of the Voltage Game it should be clear that whenever there is a Voltage present, and a place of lesser voltage connected to it by some traversable channel, charge will flow, until the pressure on both sides of the channel... the voltage... is equal.
And... now going even farther back to the introduction to the Hydraulic Analogy, the Rate of this flow will be proportional to the degree of constriction of the pipes and valves, for a given amount of head, or pressure...or voltage. Hence, we see that the Resistance defined in Ohm's Law is what keeps Current from becoming infinite, between two different voltages connected by a channel. (No resistance, the voltage difference equalizes instantly, hence infinite current. Infinite resistance means no channel, no current, and the voltage difference remains unchanging.) And all points in between are covered by Ohm's Law.
So what is resistance then, physically? Well, you can think of it as similar to having really narrow passages between the desks, in the Voltage Game's simulated metal lattice. The charges can't move through the lattice as easily as with wide corridors so, for a given voltage level, the current is reduced. The electric fields (the desire to not touch and lose the Benjamins) of the charges interact with the electric fields of the nonmoving lattice and so it takes more work to push them through at the same rate: if you raise the voltage you can raise the current, for a given resistance. And finally, moving the desks even closer together, or putting more of them in the room, raises the resistance ,which lowers the current if the voltage isn't raised somehow.
So Voltage can be thought of as the "force" that pushes Current through Resistance.
And Current is the response of charges to a Voltage pushing them through a circuit's resistances.
And Resistance is that property of conductors and other circuit elements that impedes the flow of Current, hence requiring more Voltage to achieve the same Current as was obtained without the Resistance.
And Power is the RATE of the performance of the work done by the Voltage pushing the Current of charge through the Resistances of the total circuit and its materials.
V=IR, Ohm's Law. Voltage, current, resistance: One thing. One.
OK, thanks for your attention. I highly recommend that everyone simply memorize that V=IR equation. All the rest can be derived from that one simple statement of Ohm's Law. See you tomorrow, have a good evening and try, in some way if you can, to reduce the suffering of some sentient being somewhere.
Next: A return to the Hydraulic Analogy, and some simple circuit elements.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 16, 2012, 10:11:05 PM
Nobody could adjust the picture on a colour TV like me! lol The sweet spots.
What the carpenter didn't know was that Sen no Rikyu cheated. When the carpenter went to fetch his saw, Sen discerned the carpenter's mark and placed his own subtle one beside it.
Just as you, probably, knew about where the knobs should have been set before you started--- a baseline was established from which to measure and work, even something as simple and subtle as the position of a screwdriver slot wrt the corner of the room.
Hi TK
I am enjoying your series on Ohms Law for dummies.
One thing that has been puzzling me for months. If you and the RA were to mate and produce off spring what sort of child would you have? Would the child be forever torn between the the separate universes you work from?
Pure speculation I know......but still I wonder.
I was in SA earlier this year on another wild goose chase, I forgot to see if RA would meet up. I had a competent physicist with me with two suit cases full of test equipment. Still kicking myself about that.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
Mark:
I watched your recent SmartScarecrow appearance where you gave a quick synopsis of what happened in SA. It was the "worst case" scenario coming true. Unbelievable what goes on sometimes. Did you ever read that report about that visit to Lutec by some scientists? Similar story.
I can't believe that the proponents of these schemes are that dumb. It just doesn't fit. So my instincts tell me they are cons. You know in the Reagan era the Republicans would state that any publicity, even bad publicity, was good. Hence the parade of improbable characters and their associated gizmos on Sterling's web site.
By the way, I asked "Mr. Wayne" what the power output from his device was on another thread. I also asked him what form it was in and how he measured it. He couldn't answer anything and offered up the usual patronizing and philosophical/religious musings and tried to demonize me. I can't wait to hear what transpires when you do your vetting of his alleged free energy buoyancy machine.
Just remember, I am going to guess a few large cylinders of compressed air might possibly power that thing for days on end. May I suggest that you get a hold of a mechanic's (or doctor's) stethoscope and listen in on that thing to try to hear for an energy source. The "Travis Effect" is bogus - playing with buoyancy is like playing with a set of levers.
Don't hold your breath wrt RA and the NERDs. Big Ben still chimes the hour and all is right with the world.
MileHigh
Quote from: markdansie on July 17, 2012, 12:12:27 AM
Hi TK
I am enjoying your series on Ohms Law for dummies.
One thing that has been puzzling me for months. If you and the RA were to mate and produce off spring what sort of child would you have? Would the child be forever torn between the the separate universes you work from?
Pure speculation I know......but still I wonder.
I was in SA earlier this year on another wild goose chase, I forgot to see if RA would meet up. I had a competent physicist with me with two suit cases full of test equipment. Still kicking myself about that.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
Hi Mark, and thanks for your interest.
I'm afraid I can't entertain even in fantasy the kind of miscegenation you are thinking of, the very idea gives me the willies. But... did you ever see the movie "Rosemary's Baby" (1968, dir Roman Polanski) ?
I wouldn't exactly characterise this set of _little_ essays as Ohm's Law for Dummies. Some very bright people don't have a firm grasp of the basics, even though they might be able to use the relationships in practice. And, hopefully, Ohm's Law has a lesson within it about relativity (not the General Einsteinian gravitational kind but the plain old "special" kind that involves choice of measuring points and direction of view.) But the real point of the series is to give a condensed view of just what is meant by a Model, how effective a model QED actually IS, and how difficult it would be to try to replace or augment it with something completely different. Especially if that different thing does not have hundreds of years of experimental work and the fantastic accuracy of QED in its correspondence with all aspects of the behaviour of circuits, devices and systems.
Yes, I too am sorry that you didn't have the opportunity to see RA and her device in person during your visit. I'm sure the report would have made interesting reading.
Thanks again for your comment and interest.... stay tuned for a few further essays.
A brief aside: Charge distribution in conductors.
The Voltage Game, only this time the "room" is a good conductor, there are no desks, just the four walls, floor and ceiling, no exit and just our one entrance. Let's put four "electrons" carrying their negative, repulsive, unit charges into the room, close the door, and let them mill around freely.
Where are they going to wind up?
OK, enough, good night all.
this is not to you TK but to the rest of the room.
take a razor blade and slice an electron in half to get 2.
won't happen.
then slice it again.
won't happen.
amplification of electrons is just recycling already used electrons. it doesn't create new ones out of thin air.
no 'free' energy.
now if you were playing with the resonance frequency of the universe, I would gladly shut up and listen extremely.
Hint hint hint.
If the universe was 0 hertz wouldn't it be dead? at 1 hertz wouldn't there be a heart beat?
very tough to play with indeed.
but who said a star ship would be small?
Jerry
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 12:49:15 AM
A brief aside: Charge distribution in conductors.
The Voltage Game, only this time the "room" is a good conductor, there are no desks, just the four walls, floor and ceiling, no exit and just our one entrance. Let's put four "electrons" carrying their negative, repulsive, unit charges into the room, close the door, and let them mill around freely.
Where are they going to wind up?
OK, enough, good night all.
They won't touch each other and there is no 'open' door so they won't go anywhere because there is no pressure to 'push' them? Equally spaced apart and moving very little is my final answer...
@Milehigh
SA has not been kind to me over the years. I wish I could report on the 99% of things that never work out but they always slap NDA's on me.
Lutec never was viable.
I have a soft spot for Wayne. Its a real community effort and he has some clever people there. I like the story behind the story and sometimes its about the journey. As you know i wont sign off until it can run for two days which will account for initial start up inputs.
i will say tis on my last visit there all the pressures all maintained, even if I start or stopped it and left it overnight.
They have installed a lot of sensing a data accumulation equipment. After my sign off a team of very highly qualified engineers and scientists will be doing the full evaluation, Those results will be made available.
i can say they are nearing the time for my visit, last week it ran for several hours until they stopped it. They have stopped trying to fine tune it. How this all pans out I have no idea but sometimes I like to encourage people.
i always enjoy your comments on the various forums I follow over the years. you have a lot more technical and scientific skills. I am fortunate I have access to very good engineers and physicists.
@TK
I was could feel you cringe and half expected to hear a scream carry around the world at my suggestion. I remembered he film well.
I have followed your work for a long time and enjoy your humor and have learned a lot from you. Sometime it is good to let people know there are quite a few of us who appreciate your efforts even though we do not comment.
Well enough of the back slapping I have a few more myths to bust.
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: PhiChaser on July 17, 2012, 02:22:56 AM
They won't touch each other and there is no 'open' door so they won't go anywhere because there is no pressure to 'push' them? Equally spaced apart and moving very little is my final answer...
Yes... equally spaced apart and, because they are taking no chances whatsoever of being touched.... they will be maximally far apart, too. Which means they will be located..... exactly..... where? Can you pin them down more precisely? ( the room is roughly square, I forgot to mention that, sorry)
In fact, please imagine several different perimeter shapes. A circular room, a star-shaped room, etc.. Where will all the mutually repelling unit charges wind up, if they are left to their own tendencies, which are not only just to repel but to get as far apart from everybody else as possible?
@Mark:
Thanks for your nice comment. I do sometimes get discouraged... perhaps that's why I'm including the koan, to remind myself of the single note.
I too have been watching the MrWayne story with great interest. From the few comments and questions from me that he's responded to, I was under the impression that he was claiming they had run successfully for longer periods and were indeed making some output, like lighting the usual light bulbs and etc. Your statement that it ran for a few hours and then was stopped, doesn't sound particularly encouraging.
I remember how surprised many people seemed when I demonstrated that a good heavy platter on good bearings could run a long time on a little push... like take 10 minutes or more to run down from 100 RPM, and even seem to run at a constant speed for some seconds due to easy measurement imprecision.
But with all the groaning and straining, it's hard to imagine the Travis device running even for a couple hours on the stored startup energy alone since there are manifestly such great losses. There is a small air compressor that is kept running, for the pneumatic valves and actuators, isn't there? I thought I saw one in the photos but of course I can't tell if it is running during the operation of the main device.
The hydraulic motor/windmill generator genset that can be seen in the photos and video would be one set of items that I would be scrutinising carefully... if allowed.
I am intrigued and have even considered a site visit myself, as I am in South Texas and it would not be a huge trip for me. However, if there is some hanky panky going on, of course I would not be allowed to detect it.
I'll be waiting with a lot of interest, to see what happens on your next visit. I've not analyzed the spreadsheets that seem to give numerical support (no pun intended) to the multiple cylinder system, but I can't help but feel that some critical item, like the mass of the cyls themselves, is being left out. Leave out bearing and other friction, for example, and a flywheel will run forever... on paper.
Let's not digress too far here, though. Right now, for the next day or so, I want to continue with the essays on basic concepts of QED and how the Hydraulic Analogy is both helpful and yet incomplete in informing us about electricity/electromagnetism and the behaviour of circuits, devices, and systems. I'll be putting up another chapter in a few hours.
Thanks again for your interest and encouraging words!
--TK
A brief aside: Precision and Accuracy.
Target shooting is an Olympic sport, did you know that? Several Olympic events involve shooting at targets under various conditions with various projectile-throwers like air rifles and pistols. And obviously, the athletes are scored on how well they hit their targets. And they spend a LOT of time practising and preparing their very expensive equipment for the Olympic events. What does it mean to be a good target shooter?
Well, duh. It means that you hit your target, and you hit it consistently. You need to be both _accurate_ and _precise_ in your performance, and the two criteria are different and somewhat independent. Roughly speaking, accuracy means that you hit what you are aiming at, and precision means you hit in the same spot every time.
So let's say you are an Olympic athlete, a sharpshooter with a ten thousand dollar precision match grade air rifle and you are practising at the range, plinking away at a tiny target, a set of concentric circles on paper, ten meters away. You have a lowpower telescopic sight with crosshairs and of course you put these crosshairs dead center on your bullseye before you squeeze off a pellet. Pop ! Pop! After 5 shots you go and check the target.... and you see that all five of your shots have gone through a single hole in the paper, each pellet enlarging it slightly so there's a little irregular star punched out, just bigger than the pellets themselves. That... is precision. You are performing consistently, your trial-to-trial variance is small, and the variance itself is much smaller than the "measuring instrument"... the pellet. Use a single small hole for five pellets, that is pretty precise shooting indeed. Five holes grouped together in a space the size of a quarter is the best I could ever do... not as precise but still not bad for an amateur with lesser equipment.
But wait..... our athlete's single hole is over at the bottom right of the bullseye, not centered in the ten-ring at all. Her _accuracy_ is off. She is shooting extremely precisely, but not very accurately at all. Perhaps there is a crosswind, or perhaps the rifle's scopesight needs to be adjusted. Or, since the _precision_ is clearly fine, the system could be _calibrated_ to produce acceptable results. If the single hole is an inch low and to the right of the exact center of the bullseye, what will happen if our athlete _aims_ not at the bullseye, but an inch high and to the left? Since we know that the precision isn't going to change from moving the aimpoint.... our athlete is back in the running, because now she is hitting the target precisely _and_ accurately.... even though technically she isn't even "aiming" at the target at all. She has calibrated her aimpoint to give accurate results.
So too it is with electrical measurements. Our tools have been getting better and better for years, improving in most areas but making inevitable compromises in others. The digital revolution has really changed the process of making measurements on electrical parameters over the years -- not least by making them much easier to obtain. It is no longer necessary to "guesstimate" the position of a needle against a scale, or interpret a scope trace using the screen graticle and the amp and timebase settings--- we can simply position cursors and read numbers from boxes, letting the instrument sweat the detail work. The _precision_ of our measurements or at least the potential precision, has increased vastly. It's easy to measure picoamperes of current in the calibration lab, set voltages to a precision of seven significant digits, and weigh things to the microgram... of precision. But if you've got a speck of dust on your balance pan...your microgram weight, very precise indeed, is still not going to be an accurate representation of the mass of your sample. But since it is so easy to obtain precise measurements these days.... even a child could do it..... even if she doesn't understand what mass is or how errors in weighing can occur, she can still obtain a very precise, even if wrong, weight value.
So... while precision often comes built in, like in a fine match-grade Olympic air rifle or a modern digital oscilloscope... ACCURACY, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder: it depends on where and how you look, and whether or not you are looking at the right things and in the right places.
+1 on the explanations. Even those things I believe I understand and "know" are the better for this kind of thing.
I used a version of HA to explain AC to my nephew (and in the end to myself). More useful for explaining AC than DC I found; DC seems just to be less of a stretch.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 06:13:22 AM
Yes... equally spaced apart and, because they are taking no chances whatsoever of being touched.... they will be maximally far apart, too. Which means they will be located..... exactly..... where? Can you pin them down more precisely? ( the room is roughly square, I forgot to mention that, sorry)
In fact, please imagine several different perimeter shapes. A circular room, a star-shaped room, etc.. Where will all the mutually repelling unit charges wind up, if they are left to their own tendencies, which are not only just to repel but to get as far apart from everybody else as possible?
If the room is square they will wind up in the corners (furthest apart). In a sphere they would keep moving along the outer perimeter since they would always be 'looking' for the furthest distance apart. When one would move the rest would also move in response to keep the maximum distance between them. I can see where a ring or sphere would be a beneficial shape using this analogy. So far so good?
PC
Quote from: PhiChaser on July 17, 2012, 09:39:17 AM
If the room is square they will wind up in the corners (furthest apart). In a sphere they would keep moving along the outer perimeter since they would always be 'looking' for the furthest distance apart. When one would move the rest would also move in response to keep the maximum distance between them. I can see where a ring or sphere would be a beneficial shape using this analogy. So far so good?
PC
Bingo. Thank you for persisting. The charges will wind up concentrating along outer perimeters, in sharp corners, along edges.... and if you have a smooth spherical surface or a ring...like a toroid.... you can get the _most_ charge to fit on it comfortably per unit surface area.
Up until now I have talked about charges like they are small discrete quantized packets... and so they are. But a single Unit Charge is so tiny that it's just not practical to dump, say, four of them into a box. So usually I'll refer to "charge" as a kind of group noun: it represents a bigger lump of unit charges, some palpable portion of that Coulomb of charge that is a whole ampere-second's worth. A Coulomb of charge is actually a huge amount of charge... if we could experience an entire Coulomb's worth of naked negative charges all at once we'd see a very strong electric field indeed and charge would be jumping off sharp points and edges of whatever surface we forced all that charge onto. If we have an ampere of current flowing in a circuit of wire and components, we really don't see the naked negative charge of an entire Coulomb of unit charges. We only see the effects of the moving charges, and since it's a current flow, what comes in one end (from the power source) goes out the other end (back to the power source) and the charge itself isn't depleted (charge is conserved !) but only the energy used to push it through the circuit is depleted.
So... the takehome message is: charge diverges. It tries to spread out, to get as far away from like charge as possible and on a conductor this means it will hog the surface, the edges and the points, until it's easier to just jump right off the surface than it is to "face" the crowded volume behind, that's full of all that jostling charge being pushed into the volume by the power source. (this jumping off can happen at any voltage but is usually not an important phenomenon until voltages... the relative pressure between the charges within the volume, and some lower outside reference level... start getting really high, like in excess of 6 kV. At 20 kV or more you start to see corona, which is an effect of charge actually spraying off the sharp points of your shape...your capacity.... into space.
We don't usually see this in low voltage circuits, even though they may be carrying entire whole Coulombs of charge circulating around in the wires, because we don't allow this charge to accumulate in a reservoir (a capacitance) without being neutralized by its equal and opposite charge. But we can, if we so desire.... please see my ClassE sstc for an example of a circuit with a low voltage DC supply that DOES take that charge, separate it from its opposite, and stuffs it into a capacitance at high voltage--- from where it sprays off into space, seeking some lower voltage area.
I want to thank PhiChaser again for bringing up this important point.
(To get some idea of just how huge an amount of charge a Coulomb really is.... Nikola Tesla believed that he could transmit power all around the globe of the earth, by using just 20 or 30 Coulombs of charge, sloshing around between his powerful Wardenclyffe transmitter and the Earth's ionosphere-ground cavity. And I believe it too. But charge is not energy; it takes a lot of energy to separate that much negative charge and manipulate it as Tesla sought to do.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 06:13:22 AM
.... they will be maximally far apart, too. Which means they will be located..... exactly..... where?
I think that depends on how you define "maximally"?
In a circular room, if you add one person at a time, I think you'd end up with:
n = 1 - standing in the middle of the room.
n = 2 - standing at opposite ends of the diameter
n = 3 - at the points of the largest equilateral triangle the room can contain
n = 4 - this is where is gets tricky:
4a - at the corners of the largest square the room can contain or
4b - as for 3, but with the 4th standing dead center
4a maximises the minimum distance between any two people. But I think 4b maximises the overall sum of distances".
I'd think that generally, as N increases, they'd position themselves so they covered the floor with uniform density irrespective of the shape of the perimeter, as each individual jostled for position.
I'd need empirical evidence from a room and an endless supply of sworn enemies to be certain.
Humbug!
Mark:
Thanks for your nice comments and good luck with your ongoing investigations. I really look forward to hearing about the testing on the buoyancy system also.
MileHigh
Just out of curiosity, let's put some numbers to the idea and try to get some kind of a feel for the magnitude of a Coulomb.
The ClassE sstc has an input current of, say, 5 amperes. In other words, there are 5 Coulombs of charge, per second, passing through the ammeter on the front panel, doing whatever it does when it's in the ClassE circuit, and returning to the battery power supply... mostly.
And the AC RF part of the coil operates at a frequency of about 1 MHz. This means that, every one - millionth of a second, the current in the coil reverses direction, and if a capacity was filled by it going one way, it's drained by the current going the other way and then "refilled" with charge of the opposite sign (holes, really). So... every one millionth of a second, there are 5 millionths of a Coulomb of charge being sloshed around. Now if I try to stuff 0.000005 Coulomb onto a tiny surface like the point of the coil's breakout tower in a microsecond... it is not gonna be comfortable there and some part of it... a tiny part.... is going to spray off as corona, seeking neutral territory. And will find its way back to the system ground, through the air and the Earth itself, so charge conservation isn't violated and your battery doesn't shrink, get lighter or vanish into the seventh dimension.
Quote from: mrsean2k on July 17, 2012, 11:02:40 AM
I think that depends on how you define "maximally"?
In a circular room, if you add one person at a time, I think you'd end up with:
n = 1 - standing in the middle of the room.
n = 2 - standing at opposite ends of the diameter
n = 3 - at the points of the largest equilateral triangle the room can contain
n = 4 - this is where is gets tricky:
4a - at the corners of the largest square the room can contain or
4b - as for 3, but with the 4th standing dead center
4a maximises the minimum distance between any two people. But I think 4b maximises the overall sum of distances".
I'd think that generally, as N increases, they'd position themselves so they covered the floor with uniform density irrespective of the shape of the perimeter, as each individual jostled for position.
I'd need empirical evidence from a room and an endless supply of sworn enemies to be certain.
You are right, but you are also overwhelmed by the sheer numbers involved. As you put more enemies into the room, the Voltage increases, and there will be a point reached when the enemies will realise that they can simply jump through the walls or off the surface out in to space and get away that way. This means that there will always be a flow, from your enemy injection point, to the peripheral edges and points (where the voltage rises fastest) as the miserable repulsive cowards leap off into space to avoid being touched on the butt.
Here's your empirical evidence of this happening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-AS13fl30 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-AS13fl30)
Notice that there are only actually a few spots on the top toroidal capacity that emit the sparks. These will be found to be rough spots or sharper edges or projections on the surface of the otherwise smooth surface: field concentrations, places where the local voltage peaks due to the crowding effect described above.
Thanks for your comment... I'm not sure what the "humbug" referred to though.
I'll just get this down before I digest your response; it was a cry of anguish at not getting it, despite my private scribbled diagrams, and a vain attempt to stick my head in the sand and ignore the correct answer.
@MrSean2k: what the system seeks to maximise isn't exactly the intercharge spacing... it seeks to minimize the overall energy required to maintain the arrangement. So with n=4, a triangle at the periphery with one in the exact center is a _local_ minimum, with another deeper minimum nearby: the square, all at periphery. So the 3+1 arrangement is unstable and will "decay" or rather respond to the slightest perturbation, and flop "down" to the deeper energetic minimum represented by the square.
@TK
Ok, thanks, that makes sense (and keeps the analogy ticking along).
I'm enjoying this discussion...this is sort of an "office hours" kind of thing, not really the regular class meeting but a discussion of relevant topics by interested parties that might diverge from the main points of the central topic.
But let me just restate something here: All of this that we are talking about is part and parcel of the QED model, its predictions and effects, which are precisely quantified and are indeed accurate. However, to understand what is happening intuitively and without mathematical analysis, we need to resort to another level of analogous description: the Hydraulic Analogy. This is a helpful secondary model that allows us to get a grip on QED's main points... but the Hydraulic Analogy is neither fully accurate nor precise in its application to QED and electrical phenomena, so let's not mistake the map with all its imperfections for the territory it analogises.
(The SF author Robert Sheckley called this process of mistaking the description for the reality "metaphorical deformation".)
So...I've got to close the office for now. This afternoon, I'll flesh out the hydraulic analogy with some descriptions of how certain electronic components can be analogised in an effort to understand how they work in a real circuit with charge instead of water or sworn enemies. Thanks, and have a nice lunch !
A Zen master named Gisan asked a young student to bring him a pail of water to cool his bath.
The student brought the water and, after cooling the bath, threw on to the ground the little that was left over.
"You dunce!" the master scolded him. "Why didn't you give the rest of the water to the plants? What right have you to waste even a drop of water in this temple?"
The young student attained Zen in that instant. He changed his name to Tekisui, which means a drop of water.
Here's a drop of water that seems to have passed notice. So I'm spilling it again, while we're waiting to assemble.
Tk, I think your loop device has made you a lil loopy. ;]
But on the serious side, does the device produce anything that would attract the FCC?
Also, is it safe to operate continuously while you are in close proximity?
I dont know that I want to go that deep into zenville when I get this thing running. I gota work! ;]
MaGs
I haven't tried tuning it in on a radio; it's oscillating at anywhere between 500 kHz and 1 MHz, so it is in a problematic band, the bottom of the AM broadcast band.
OK, yep, it's a pretty good jammer for AM at around 800-1000kHz, out to about 40 feet or so.
As far as the safety issue is concerned... I dunno....we shall see....
:o
@ TK
I know I am of topic but allow me to answer a couple of questions about the Wayne Device.
You would be most welcome to visit it, wait till I confirmed my observations...bit a drive for you but they are very good hospitable people.
The compressed air is only used to charge it up and not while it is running. What got me wanting to see it taken further is on my first visit all the air pressures and hydraulic pressures were maintained during running and even after stopping it. So it is only a once of input.
It runs silently normally apart from solenoids and hydraulics.
I am reasonably confident they will succeed. Which is better than my usual 99.9% failure rate of most devices.
Take care and all the best
Dear Mark,
I am also rather sorry you didn't travel further south and view our own apparatus. In any event you needn't be too concerned as we should have our live demo up and running around the 25th or thereby of this month. I'll PM you the link in the unlikely event that TK doesn't reference it.
Meanwhile I've commented on some of your wilder speculations here....
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2675.html#msg2675 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2675.html#msg2675)
And guys, and with regard to TK's thread still being available for view - I'm personally very sorry to see this. The more so as he's now assuming to give a dissertation on QED when he's entirely under qualified and is yet again misrepresenting the rather noble art of science and the hard work that our Greats have managed. But what's new? At least Sean is following that absurdity with appropriate comments. And so is PhiChaser. LOL
Regards,
Rosemary
added
Quote from: markdansie on July 17, 2012, 09:26:25 PM
@ TK
I know I am of topic but allow me to answer a couple of questions about the Wayne Device.
You would be most welcome to visit it, wait till I confirmed my observations...bit a drive for you but they are very good hospitable people.
The compressed air is only used to charge it up and not while it is running. What got me wanting to see it taken further is on my first visit all the air pressures and hydraulic pressures were maintained during running and even after stopping it. So it is only a once of input.
It runs silently normally apart from solenoids and hydraulics.
I am reasonably confident they will succeed. Which is better than my usual 99.9% failure rate of most devices.
Take care and all the best
Thanks Mark and don't worry about "off topic". Discussants choose the topics that they wish to discuss, and I either discuss them too, or I don't.
Your report agrees with what MrWayne told me and I have no reason to disbelieve him... other than that the performance described is impossible. But I believe in impossible things all the time... as long as the data and the analyses are good.
Are you going to be paying them another visit soon? I thought I recalled you mentioning that.
So you've seen it run for a couple of hours?
Thanks--
--TK
It's really too bad your cup is so overfull, Rosemary. You should, if you want to be here at all, shut up, pay attention, and try to understand what is being presented. If you have questions, you may ask them. You are not qualified to criticise.
Perhaps MrSean2k and PhiChaser would like to chime in here with a response to Ms. Ainslie, since she chose to interpret their comments for us.
Zen masters give personal guidance in a secluded room. No one enters while teacher and pupil are together.
Mokurai, the Zen master of Kennin temple in Kyoto, used to enjoy talking with merchants and newspapermen as well as with his pupils. A certain tubmaker was almost illiterate. He would ask foolish questions of Mokurai, have tea, and then go away.
One day while the tubmaker was there Mokurai wished to give personal guidance to a disciple, so he asked the tubmaker to wait in another room.
"I understand you are a living Buddha," the man protested. "Even the stone Buddhas in the temple never refuse the numerous persons who come together before them. Why then should I be excluded?"
Mokurai had to go outside to see his disciple.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
Perhaps MrSean2k and PhiChaser would like to chime in here with a response to Ms. Ainslie, since she chose to interpret their comments for us.
I take it that you're queuing for a response little TK. You've never managed anything very well when you're a lone voice. It's simply not strong enough. You really need that support. It's a GANG mentality. The ultimate proof of cowardice.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 08:56:21 PM
As far as the safety issue is concerned... I dunno....we shall see....
:o
NOOO!! Dont fry yer brain. Just hard boil. ;]
Ok King Tut uncommon. Where exactly is the Tx while you dome the crown of enlightenment? Hangin off your lip? ;] can anyone smell hair burning?
Good show
MaGs
Speaking of koan.... this is a modern-day koan, surely. Meditate upon it.....
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 08:56:21 PM
As far as the safety issue is concerned... I dunno....we shall see....
:o
Thats similar to what the Japanese said about genetically modified foods, except they finished off the sentence.
We shall see what the American children are like in 10 years.
For me, 10 years isnt long enough for that sort of testing. If it were up to me, there wouldnt be such a thing to test.
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on July 17, 2012, 10:28:32 PM
NOOO!! Dont fry yer brain. Just hard boil. ;]
Ok King Tut uncommon. Where exactly is the Tx while you dome the crown of enlightenment? Hangin off your lip? ;] can anyone smell hair burning?
Good show
MaGs
The Tx is in the black briefcase sitting right on top of my head. I am wearing the Rx loop like a headband. No hair burning....
But the experience is ... enlightening !
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 17, 2012, 10:08:29 PM
I take it that you're queuing for a response little TK. You've never managed anything very well when you're a lone voice. It's simply not strong enough. You really need that support. It's a GANG mentality. The ultimate proof of cowardice.
Rosie Pose
I will remind you, Ms Ainslie, that YOU brought up their names IN SUPPORT OF
YOUR POINT. I am only asking them to speak for themselves.
Now, you may either sit quietly and pay attention, asking appropriate questions about that which you do not understand... or you may act otherwise. The progress of this discussion may or may not be affected by your actions. It will, however, continue, and you may stay and learn, if you wish.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 10:42:29 PM
The Tx is in the black briefcase sitting right on top of my head. I am wearing the Rx loop like a headband. No hair burning....
But the experience is ... enlightening !
TK,
At least YOU had some hair back there to light up.
Are you sure all that RF isn't stimulating your recent Zen posts?
PW
Rosemary:
QuoteAnd guys, and with regard to TK's thread still being available for view - I'm personally very sorry to see this. The more so as he's now assuming to give a dissertation on QED when he's entirely under qualified and is yet again misrepresenting the rather noble art of science and the hard work that our Greats have managed. But what's new? At least Sean is following that absurdity with appropriate comments. And so is PhiChaser. LOL
That's definitely a nervous "LOL." You are just making a vulgar ass of yourself here and everybody knows it. You are the least qualified person here and we are all watching you struggle on your blog to as you attempt to understand how your circuit works. You know, the one you have been putting on airs about for more than a year and trying in vain to sound authoritative about?
TK is doing a nice little presentation and you are blatantly lying when you try to claim that he is under qualified and misrepresenting. When you do that you make a complete spectacle and vulgar ass of yourself.
Keep that up and I will do a repost of the "Joan of Arc" posting, the one you tried to ignore.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 10:47:03 PM
I will remind you, Ms Ainslie, that YOU brought up their names IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POINT. I am only asking them to speak for themselves.
Now, you may either sit quietly and pay attention, asking appropriate questions about that which you do not understand... or you may act otherwise. The progress of this discussion may or may not be affected by your actions. It will, however, continue, and you may stay and learn, if you wish.
The ONLY thing that I want to LEARN from you TK is how you rifled my computer to find those names of those poor men who are now forever linked with the calumny and disaster of this disgusting thread of yours. And THEN I want that PROOF that you ALLEGED YOU HAD related to evidence of my being hospitalised for lunacy.
R
Quote from: Magluvin on July 17, 2012, 10:40:17 PM
Thats similar to what the Japanese said about genetically modified foods, except they finished off the sentence.
We shall see what the American children are like in 10 years.
For me, 10 years isnt long enough for that sort of testing. If it were up to me, there wouldnt be such a thing to test.
MaGs
I agree with you on that one. If anything can qualify as a "science blunder" that could wipe us out as a species, GM food and other organisms is right up there with nuclear power and atomic warfare.
Meanwhile, some demonstration of the Supernova Mode (on a nearly dead battery) and some current numbers, from unit s/n 001, the first one that will be released into the wild, as soon as it's finished tuning and burning in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVmTeaU4Io
Thats interesting that you have it in an aluminum briefcase atop you head. Interesting. lol I didnt see it before you told me. You forgot the sign, "Sorry about the light" I should be used to it by now. lol Im waiting for the vid that you say it, and the light is so blazing that the vid would just white out.
But really, these IRF1010e came with 3/4x3/4x2 in aluminum block heat sinks. So my question was going to be, would they interfere with the coil operation? Was already thinking to have the loop outward from the plain of the circuit board, instead of, say, in the line of fire. Probably any proximity has some affect.
In the briefcase, does the freq alter any? Does it alter the working distance?
Soon I will be able to answer my questions. ;]
MaGs
MaGs
Quote from: picowatt on July 17, 2012, 10:49:35 PM
TK,
At least YOU had some hair back there to light up.
Are you sure all that RF isn't stimulating your recent Zen posts?
PW
My daddy died at age 84 and still had a full head of curly greywhite hair. I'm receding at the temples a little and have plenty of salt in my peppa... but I don't have the typical male pattern baldness. Low testosterone, I guess... but it's certainly been high enough, otherwise.
I don't know what came over me, there. It probably isn't really a good idea to do that. There is after all something like 20 Watts radiated power at 750 kHz or so passing through my brain. Without attenuation too, which of course proves that there is only the purest emptiness within, as Zen recommends.
On the other hand, maybe a low power system wrapped around the mattress periphery could keep you warm without an electric blanket, just some woven conductive threads in the fabric itself.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 17, 2012, 09:41:47 PM
And guys, and with regard to TK's thread still being available for view - I'm personally very sorry to see this. The more so as he's now assuming to give a dissertation on QED when he's entirely under qualified and is yet again misrepresenting the rather noble art of science and the hard work that our Greats have managed. But what's new?
YOU, of all people, are hardly qualified to judge the qualifications of others. You are just now beginning to glimpse what all others who are skilled in the art immediately recognized regarding how your circuit operates.
That glimpse, is just that, a glimpse. Many people know things you don't, and rather than learn from them, you argue and ridicule them. I suggest you learn to learn, not argue.
The capacitance you question is fully documented in the IRFPG50 data sheet. The total capacitance as well as the reactance of that capacitance at your oscillation frequency can be easily calculated. That reactance in your circuit and at your oscillation frequency is typically less than the resistance of Rload. A robust path indeed.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 17, 2012, 11:03:56 PM
Thats interesting that you have it in an aluminum briefcase atop you head. Interesting. lol I didnt see it before you told me. You forgot the sign, "Sorry about the light" I should be used to it by now. lol Im waiting for the vid that you say it, and the light is so blazing that the vid would just white out.
But really, these IRF1010e came with 3/4x3/4x2 in aluminum block heat sinks. So my question was going to be, would they interfere with the coil operation? Was already thinking to have the loop outward from the plain of the circuit board, instead of, say, in the line of fire. Probably any proximity has some affect.
In the briefcase, does the freq alter any? Does it alter the working distance?
Soon I will be able to answer my questions. ;]
MaGs
MaGs
I thought that case was aluminum; I have a fullsize one that is, just like it, but it turns out that this one's sides are some heavy-duty plastic, stamped to look like the aluminum they use on the bigger ones. There is an aluminum frame but the sides themselves are plastic. It does transmit through thin metal sheets, though.
In the cased version I have mounted the loop horizontally and this puts the heatsinks and Qs right inside the active zone of the loop. It doesn't seem to affect anything, the circuit performs the same and heats the components the same. I think it really needs a pretty close match in order to transfer power and anything that's not a RLC match is effectively transparent to the power.
You absolutely do need heatsinks; and don't even think about operating without the loop attached: the circuit will turn on one mosfet, see a direct short, and fry that mosfet in an eyeblink. I recommend, and have installed, a 7 1/2 amp inline fuse from the supply to the board. No, I haven't actually blown any mosfets with this design, but I did get some of the silicone HS compound so hot it vaporised from the heat pulse.
The freq and range depend on a lot of things; I will do a video with scopeshots, similar to the one I just uploaded with the DMM ammeter. Be patient please, there's a lot to do this evening.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 11:05:43 PM
My daddy died at age 84 and still had a full head of curly greywhite hair. I'm receding at the temples a little and have plenty of salt in my peppa... but I don't have the typical male pattern baldness. Low testosterone, I guess... but it's certainly been high enough, otherwise.
I don't know what came over me, there. It probably isn't really a good idea to do that. There is after all something like 20 Watts radiated power at 750 kHz or so passing through my brain. Without attenuation too, which of course proves that there is only the purest emptiness within, as Zen recommends.
On the other hand, maybe a low power system wrapped around the mattress periphery could keep you warm without an electric blanket, just some woven conductive threads in the fabric itself.
TK,
Hopefully, the only damage done is that you will now have an incessant desire to quote Zen masters.
Now, if your hair starts to fall out, well, that would be something else...
PW
Nice vid. The SNM is a cool feature. This would be a great demo in schools. It helps peak interest. Guys and girls alike enjoy these things. I remember. ;]
I agree that there is some sort of lock between the Tx and Rx in SNM.
I suppose the "key " to finding out the differences would be to scope the Tx and Rx LC at the same time to see phase relationships between modes. Well, maybe all traces should be triggered at the transmitter end to show phase difference.
Like if the Tx n Rx are in "lock down" in SNM, what are they in normal mode?
Thanks
MaGs
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 11:15:53 PM
In the cased version I have mounted the loop horizontally and this puts the heatsinks and Qs right inside the active zone of the loop. It doesn't seem to affect anything, the circuit performs the same and heats the components the same. I think it really needs a pretty close match in order to transfer power and anything that's not a RLC match is effectively transparent to the power.
You absolutely do need heatsinks; and don't even think about operating without the loop attached: the circuit will turn on one mosfet, see a direct short, and fry that mosfet in an eyeblink. I recommend, and have installed, a 7 1/2 amp inline fuse from the supply to the board. No, I haven't actually blown any mosfets with this design, but I did get some of the silicone HS compound so hot it vaporised from the heat pulse.
The freq and range depend on a lot of things; I will do a video with scopeshots, similar to the one I just uploaded with the DMM ammeter. Be patient please, there's a lot to do this evening.
I never thought about that. So the freq is like a key just to be able to absorb the energy from the TX? Otherwise it just passes on by? iron I suppose would change things. Lots of things to try.
Definitely on that fuse. When I was first doing electronics repair, my boss had shown to use a light bulb in series with the power in on amplifiers. Its a safe way to see if there are any immediate problems without hurting anything. ;] or even just after a channel repair, or what ever.
Patient? I can wait. When this gets interrupted , I hang till the dust settles and the Zen garden blossoms again. ;]
Yeah, was just wondering with the heatsinks and such near the Tx. The reason being, the Rx doesnt have that difference and there might be some possibility of 2 very closely tuned LCs but one being offset by such. Dunno. ;]
MaGs
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
It's really too bad your cup is so overfull, Rosemary. You should, if you want to be here at all, shut up, pay attention, and try to understand what is being presented. If you have questions, you may ask them. You are not qualified to criticise.
Perhaps MrSean2k and PhiChaser would like to chime in here with a response to Ms. Ainslie, since she chose to interpret their comments for us.
Heh heh, I would if I gave a crap about what Ms. Ainslie says, I know more about mosfets than she does (thanks TK and PW!). Several analogies (including drawings, animated pictures, videos, and LONG 'debate') later and she STILL doesn't understand them... Pity. You 'Guys' tried your damnedest, you really did.
So... Dear Reader, just so you know what was said by whom, read back a few pages and decide for yourself. TK is discussing his knowledge of a topic under discussion, others are giving him 'feedback'. Notice how he answers and replies to what was written by others. Now look at what was said and how Ms. Ainslie has interpreted it to suit her post. Seriously, this IS a recurring theme Dear Reader. She doesn't understand her circuit, just ask her if the batteries are connected! (sic) No, let's all wait until the 25th LOL!! Gimme a break...
Trying to help define in layman terms how electrons behave seems like a reasonable topic to me, it helps keep in focus the 'WHY' of charge. READ IT ROSEMARY!! Try to figure it out, don't block it out. Don't ignore it or try to tear it apart, READ IT!! Make a reasonable comment about the discussion, don't just bad-mouth people and try to make yourself seem the wiser. Have you even SEEN the work TK has done on your circuit?!? Jeeze. She SOOOOO doesn't get it...
On a lighter note, I hope to be ordering parts for a new 'TK headlight' this weekend, thanks for the schematic, parts list and build info TK! I'm sure I will have a question or two in a week or two about it heh heh...
Happy experimenting all,
PC
(Is that safe?!?)
Quote from: Magluvin on July 17, 2012, 11:32:40 PM
Nice vid. The SNM is a cool feature. This would be a great demo in schools. It helps peak interest. Guys and girls alike enjoy these things. I remember. ;]
I agree that there is some sort of lock between the Tx and Rx in SNM.
I suppose the "key " to finding out the differences would be to scope the Tx and Rx LC at the same time to see phase relationships between modes. Well, maybe all traces should be triggered at the transmitter end to show phase difference.
Like if the Tx n Rx are in "lock down" in SNM, what are they in normal mode?
Thanks
MaGs
Take a look at the circuit. It's a flipflop, and the mosfet drains are the outputs. So there are two ways to scope the output of the Tx. One can simply scope across the drains (across the tx loop and cap bank too of course) with a single probe, or one can scope the individual drains referenced to the common source (negative rail) using one or both probes, one for each side.
Doing the latter gives, of course, two half-sinusoids, 180 degrees OOP. Doing the former gives the perfect sinusoid of the transmitter's output t the loop. Scoping across the Receiver (everything is in parallel there so you just scope across the whole thing, and of course you are floating as well)... you simply get the perfect sinusoid of the induced oscillation in the rx loop.
SO.. using the first method for the Tx, both drains monitored, and the Rx monitored with the other probe.... everything is in lockstep, always, with little jumps when the SN mode happens, and slightly different frequency/distance relationships evident. I'll make a vid showing what I mean in a few minutes. As far as I can tell the Rx is in phase with the TX always, but shifts a bit with distance and then "snaps" into exact phase again when SNM happens. It's like a very sloppy PLL.
@Mags: re the light bulb on turn-on of amps: with this circuit you do not want a slow power up. It might not start oscillating, and that's the same situation as no loop: one mosfet stays on at very low Rds, and pop goes the mosfet. So put in a switch or relay and just flip that sucker on with the full supply voltage. If you ramp up the supply slowly, like for the very first test of the circuit, do it with an inline ammeter and if you see over 3 amps (no receivers) stop, you aren't oscillating. This does not mean it's not working, just that it needs that full 12v punch to wake up.
With no rx nearby the draw (12 v supply ) should be under 1 amp.
Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live there, any wandering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on.
In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brother monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teachings. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. "Go and request the dialogue in silence," he cautioned.
So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.
Shortly afterwards the traveller rose and went in to the elder brother and said: "Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me."
"Relate the dialogue to me," said the elder one.
"Well," explained the traveller, "first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers, living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realisation. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here." With this, the traveller left.
"Where is that fellow?" asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.
"I understand you won the debate."
"Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up."
"Tell me the subject of the debate," asked the elder one.
"Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers, congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it!"
As a thing is viewed, so it appears.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 12:31:42 AM
@Mags: re the light bulb on turn-on of amps: with this circuit you do not want a slow power up. It might not start oscillating, and that's the same situation as no loop: one mosfet stays on at very low Rds, and pop goes the mosfet. So put in a switch or relay and just flip that sucker on with the full supply voltage. If you ramp up the supply slowly, like for the very first test of the circuit, do it with an inline ammeter and if you see over 3 amps (no receivers) stop, you aren't oscillating. This does not mean it's not working, just that it needs that full 12v punch to wake up.
With no rx nearby the draw (12 v supply ) should be under 1 amp.
Na, I would fuse it. The light bulb was just a story, some may not know of it.
Thanks for the tips. Its good for everyone. ;]
The Tx could be 2 or 3 loops(turns), as long as the conductor length is followed? Smaller, more compact.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 18, 2012, 12:46:27 AM
Na, I would fuse it. The light bulb was just a story, some may not know of it.
Thanks for the tips. Its good for everyone. ;]
The Tx could be 2 or 3 loops(turns), as long as the conductor length is followed? Smaller, more compact.
Mags
I have not tried a multi turn Tx yet. I was gonna today but I ran out of round tuits.
The circuit is basically an induction furnace; maybe a multi turn coil will turn it into a tenpenny nail-melter.
The Hydraulic Analogy: Current and flow, voltage and pressure, wires and pipes.
OK, thanks for attending and welcome back, I hope you all had a good supper and a nice pipe or cigar after, as is your preference. Don't fall asleep too soon, though !
Now let's examine the Hydraulic Analogy for a bit.
Charge is fundamental, charge is conserved, charge is quantized, charge comes in two flavors, like charges repel and opposites attract, the negative unit charge is carried by the electron and is inseparable from it, positive charge is mostly the absence of electrons where they should be, except in things like proton beam accelerators and such like that there. And an enormous amount of charge, an entire Coulomb's worth, flows past your measuring point every second in a wire carrying one ampere of current.
So we don't really have any macroscopic experience with stuff that behaves just like that. How are we then to analogise QED so that it makes any kind of natural intuitive sense? We have to do the best we can, and it turns out that the Hydraulic Analogy (HA) does pretty good in some areas, and fails miserably in others, in this task of making electricity and charge understandable in the large.
Some electrical phenomena map pretty well to the HA. Others don't. Let's make good use of the ones that do, and step around the ones that don't, unless they carry important messages about what's been left out.
Water, of course, isn't quantized the way charge is (a single water molecule isn't really water), isn't fundamental, only comes in one flavor (if you're lucky) and doesn't mutually repel itself. But nevertheless it can be used to represent some very basic electrical parameters.
Pressure, and voltage. We've seen, using the Voltage Game, how a bunch of repulsive charge can result in a pressure that makes charge flow from a region of high pressure to one of lower pressure. It's pretty easy to see that water pressure or head is the analog of voltage.
Flow, and current. So if pressure is voltage, then flow must be current. Right? Well yes, but with caveats. Once again water isn't charge. Water has no "water field" that acts at a distance. Water doesn't repel like water. But most importantly, water flows at different velocities depending on pressure. Charge doesn't. The speed of charge in a wire is the speed of light, even though the speed of the charge carriers themselves is much slower. This is a great paradox, certainly, and of course my understanding is imperfect... Nevertheless it's an area where water and charge behave differently enough to screw up analogies.But to a first approximation, the flow of water is the analog to the current of charge that is electricity.
So, just like charge needs wires to flow in a complete circuit, so does water need pipes: pipes are the HA analog of conductors.
OK, so we can start building circuits now. We take a tank of water full to the top. We punch a pipe into the bottom of the tank, with a valve we can open or shut or regulate partway. We put in a pump, since we are going to be pushing water up hill and must supply energy to do so. We put in another pipe and loop it back to the top of our tank. We now have a complete circuit and when we turn the pump on, flow will commence.
In fact we can combine the reservoir tank with an internal pump (powered by unspecified stored energy) and we have a battery analog. We can put in narrow sections of pipe... and we have resistors. We can put in remotely controlled valves for transistors. But the components I am most interested in analogising right now are capacitors and inductors. They present a bit more of a challenge for the HA than wires and switches, but these still can be met fairly well.
Let's take a quick break here and stretch, indulge your vices and flirt a bit. Come back later this evening please, for Capacitors and Inductors: The Hydraulic Analogs, and an introduction to fields of force.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 12:56:14 AM
I have not tried a multi turn Tx yet. I was gonna today but I ran out of round tuits.
The circuit is basically an induction furnace; maybe a multi turn coil will turn it into a tenpenny nail-melter.
TK,
If I recall, you stated the only major change in the waveform when entering SNM was a drop in freq.
Mark the distance at just beyond which you cannot get SNM and then either with a variable cap or small value fixed caps try pulling the xmit freq down to see if you can get SNM at just beyond the marked distance (or increase freq if needed).
Possibly the observed drop in freq is due to mutual loading or icreased current draw/Vdrop when in the near field so adjusting the freq may not help.
However, it is also possible the xmt/rcv are just slightly off freq and tweaking one or the other may increase range.
Also, see what effect supply voltage has on xmt freq. If it drifts as Vbatt decreases it will be difficult to keep all tuned perfectly. A 10 volt LDO regulator may be required.
Might be worth playing with.
How clean do the xmt waveforms look?
PW
A video koan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRifRDbKp-0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRifRDbKp-0)
Another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2lTeGH-lws
@PW: Yes, I've fine tuned the prototype, the one with the white spool chokes, by adding a small cap to the 60 nF stack and by trying different length loops. I've gotten it matched well to its receivers.
The one I'm showing here is still in the tuning stages and I'm about to do just what you suggest with a trimmer, if I can find an appropriate one.
I'll cover the distance/freq relationships in a video shortly, after I've had a cup of joe.
The waveform taken across the TX drains, with no receivers active, is nearly a perfect sinusoid. It is better than the F43's sine output, even. There is just a tiny ripple in the first 90 degrees; the transitions and zero crossings are clean. If I scope the individual drains wrt the source, I see the scope leads ringing, I guess, as each transistor shuts off its half-cycle, so there's that little ring-tail on the ends of the half-sines.
I don't mind commenting on Rosemary's comment, but to be honest I've no idea what accusations I'm addressing.
As far as she goes on my responses to @TK's discussion, she's correct; I think I'm following it, and I think my comments are on topic (if not always correct).
But to be clear, I'm not at a complete standing start WRT understanding, I have some distant calculus, electronics and physics. Just enough to be able to chase down references from trusted sources and see that the claims and discussions by TK, PW et-al are consistent with them being domain experts. It isn't proof, but it's good evidence.
And more than enough to see that Rosemary's lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn are leading her and her replicators down dead-ends. This is regrettable enough, but she's a serial liar. I'm of the opinion that it's only a lie if you don't believe it, and I don't believe she believes any of it any more.
I've had my run-in's with TK before, and there are matters of judgment on the behaviour and motives of others we discussed at the time that I'd still disagree with him on.
As far as his qualifications are concerned, fuck knows. Like it or not, when you choose to remain anonymous, you can make any claim you like about how well qualified you are, it doesn't mean shit - you're just an anonymous wonk like most other people. But he's been consistent in his claims, consistently correct in his references, consistently open in his working methods, meticulous in documenting what he does and presenting it, unafraid to correct and retract where necessary.
IOW every action is consistent with him having the qualifications he alludes to in the areas he claims. Good enough for me to treat him as if he's qualified.
Rosemary on the other hand is serially inconsistent in all of these areas. I weigh her comments accordingly.
Thank you MrSean2k for giving us your explanation of your stance. It seems to be rather at variance with how Ms Ainslie represented your comments. I'm glad for your participation, as usual, and I rely on you, and others with a discerning mind, to let me know when and how I err.
I believe that the only person likely reading here who actually _needs_ the information that I have been imparting for the last several days with this series of _little_ essays... is Rosemary Ainslie. It is clear from my occasional dips into the Function Generator Anatomy thread that, even as late as this morning, there is still a great problem with the understanding of the basic issues of what voltage is, how it arises, and what current is and how it arises. This is truly unfortunate. It illustrates that a cup that is overfull with kitchen slop and the discards from soupmaking.... cannot possibly receive and hold the pure and simple tea of Quantum Electrodynamics. Ainslie's strongly held, incorrect, notions of what voltage is and how current flows are clearly impeding her understanding of very basic phenomena in her own circuit-- even to the point that she denies their existence, when the evidence is written all over her data in pretty pastel digital phosphor.
I will be blunt: Rosemary Ainslie NEEDS to understand charge and its relationship to voltage and current. If she does not grasp the simple illustrations and allegories that show how charge, voltage and current actually arise and behave, she will have no hope whatsoever... and her interlocutors neither... of making progress in the FGA discussion. She is still holding and defending the idea that negative voltage is somehow a different thing than positive voltage, rather than a simple change in our viewing direction OF THE EXACT SAME thing.
For her, a FG "terminal" can "put out" a "negative voltage". And when there is "zero voltage".... nothing can happen. The concept of current Sources and Sinks is foreign to her conceptions. Imagine getting her to believe that current can flow from a point that is at +12 volts, to a point that is at +9 volts, both with respect to a floating common that is at 100 volts above Earth ground, lighting up a 3-volt flashight bulb on the way without blowing the bulb. Impossible, she cries. How could one positive voltage "enable" a current flow to another positive voltage? Positive only flows to negatives. How could a voltage of +112 volts one one "terminal" and a voltage of +109 volts on the
"probe", not blow out a 3 volt bulb? How could any current flow at all, with such strong positives opposing one another?
This is how simple misconceptions of charge, what voltage and current are, and how charge flows in circuits absolutely block proper understanding of basic circuit behaviour. And on the other hand, when the basics of charge behaviour are understood, even at the level of the Voltage Game's simplistic analogy..... concepts that seemed intractably difficult and predictions that were at variance with actual experiment.... suddenly clear up, become obvious, and the predictions change and are now found to conform to reality.
A brief aside: Qualifications.
The issue of a person's "qualifications" has come up several times. Some people may have long educational histories with many years and many dollars spent grappling with difficult issues in situations where they are subject to critical evaluation all the time, and the outcomes of those critical evaluations have profound implications on things like future careers and lifetime earnings. In other words, in situations where real pressures and real consequences exist. Some of these histories result in those persons receiving paper (or vellum) "qualifications" and even professional licenses.
Others may be largely self-taught, and with an adequate natural intelligence and good luck, may even accrue some of the same kinds of qualifications that the heavily-educated can hold.
But these "qualifications" ultimately mean relatively _little_, especially in an anonymous internet discussion. (Yes, we are all of us anonymous. What proof do we have that "Rosemary Ainslie" is actually anybody's real name at all? Just who have we been talking with, anyhow?)
All that matters is that statements made do conform to facts, and analyses given are accurate and correct, considering the nature and quality of the input data. "Qualifications" allow a rough guess at whether a person's statements are likely to be of any use or not, but ultimately it is the statements themselves, not from whom they come, that must be the determining factor in our judgments and beliefs.
The history of Science is full of instances when fully, even extremely "qualified" individuals have made huge blunders, in individual statements (Lord Kelvin's howlers for example) or even throughout entire scientific careers (the HeLa story). It happens frequently. Some scientists even have the integrity to reverse themselves and revise their original blundering viewpoint in the light of experimental data or incontrovertibly reasoned arguments.
What happens much less frequently is for manifestly UN-qualified, undereducated, spottily autodidactic individuals to make hugely significant discoveries or perform and analyze significant experimental trials. In fact, cases of this happening are so vanishingly rare that I can't think of one right now. There are plenty of cases of non-degreed persons making great contributions to their areas of Science... but these people are fully qualified in other ways, through experience and hard work of their own. The garage or broomcloset experimenter who can't make a coherent explanation of a simple DC circuit nor perform basic algebra and arithmetic calculations ... is simply not going to be able to make a significant contribution to electronics, physics, or general Science, except perhaps as a cautionary example.
@ Rosemary.
Thank you for your reply. What I speculated was suppose to add a little humor.
My many visits To South Africa over the years have always ended up in finding technologies that did not test or meet expectations. I always hold hope.
The last trip in particular was big waste of time and effort. That is why I regretted not thinking of visiting you.
I never speculate on outcomes but rely on highly qualified engineers and scientists to test and evaluate when I get out of my depth.
More often than not we find methodology is flawed.
I am a seeker of truth and nothing else.
I look forward to you public demonstration.
PS I am also a Poet.
Here's a video showing the scope traces from the wireless power transmitter and receiver, in normal and supernova mode. Note several interesting things: the brightness of the bulb remains constant over a changing distance in the SNM and clearly falls off over the same changing distance in normal mode; the input current increases with distance in SNM and decreases with distance in normal mode; and the SN transition involves both a frequency change and a 180 degree (plus a little) phase shift, to a slightly more than 180 degree Out Of Phase condition between the Tx and Rx.
And of course the Rx amplitude is higher than the Tx amplitude.... the point of insuring that the probes and channels were balanced in the first part of the demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6qKISIE0Og
Excellent series of essays there TK, enjoyed them immensely, thankyou. I have attempted to do a similar thing for fluid dynamics included within my work. Maybe it is worth the communities time to consider working together to create a treatise on the major disciplines. There is certainly enough knowledge and talent to draw upon within the community to create a peer reviewed sticky and may well be what is required to form a solid foundation for people who have not had the privilege of studying these subjects in depth.
I also like the Zen aspect, I myself in my younger days studied Bruce Lee's book, Tao of Jeet Kune Do, it became my mental and physical bible and allowed me to progress to a point where the one thumb press up was no longer a dream. Be like water, my friend.
As you do not mind the slightly off topic comments I decided a taster of what I am currently working on might be enjoyed by the guys here. I will be putting up a new post here soon:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2781-wood-gasification.html
This thread is essential reading for understanding this:
http://www.overunity.com/10425/phoenix-turbine-builders-club-forum/#.UAcCkfV8T2k
I have attempted to design a phase change rotary engine operating on both mechanical and energetic principles, with a firm foundation in known technologies and theories, QED amongst them. Hopefully the Pulsometer steam pump will be recognised as a phase change linear oscillator capable of doing work.
The subject of the post to come is based around potential difference of mechanical and energetic systems, as always. This site here is very interesting for learning about the basics of physics in general:
http://www.physicstutorials.org/home/introduction
If you take the time to read every page you will get a very good basic overview of the foundational principles of the sciences. You will also notice many subjects that have been touched on over the last few years by the contributors to this thread.
In particular I will be focusing on quick exhaust valves (QEV) and forwarding a theoretical hypothesis for increasing valve opening times to increase power by attempting to approach Time = 0.
The basics of this will include Hooke's Law, governing stress and strain in compression springs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law
Which state that strain is directly proportional to stress in a direct variation relationship whose behaviour is linear:
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/algtrig/ATE7/Direct%20Variation.htm
And can be seen here as a rate expressed as a force applied (Newtons) over a given distance (mm) by a compression spring manufacturer:
http://www.leespring.com/uk_browse_catalog.asp?rbunitOfMeasure=Metric&springType=C&partnum=&UnitOfMeasure=Metric&specsCriteria=&subType=&pageNumber=1
And we will also examine permanent neodymium magnets, which act as perfect springs with 100% conservation of energy, whose behaviour is not governed by Hooke's Law but varies by the cube power of force (Newtons) over distance (mm) and is governed by aspects of QED:
https://www.hkcm.de/magnet.php/?dnx=8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
Examine the two graphs and you have a visual intuitive perception of the potential difference to be exploited if both axis alignment and vector sign are taken into account during the design and construction of your mechanism. Here is a nice youtube video showing the magnetic spring principle using a ring and a cylinder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0CL_5G4Aoo
Hopefully that is interesting, even if slightly off topic for some.
Rob.
Hi evolvingape and thanks for your comment. That is a bunch of interesting stuff indeed. Right now, I'm too busy to give it the attention it deserves, but I've bookmarked the links for further study and contemplation.
I agree -- obviously -- that a solid grounding in some basics would help people to not waste their energy and resources chasing wild geese down dead end alleys.... all you wind up with is a honking mad goose in a tight spot.
That last video from gilbondfac (one of my favorite experimenters) is similar to some I've done. The gun is interesting, a Howard Johnson gate kind of thing. But I wonder if there might be an even more interesting application for the arrangement shown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNaxoKkGTRM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNaxoKkGTRM)
(I see that I made this back in 2008... a blast from the past indeed!)
ETA: And, ultimately, we have to trace the origins of our ideas. This one was inspired by a drawing from a Russian book by Nikolayev, who was Stefan Marinov's mentor. Many mysterious things are in that book; I wish I could actually read it a bit better.
Hey Tk
Thanks for the vid. Its interesting that the phase change happens. I had an inkling that it would. The reason being, I could not come up with any other change that might be happening between normal and SN modes.
So lets say if you have your Rx caps/light bulb on top of the coil, instead of the same a the Tx, where the caps are at the bottom, did you make up for that difference when hooking up the probe and gnd to the Rx?
Like if we were looking through the loops from one end, if your probe gnd is on the left(bottom) at the Tx coil, did you have the probe gnd on the right(top) of the Rx, being that the orientation of where the probe connections are, are different?
Just checking. Maybe it is out of phase in normal mode, and in phase in SNM.
Dont know if Im describing what I mean well enough. ;]
Thanks for doing the vid. It is what I was wanting to see. ;] Perfect demo.
The "maybe" it will go into SNM issue must be something in the Tx and/or Rx, like the caps possibly changing temp once in SNM and when it falls out, at peak current just before drop out, the temperature coefficient could be changing the cap value till cool down. Also, if the caps in the Tx have opposite TC, it could affect each oppositely. So it may be possible if using the same brand, value and type of caps in the Tx and Rx, when they heat up, they would scale their values in the same directions when heating up and maybe avoiding dropouts as early and a more consistent lockup when going for SNM. ;]
MaGs
Quote from: evolvingape on July 18, 2012, 03:46:07 PM
I also like the Zen aspect, I myself in my younger days studied Bruce Lee's book, Tao of Jeet Kune Do, it became my mental and physical bible and allowed me to progress to a point where the one thumb press up was no longer a dream. Be like water, my friend.
I had all his books when I was younger. I started boxing at 14 and used most all of his ideas for workout and what ever was legal in boxing. Bruce Lee Fighting Method series.
My trainers used to call me the cat. They always tried to take credit for my "fighting method", but I let them have their glory on that note. ;]
MaGs
Hi TK,
Well done, you understood perfectly. The video you linked perfectly demonstrates the principles and structure involved (and almost the exact apparatus I am playing with), however, there should be two close tolerance tubes... one fixed and the other a linear oscillator. The ring is fixed to one tube, the cylinder fixed to the other. The magnets move in respect to each other, but fixed in relation to their respective tubes. So you glue each magnet to it's tube, is what I am trying to say and it is the tubes that move to transmit force and actuate, suitably greased to minimise friction of course.
Think about the finger that pushes the cylinder magnet, it is storing force in the magnetic fields of both magnets in repulsion mode, until the distance = 0 and then the cylinder pops through the inside of the ring magnet and the vector sign flips. At this point you are going from maximum stored static potential to maximum dynamic acceleration as the magnets repel each other with a force exactly equal to what was stored.
The previous post covered the exploitation of potential difference between Hooke's Law and magnetism, both operating on the same axis... however I have since moved way beyond this basic principle. Look at this:
http://www.spudfiles.com/forums/i-gotz-a-35-bar-pushbutton-valve-t18317.html
Here they are discussing the balanced piston valve and one of the original designs from 2009. The key thing about this valve is that it is balanced, with equal gas pressure on both sides, the bias being provided by the compression spring which is weak enough to be pushed with a finger, or a less energy intensive voice coil linear actuator. ;) (No magnets in this design by the way, just a simple spring and balanced gas pressure).
However, I have been able to remove the compression spring completely, and Hooke's Law in the process, using gas pressure alone by filling from pilot side (use the search function!), and shifted the balance point from central to the extreme, storing that energy in the magnetic fields. So effectively, the same actuation force is required to actuate but you have almost the full power acting in a negative vector when it "pops", in addition to the positive pressure acting in the same direction = ?
I will cover it more fully in the actual post which will probably be over the weekend. In the meantime, if you have a moment to ponder, just think about moving the zero point to maximum offset... oh the irony...
Time for bed, night all.
P.S. Mags... Legal ? If it's got rules it's a sport...
P.P.S. Guns and engines work on the same principle, Repulsion of Mass from rapidly expanding mediums. People who study only one, or the other, understand neither.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oau7xU4H8RY&list=UUSvNzUDvn7FA8YBJM9E6o1A&index=2&feature=plcp
Quote from: evolvingape on July 18, 2012, 08:11:23 PM
P.S. Mags... Legal ? If it's got rules it's a sport...
Well, in boxing, you cant stop a jab with one hand, and follow with a back fist to the face. Also no kicking. Legal in boxing, is what I meant.
MaGs
An electric koan: What is the brilliance of three bulbs shining?
The monastery is quiet; all the monks are studying and copying ancient manuscripts from an almost forgotten past. Tada Ima, a novice from the South, opens a crumbling text and out falls a strange diagram. He immediately takes it to his master, Jen Shin, who happens to have a PhD in electrical engineering, which he obtained before he attained Zen and opened his monastery. Master Jen looks at Tada's diagram, snatches it away and blows his nose on it, crumples it up and tosses it into the brazier. "Thank you, I needed a hanky".
Fortunately Tada Ima has a photographic memory and a lot of time on his hands.
Three identical 12-volt incandescent filament bulbs are wired into a simple circuit as shown. What does the voltmeter read? Are any of the bulbs lit, and if so, how brightly?
@evolvingape: I'm interested in your system...it sounds like you have applied the principle of the toggle switch in a non-contact manner, that could even penetrate physical barriers like walls and vacuum seals. This can be very useful technology as I'm sure you can imagine.
But... your comment about covering it more fully in the next post kind of scares me. Why not open a thread for discussion of your topic? I'd like to preserve a bit of focus here, at least until I'm done covering the basic prerequisites of knowledge that I believe some certain persons might be lacking, and that I believe would help immensely in the effort to achieve enlightenment about a certain circuit and its function.
correcting myself....
Mags
In my previous reply to the bulbs A B and C, i for some reason thought the batts were in series. So I thought A and C were lit and B not.
But here, since I corrected myself, I see it is trickier. ;] My first thought is, all 3 lit the same, but, if A and B are on equally, then B has 2 times the current flowing as compared to either A or C. So I might think that B is brighter and A n C are equal but dimmer.
MaGs
A wise man keeps vigil for at least one of the four watches of the night.
Tada Ima was keeping his vigil on the midnight to two am shift, and he kept seeing the image of the ancient electric koan dancing before him. He realized that his memory wasn't really all that perfect, so he redrew the diagram yet again. Comparing the two versions, he became even more confused. But at least he understood one thing: Master Jen had caught a bad cold, indeed.
Same setup, same questions. Three identical (very sturdy) 12 volt bulbs. What does the voltmeter read, are any of the bulbs lit and if so how brightly?
Quote from: Magluvin on July 18, 2012, 09:17:51 PM
In my previous reply to the bulbs A B and C, i for some reason thought the batts were in series. So I thought A and C were lit and B not.
But here, since I corrected myself, I see it is trickier. ;] My first thought is, all 3 lit the same, but, if A and B are on equally, then B has 2 times the current flowing as compared to either A or C. So I might think that B is brighter and A n C are equal but dimmer.
MaGs
What determines current through a resistance?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 09:22:55 PM
What determines current through a resistance?
The voltage across the resistance. The way I see it, bulb B has the best chance at having the most current, so the voltage across B will be more than A n C.
MaGs
Hi TK,
Yes I am playing with some interesting stuff, with a specific application in mind, and I am trying to make it simple and practical on a level that people can experiment with on the desktop, almost. Nearly there, bit further to go. Maybe even a video one day...
I do not see the barriers between disciplines that most adhere to, and sometimes I stray across those boundaries, please forgive me. I was not going to post anymore about this in this thread, was merely a taster for an alternative audience here, as I see the relevance. I understand you want to keep this on track and I agree. Ill shut up now.
Mags, I meant no offence, was just joking about Bruce's philosophy on the differences between sport and combat.
I learn more when I listen, so please continue.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 09:22:55 PM
What determines current through a resistance?
And I might say, "what determines the voltage across the resistor? ;]
No prob Eape. I just wasnt sure you understood. ;]
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 09:21:39 PM
A wise man keeps vigil for at least one of the four watches of the night.
Tada Ima was keeping his vigil on the midnight to two am shift, and he kept seeing the image of the ancient electric koan dancing before him. He realized that his memory wasn't really all that perfect, so he redrew the diagram yet again. Comparing the two versions, he became even more confused. But at least he understood one thing: Master Jen had caught a bad cold, indeed.
Same setup, same questions. Three identical (very sturdy) 12 volt bulbs. What does the voltmeter read, are any of the bulbs lit and if so how brightly?
I say the meter reads 24v (so far so good...). B is normally lit :-\ and A and C have double voltage (24v) so are really shining bright? 8)
How did I do? Even close?? ???
PC
Quote from: PhiChaser on July 18, 2012, 10:40:26 PM
I say the meter reads 24v (so far so good...). B is normally lit :-\ and A and C have double voltage (24v) so are really shining bright? 8)
How did I do? Even close?? ???
PC
Meter reads 0v. ;] I made the same mistake(tricky for some odd reason) that the batteries were in series. They are not. maybe it is the meter presence that confuses what we think we see of the batteries and their polarity to each other.
Mags
opps on my last reply. I didnt see that tk posted the series battery circuit. :o
A and C are equal brightness. B is not lit. 24v on meter.
Mags
Bulb B should have 0v across it. As if it were not in the circuit. A and B will have 12v across each.
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on July 18, 2012, 10:48:45 PM
Meter reads 0v. ;] I made the same mistake(tricky for some odd reason) that the batteries were in series. They are not. maybe it is the meter presence that confuses what we think we see of the batteries and their polarity to each other.
Mags
Look back, there are 2 separate koans, one with the batteries antiseries and the other in series. Both are puzzlers.
@PC: the A and C bulbs are in series, are they not?
Quote from: Magluvin on July 18, 2012, 10:52:15 PM
opps on my last reply. I didnt see that tk posted the series battery circuit. :o
A and C are equal brightness. B is not lit. 24v on meter.
Mags
Slow down. Two separate circuits, both to be considered. Koan 1: batteries in antiseries. Koan 2: batteries in series. Same questions, same bulbs, same same.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 18, 2012, 10:52:15 PM
opps on my last reply. I didnt see that tk posted the series battery circuit. :o
A and C are equal brightness. B is not lit. 24v on meter.
Mags
But B is in series with one 12 v battery and bulb C (removing the top of the circuit), and it's also in series with the other battery and bulb A (removing the bottom). Why should it not be lit at normal 12 volt brightness?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 11:05:18 PM
But B is in series with one 12 v battery and bulb C (removing the top of the circuit), and it's also in series with the other battery and bulb A (removing the bottom). Why should it not be lit at normal 12 volt brightness?
Well if you separate the bottom and top, Batt/A/B or Batt/C/B , each will have an opposite flow of current through B. So when combined, those 2 different current flows will cancel out. No B flow.
The first circuit is like 2 weak 12v power supplies powering the B bulb. Take one of those weak supplies( Batt/A or Batt/C ) away and there will be less current available to B. Or, take away B and no current flows in the circuit.
The second one, we could look at B's connection to the batteries as 0v common with 12v+ and 12v-. If that point between the batteries is our common, using a meter we will see 0v on the other end of B, due to the equal voltage division between A and C.
So B is connected across neutral points in the circuit thus 0v across B.
MaGs
Ah. So the flow of current between two points is determined by the voltage difference, or potential, between those points. If there is no potential, then there is no current flow.
And there is only one kind of current flow, there isn't a "positive current" and a "negative current", there is only the flow of (negative) charge from regions of relatively high potential to regions of relatively lower potential (aka voltage). (Thanks, Ben, for guessing wrong and screwing everyone up for ever after).
And the idea of a positive voltage on one side of the bulb "cancelling" or opposing the positive voltage on the other side is simply a matter of the charge pressure being equal and so there is no reason for it to "want" to go in either direction... because the pressure is equal or, to put it differently, the potential difference-- the voltage-- applied across the bulb is zero.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 11:57:24 PM
Ah. So the flow of current between two points is determined by the voltage difference, or potential, between those points. If there is no potential, then there is no current flow.
And there is only one kind of current flow, there isn't a "positive current" and a "negative current", there is only the flow of (negative) charge from regions of relatively high potential to regions of relatively lower potential (aka voltage). (Thanks, Ben, for guessing wrong and screwing everyone up for ever after).
And the idea of a positive voltage on one side of the bulb "cancelling" or opposing the positive voltage on the other side is simply a matter of the charge pressure being equal and so there is no reason for it to "want" to go in either direction... because the pressure is equal or, to put it differently, the potential difference-- the voltage-- applied across the bulb is zero.
Are you asking? ;]
Sometimes Ive use the analogy of water pipes and valves to explain electricity to people that dont know how it works. But I think air pressure is a better way to look at it, being water will not compress or decompress. But water pressure and valves and pipes are things most people are familiar with, so it is easier for them to relate.
MaGs
I prefer to use water because its very incompressibility means it can transfer energy "instantly" (really at the speed of sound) in spite of flowing slowly, just like electrons somehow can. Let's save the springy compressibility effects for components, like specifically inductors and capacitors.
OK, thanks for coming and I'm sorry I'm late. I was hoping to get to the Hydraulic Analogy's description of capacitors and inductors last night but other things, as you can tell, happened in between.
The Hydraulic Analogy (HA) to the Inductor.
Well, OK, to make up something that acts like an inductor we have to know how an inductor acts, and to know that we have to make up something that acts like an inductor, and to know that..... well, let's just start and see where we end up
Charge is fundamental, charge is conserved, charge is quantized, comes in two flavors, like repels like, the electron is inseparable from the unit negative charge; away from the center of atoms and cyclotrons, positive charge is the absence of electrons where they "should" be, or a region where electrons are depleted. And it takes a _heck_ of a lot of negative Unit Charges to make a Coulomb, which is an amp-second of charge.
And in the HA we imperfectly represent charge by water, in the aggregate, current by water flow, conductors by pipes, resistors by constrictions, switches and rheostats by valves, voltage by pressure, and power sources by pumps and elevated reservoirs.
But what about mysterious components like the inductor... how shall we represent it?
I like to think of an inductor as a section of pipe with a valve on the far end (low pressure end), closed, and springy elastic walls, and a valve on the near end (high pressure end), open. When the flow of water (current) comes in and enters the near end, the pressure of the water makes the springy walls of the tube expand and accept more and more water, but also pushes back on the water so the more full, the harder to push more in. The far end valve is connected to the walls though and as the tube swells up the far end valve starts to open, and by the time the walls are maximally swelled out the valve is fully open and there is no more constriction and the flow is now just what it would have been if there was only a smooth pipe there -- only now there is a reservoir of energy stored in the springy, expanded walls of the inductor. So the full flow is delayed for a time while the springy walls are stretching out and the valve is opening. Then... when the upstream supply of water is cut off, the upstream (HV end) valve closes, and the springy walls then can squeeze out all that stored water thru the lowvoltage end valve--- so the current actually continues for a time.
The springy walls are of course the magnetic field produced by moving charges, arranged to be concentrated by various means like coiling wires and/or wrapping them around materials that encourage magnetic fields to penetrate them.
So an inductor is a component that stores the energy of an incoming current in a concentrated magnetic field like a springy reservoir, and as long as the current is constant, it might as well be just a pipe. Only when the current is increasing (delayed, swelling, storing energy) and decreasing (also delayed, shrinking, releasing stored energy) does the inductor make itself felt to the flow of current. In the steady state, the magnetic field of the inductor takes no extra energy to maintain, just as a permanent magnet doesn't take any energy from the outside to maintain its field once it's established.
This is why contacts arc when an inductive load is switched off.... the magnetic field collapses and tries to maintain the current flow in the same direction it was going, and will make an arc as the switch contacts separate, maintaining the circuit as the stored magnetic energy -- as voltage--- continues to push charge through the circuit until the energy is depleted.
OK, digest that for a little while. Thanks for your attention...
Next: Capacitors and the HA.
Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four travelling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.
While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"
One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."
"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."
Sigh.
Just when we thought we were making some progress. We discover that all signs of progress were just illusions, parroted words without understanding.
Vgs: the voltage between the Gate and the Source. The discussion is whether an applied signal voltage Vgs of +4 volts will allow a mosfet's drain-source channel to conduct, and if so how much.
And here in a response, our Ms. Ainslie tells us that she has NEVER checked on the applied signal voltage because she didn't consider it relevant.
And yet it is displayed on every scope shot she has presented, practically, as the famous BLUE TRACE and it is just what is being set when she sets the offset knob and the FG's atten knob. And it is what PW and .99 and lots of other people have been questioning in re the scopeshots that show an applied signal voltage of +12 volts to a mosfet gate without turning that mosfet on.
I am sorry, but I find this extremely disappointing. Is it possible that some other applied signal voltage "refers" ?
And... of course... if she _really_ wants to see this.... "Mosfets, how do they work, parts 2 and 3" is right here, posted 18 days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
I will be blunt. Ms. Ainslie. If there is ANYTHING in my videos, Mosfets, How Do They Work, parts 2,3,4 that is unexpected to you, or that you do not believe or that you think is impossible or different from your own circuit's behavior (except that mine is immensely slower).... then you do not understand how mosfets work at all, and you really should empty your cup, try to forget all that kitchen slop that you _think_ you know, and get the real picture somehow.
Ditto for voltage/current/charge, in general. Your false knowledge is impeding your ability to learn true knowledge because it causes you to reject or misinterpret what you are seeing.
TK:
I am up way past my bedtime and I thought that I would throw this one out onto the field: A simple representation for an inductor using the hydraulic analogy is just a regular pipe filled with water. That's it - just a pipe and water - a water pipe! Now a teaser related to this representation might be pulled from a theme in this thread, "A wire is not just a wire." Perhaps it can be considered after you finish your discussion. I'm not saying that your analogy is wrong or anything and I don't want to disturb the flow of your discussion.
Get it on!
Bang a bong!
MileHigh 8)
@MH: You are right of course, a wire is not just a wire, it's an inductor and a capacitor too, and the springy wall analogy breaks down because in a real springy wall cylinder there would be a "force" exerted by the walls pushing inwards all the time, not just as the flow was changing. And real inductors don't "charge" you anything once the magnetic field is established by the current, it takes no energy to maintain it once it's established.
And of course a simple pipe does behave sort of like the inductor: it takes a finite time to fill, before water starts running out the other end, once you cut off the flow at the upstream end it takes a little while for the last dribbles to come out the far end. Add some springy walls...all real pipes have springy walls to some degree--- and you are close to modeling an inductor .
I embarked on this little journey full of hope and enthusiasm, because I felt that Ainslie's attitude may have changed, in her continuing discussion with .99 about FG anatomy and the general performance of her circuit. After last evening's glance at the state of affairs at her forum, though, and seeing that last statement of hers regarding the applied signal voltage at the mosfet gates.... I am very discouraged. It seems as though there has not really been any progress, or that she is still deliberately not understanding what is being said to her, nor what her scope shots even mean. Everything she's said seems to have been only parroted, without the least real understanding at all. Each and every scope shot that she has presented, except for a few early ones, has shown the applied signal voltage prominently as the blue trace, and this is the only real control parameter used in the system: the applied signal voltage, its frequency and duty cycle.
Yet she now makes the statement, emphasis in the ORIGINAL, that she has NEVER "checked on" or considered the applied signal voltage because she did not consider it important.
What, then, is the use? If after all this time she does not even realise that she is CONTROLLING HER SYSTEM BY VARYING THE APPLIED SIGNAL VOLTAGE...... then there is no hope whatsoever in making any progress. The woman is as dense as a lead brick and even more difficult to move. Not only that she hides her misunderstandings behind false agreements and fake comprehension, merely parroting back concepts as if she understood them... but she really doesn't.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2012, 11:01:05 PM
Look back, there are 2 separate koans, one with the batteries antiseries and the other in series. Both are puzzlers.
@PC: the A and C bulbs are in series, are they not?
Er... My answer was for the second with the batteries in series. Yep, definitely in series. Sorry for 'skipping' to koan #2... Just looking forward to the capacitance/induction discussion, I wasn't prepared for any tests LOL!!
The first koan (battery positives together) would be: A and C are normally lit and B would have double voltage but with opposing current direction so I'm gonna say B is not lit at all in koan #1.
Better? ???
PC
EDIT: The meter would read zero on the first one (measuring between the negative poles) I think. The difference of potential between them anyways, which should be the same (close to zero).
@PC: don't worry, koan are not tests. They are just items for meditation. If you don't get one, or you miss the point, it doesn't result in a low grade for a class or anything serious like that. You just have to spend some more lifetimes on the Wheel of Karma before you attain nirvana. And that never hurt anyone -- in fact it gives even more opportunity to help, to reduce the suffering of sentients whenever possible.
To Mark Dansie,
Dear Mark,
I've answered you here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2718.html#msg2718
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.
On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."
The second pupil was surprised to hear the first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.
"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.
"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.
I hope nobody took that last koan personally, or that it was meant to stifle discussion ! We've made no vow.... most of us.... of silence, have we.
I'm not sure if we are ready yet to tackle capacitors under the Hydraulic Analogy (HA). It's possible that we still don't have the prerequisite ideas down quite pat. So before we "get all wet" with capacitors and the HA, I thought it would be best if I spent a little time reviewing some things we may have glossed over or skipped entirely on our way here.
We haven't talked about fields much at all. (It could be because Koalas don't really believe in fields as "real", but don't let that confuse _you_, or stop you from believing in them. After all we use them every day in many ways, so it's perfectly OK with me ... even quite necessary much of the time ... to treat them as if they were real, just as real as the wind or atmospheric pressure.) Of course I am speaking here of one of the two fields with which we are familiar, the electromagnetic field (EM), not to to be confused with electromotive force, emf. (There are four fields of force in all, perhaps 5, but we only directly experience EM and gravity.)
Here's another koan, sort of a mantram really:
Charge, motion, field : All one thing. One.
Charge is fundamental, charge is conserved, charge is quantized, the electron is the carrier of the Unit Charge of one flavor, named unauspiciously "negative" by Ben Franklin well before the electron itself was even discovered and the true direction of the charge carrier flow was known, and the proton is the carrier of the Unit Charge of the other flavor, called now "positive". Voltage arises from the mutual repulsion of like charges, current arises from the flow of charge from high voltage to lower voltage _only_, and the only charge we see flowing in our daily experience is the flow of _negative charge_, carried by electrons, in circuits made of wires.
And here's where some other "quantum" ideas enter into Quantum Electrodynamics. Who has seen a proton? Well, the "H" in H2O designates a hydrogen nucleus... which is simply a proton, bound to an oxygen atom, which is also bound to another proton (the other H). But seen from a distance, the molecule is neutral overall, has no excess charge (although it is polarised, more later on that). This is because the number of electrons orbiting the molecule in total, balance the number of protons total, in the O nucleus plus the two Hs, and so the charge cancels out completely. From a distance.
Now... considering what we do know about atomic bonding, like the angles at which bonds form and the numbers and types of bonds that particular atoms can form.... we just have to reject the Bohr model of the atom and adopt the quantum chemistry view as a better model. The Bohr model, of course , has the nucleus at the center like a tiny sun, and the electrons in their orbits like little discrete planets, all whirling round in a tiny space, but still with the distance between the nucleus and the closest electron orbit relatively vast compared to the scale of the objects themselves.
This model no longer flies, and has been replaced by the concept of shells, orbitals and suborbitals, discrete (quantized) energy levels occupied by pairs of electrons, that can be shared in various ways between atoms engaged in bonding. There are two types of chemical bond: Ionic and covalent. These are endpoints of a continuum really; most bonds are probably somewhere in between. Ionic bonds, like in NaCl, table salt, happen when electrostatic forces are such that one atom actually fully "steals" an electron from the other, and then the two are "stuck together" by electrostatic attraction. Covalent bonds like in hexane, are situations when sub orbital energy levels actually overlap between two atoms and one or more electrons are actually fully shared between the atoms involved. Covalent bonds are much harder to break in general than ionic bonds. A third type, the resonant bond, a kind of super-covalent bond, is extremely important as well, and occurs in organic ring compounds, the prototype being benzene. But in the normal way of things, the positive charges of the nucleus are both extremely deep inside the atom and are extremely well shielded by multiple layers of negative charged electrons in the orbitals. So the only "positive" charge we see is when something happens to knock an electron out of its comfy orbital shell of a neutral atom... leaving that atom with an excess positive charge, which is really the _absence_ of an electron from where it should be.
I'm mentioning this to emphasise something I said earlier that is very important: we don't see positive charge in the macroscopic world except as the absence of electrons. Even when you pour a strong acid into water you wind up with H3O+ ions instead of free protons. (acids are "proton donors" and do their thing by freeing positive protons to attack anything they can).
OK... so _all current_ that we experience is the flow of _negative charges_, unless we are working with electrolysis (where positive ions carry current slowly) or proton beam accelerators.... in which case you already know this stuff and you can just test out and go home with full credit.
And this flow is carried by electrons, and happens when electrons flow from regions of excess _negative charge_ to regions of lower voltage... but which still might have excess negative charge, just perhaps not so much.
We diverted into quantum chemistry for a moment in order for me to bolster my assertion that all current we are working with is the flow of negative charge, carried by electrons, from regions of excess negative charge to regions of depleted negative charge. We call "positive" and "negative" the endpoints of that flow, or use those terms to designate the direction of the potential difference in volts. There is no "positive current" in normal electric circuits. There are regions with relatively positive and relatively negative charge... but all the mobile charge we see is made of unit negative charges carried by electrons. And here is where Ben Franklin screwed us up royally by tossing a monkey wrench into our concepts.
Today we know the facts about current flow, that it is the flow of the unit charge on the electron from regions of excess to regions of dearth. Franklin knew that something was flowing in the early electrical circuits of his time, and that this something was related to well-known electrostatic phenomena (although they weren't called that at that time). When he had to talk about the flow of this something in a consistent manner, he arbitrarily named the two species of electrostatic charge "positive" and "negative" based on the way electrostatic machines appeared to behave to him. Later on, it turned out that what he had named "negative" charge was due to the accumulation of those strange little electrons, each with their own identical inseparable unit charge. And it turned out that real current was due to the flow of these things from More Negative to Less Negative regions... in other words, exactly backwards from Ben Franklin's original arbitrary assignment of the names "positive" and "negative". One after all expects a flow to go from a positive region TO a negative one, not the other way around !
So.. so-called "conventional" current is viewed as flowing out from the positive pole of the power supply, through the circuit elements, and into the negative pole of the supply. But what is actually happening is just the reverse: negative charge, carried by electrons, is flowing from the negative pole through the circuit TO the positive pole, progressively neutralising the positive charge... which is really a lack of electrons.... at the plus pole of the battery.
There is no positive current really. It is an accident of convention, a result of Ben's great wrong guess, and by the time the electron was discovered it was too late to change the names.
Well... that was a digression away from fields. As tree-dwellers we Koalas do tend to avoid fields... but we have to cross them eventually nevertheless. More digression into prereqs to come.... thanks for your attention, and remember:
Charge, motion, field: One. One thing, one.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 19, 2012, 01:24:53 AM
I prefer to use water because its very incompressibility means it can transfer energy "instantly" (really at the speed of sound) in spite of flowing slowly, just like electrons somehow can. Let's save the springy compressibility effects for components, like specifically inductors and capacitors.
Thats fine. Ive just considered different factors as to why I like the air pressure more.
I find it hard to see a water circuit being in resonance like a air pressure circuit. Hydrolic fluid, depending on the type, can have a slowly dying wave for a long time in an open container or say a lake. But in a closed circuit, no air pockets or bubbles, the resistance of the flow and the weight of the fluid dont tend to cancel each other out as a factor.
In reality, I see electric charge, and electron flow as compressible, like air or gas. Didnt Tesla say this? ;] Maybe Tesla wasnt into Zen. ;]
Lets say we have a pipe from NJ to CA filled with water and also a set of twisted cables or coax along side of it, AND a fiber optic line. Which one wil deliver output in CA first when a signal is applied in NJ? Is water compressible? Is there a delay like the wire or fiber optics? What is the delay due to? Compression? ;]
So to use hydrolics as an example for electronic flow, other things are needed in order to simulate expansion and compression, like rubber diaphragm walls in a container to simulate a capacitors function. Those added items can add to the complexity of function. Where air pressure can be just a twin container with an opening in each side for connection, and the air is what is being compressed and decompressed, like a charge on the plate of a capacitor, the plate doesnt change physical size when the charge on it is increased or decreased. No moving parts. So here I find gas to be a better candidate. Also for learning, gas is a clearer representation. Tesla. You know Big T. ;]
My experience with building and understanding speaker and subwoofer boxes gives me insight as to how sound waves work, in the box and out to the listener.
Sealed box, bass reflex(ported, vented), 4th order band pass, sixth order banpass, series tuned reflex( has 2 resonant peaks generally 30 and 60 hz for a nice sound, like the 6th order band pass but with the speaker cone facing out of the box) Isoloading(clamshelling 2 woofers in 1 box will need a box half the size of 1 to sound the same but also a better quality, at the expense of 2 woofers and more power to equal 1 in a recommended box. ;]
So I can see these bandpass, low pass and high pass circuits in electronics and in sound waves. Very similar, just sound is limited to a band of freq and electronics is also, just a wider band.
I find hydrolic to be over damped but gasses in soundwaves to be a better compromise. Without induction the inertia of a moving charge doesnt carry the same weight as water. So its another factor.
There are many reasons. Try a pipe loop of water with a simulated capacitor made of a tank with a flexible diaphragm and try to get it to oscillate. Not much I bet. Or maybe a u shaped pipe and get it to oscillate up one side and down the other, how long will it oscillate? It will oscillate some, and we have to figure in gravity as part of that circuit. ;D Just too complicated. Gas is closer to doing things similar to charge and electron flow on its own, without all the props of flexing this and gravity dependent that.
Anyways, I gota read the rest of the thread after I eat to see what the next challenge is.
MaGs
@Mags.... I can tell you have never experienced a "water hammer". Of course hydraulic systems in pipes can oscillate, even destructively... and even usefully. But you are right, other things like diaphragms and pistons and reservoirs of springy compressed air help a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIFVGq3RFRE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIFVGq3RFRE)
Air pressure is involved too of course.
QuoteAnyways, I gota read the rest of the thread after I eat to see what the next challenge is.
The challenge is the same as it's always been: to try to flush out the "bad air" that prevents one... someone... from breathing in the fresh air of truth, in order that enlightenment can occur.
I am in no way trying to give some kind of comprehensive course in QED or electrical parameters. I am, rather, trying to instil a firm grounding in some very basic fundamentals that I feel are lacking, and which lack is producing this incredible block to further understanding and progress. I feel that replacing the incorrect model that is guiding one's perceptions with a more precisely defined and operational model... along with _real_ meditation upon the koan, both Zen and electrical... and especially video.... that I have presented, is actually necessary for progress. This understanding might be attainable by different means; here I choose to be explicit about what I feel is misunderstood and is essential for proper understanding: charge and its characteristics.
QuoteIn reality, I see electric charge, and electron flow as compressible, like air or gas.
Yes, and I've tried to make that point as well. The choice of fluid is less important than the concepts analogised. For some purposes a compressible fluid works best and for others an incompressible fluid works. Sometimes it's easier to think of the "pressure" as being applied by the walls of the container... and sometimes as being applied by the fluid TO the walls of the container.
Regardless of all that, let's just try to focus on the fundamentals: charge is fundamental, charge is conserved, charge is quantized, and so on. Like charge repels like, electrons are the inseparable carriers of the unit negative charge, current is the flow of negative charge. When you accept the fundamentals, you can derive all the other behaviours and consequences therefrom.
I've posted two video koan. They are relevant to the issue of capacitors and capacitance and electrical fields and forces. They are also difficult to model either hydraulically or pneumatically, since the _field_ is involved. I sincerely hope that everyone has watched and contemplated them: the perpetual pingpong ball and the oil jet demo. I will be discussing them anon.
Charge, motion, field: One thing, one.
The two previous video koan are showing "electrostatic" phenomena, and in addition both provide yet more empirical evidence of the kind that MrSean2k asked for.
Electrostatics is the branch of electronics that deals with high, sometimes very high indeed, voltages, and very low, often essentially zero, currents. The voltages are so high that the electric field from charged objects extends to palpable distances in space and exerts very strong forces--- much much stronger than gravity, for example.
In the following video, the entire Earth is pulling against that pingpong ball with its gravity, and the electrostatic force of a tiny fraction of a Coulomb of charge is able to pull it away against gravity entirely. The voltages involved are so very high that the tens of megohms of my body's resistance are as nothing, and the tiny current involved flows through me as if I were a pure conductor of truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-jrlGC-aA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-jrlGC-aA)
Posted from Energy and Shifting Paradigms.com.
And Guys, as this thread is to do with 'troll spin' - let me put record to something that weighs heavy on the mind. We have relied heavily on the assumption that open sourcing information is 'the way to go' - in order to spread the word about the evidence that energy is not constrained to standard assumptions. The proof is that we can measure something that defies anything possible within the constraints of Kirchhoff's unity requirements or in terms of our known thermodynamic laws. However, I have now been rather exposed to the attendant dangers of this process. Which constitutes a gross breach of that rather noble reach. Indeed I am concerned that there is any value at all in this approach. And yet, without it - I cannot see how we can spread the word. And the value of open sourcing this knowledge is to prove that we do not need our traditional energy supply monopolists. Energy - from our evidence - is freely available and simply requires development to application. And this, in turn, threatens the interests of those monopolists who rely on those early assumptions related to our unity requirements. Rather than rehash the multiple bases those objections let me list what we intend doing when I get back here from my operation - and as ever, God willing. For the record - there has been no let up of the abuse against this work of ours and against my good name for the entire time that I have attempted to bring these facts to the table. The latest and most disgusting of them all is courtesy our internet personality known as TinselKoala - who has engaged in a level of public criticism and humiliation that is both inhumane in its delivery and psychopathic in its self interest. On both fronts their behaviour has been legally actionable and morally unacceptable.
- We will do live internet broadcasts of tests run and filmed in real time
- We will show two systems drawing down the same amount of energy from a battery supply
- The one will be a standard series application of a load
- The others will be variants of our circuit
- We guarantee that you will see the control deplete its energy before the test has even discharged a small fraction of a volt
Which will constitute unequivocal proof of our claim. The good news is this. You will, most assuredly, be shown the evidence in real time. All our tests will be more comprehensive than described in the above points. Reasonable comparisons will be made as to the energy being dissipated at the loads in both the test and the controls. Any arguments as to any extraneous energy being introduced - will be addressed. And the data from that process will be available in whatever format is required and will be forwarded to select and trusted laboratories for their inspection.
Because these draw down tests are extensive - by their nature - then the tests themselves will probably extend over some considerable period of time. But I anticipate that this will be a good thing. As it will give our readers time to engage fully. During this process I intend to also make smaller videos to address sundry claims that have been voiced with a sorry lack of decency and constraint - and with considerably less scientific justification than is merited.
When this process is completed I intend engaging all those internet personalities who have taken the trouble to slander and malign my good name - and to misrepresent this hard work - and I will require a retraction of their claims and a public apology. Failing which I will take legal action against them. That is my promise.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
And for those of you who are following TK's absurd rendition of the 'classical approach' - may I caution you. This is NOT even a reasonable rendition of QED concepts. It appears to be the eccentric machinations of TK's own delusions. Further - this nonsense which is an apology of an explanation - at best - is intended rather laughable as it is - to defend the fact that unity cannot be breached.
He ERRS. HOPELESSLY.
If you wish to be informed as to the actual confusions related to the standard model - here's a link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593)
Regards,
Rosemary
edited spelling
You are not qualified to criticise, Ms. Ainslie. You may ask questions about that which you do not understand.
I have asked YOU if you see anything in the videos, How Mosfets Work, 2,3,and 4, that you disagree with, do not expect, do not understand or think is impossible. You have not deigned to answer.
You once again make accusations, claims and insults without the slightest shred of support or proof. If you think that I err in any manner, you are free to provide examples, demonstrations, and outside references to support your points. But you NEVER do, you never have, and you never will. And the reason is that YOU CANNOT.
Likewise this fantasy series of "tests" that you claim to be about to perform. Go ahead and perform them--- if you can. IF you are using the circuit you claim... you know, the one you sought to cover up and hide last March and April..... then you will fall flat on your face.
Meanwhile, you choose to remain ignorant, you choose to misunderstand and misrepresent what .99 is trying to show you, and from this latest little bit of kitchen slop from you, you fully intend to continue in this course. No one can educate you at all.
Meanwhile we see these: Your own admission of your intent to deceive about your schematic. Your own ridiculous statement that you NEVER examined the applied signal voltage. Your own continued garbling of whatever anyone tries to tell you. Your absurd LIE that you are "open sourced"... when nobody has ever seen your data and you have admitted covering up several different schematics and hiding and selecting data.
How do you manage to look yourself in the mirror, through such incredible hypocrisy?
And... after all... the proof is in the pudding. Using my conception of QED and my understanding of charge, voltage, current and so on, I am able to build things the likes of which Ainslie cannot imagine. They are so far out of her conception that she actually believes that many of the things I demonstrate in my videos must be faked. How can I possibly turn a mosfet on by simply touching the gate pin with my finger? How can I possibly transmit tens of Watts of real power across space with no wires? How can I amplify voltage -- and peak power --- to start with a 48 volt battery pack and produce 20000 volts, corona, and peak powers in the kilowatt range, on a small tabletop device?
If I err so badly.... why do these things all work for me, and why do they seem impossible to Ainslie?
"The water wasn't actually boiling.... there were small bubbles."
I laugh in your face, Ainslie.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
And for those of you who are following TK's absurd rendition of the 'classical approach' - may I caution you. This is NOT even a reasonable rendition of QED concepts. It appears to be the eccentric machinations of TK's own delusions. Further - this nonsense which is an apology of an explanation - at best - is intended rather laughable as it is - to defend the fact that unity cannot be breached.
He ERRS. HOPELESSLY.
If you wish to be informed as to the actual confusions related to the standard model - here's a link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593)
Regards,
Rosemary
edited spelling
What's rather "laughable", as you say, is you pretending to know anything about electronics or even basic electricity as it is currently understood. Your link to what amounts to a short story of fiction, barely qualifying as science fiction, hardly qualifies as a "model" of anything. From what you wrote, you have absolutely no understanding of the current models with all their mathematical precision and which fully explains all that you feel is unexplained. Surely you should know what the current understanding is prior to developing new theories. And, as they say, the language of physics is math, which seems absent at best in your theories.
As you attempt to grasp what .99 is trying to teach you, your extremely limited knowledge regarding basic electricity and the art of electronics has become more focused for all to see.
Even now, you still cannot grasp how Q2 is turned on, what bias current is, what linear operation is, what negative feedback is, why there is a voltage drop across the FG's 50R, or even what a solid black line on a schematic means. And now, without a full grasp of these basic concepts related to the very simple DC conditions regarding Q2, you feel you are ready to take on the much more complex AC conditions, wherein an understanding of positive feedback, and inductive and capacitive phase shift and reactance are required on top of that required for the DC condition.
You also seek to prove whether Q2 is passing bias current in an upcoming test, yet if you fully understood the captures you have already provided, you would already see that bias current is indeed flowing thru Q2. It is obvious to anyone who can read a 'scope and who understands MOSFET's and function generators. Again, the proof that Q2 is biased on at approximately 160ma (plus/minus 50ma) is right there on your 'scope captures. And if you do go looking for Q2 bias current at the CSR, what voltage would you expect to see if 160ma is flowing?
In light of all this, I find it "laughable", as you say, that you think yourself qualified to comment on any aspect of your circuit's operation. Yet, you call those who are qualified to do so a "joke".
And then there is this quote from over there:
"When this process is completed I intend engaging all those internet personalities who have taken the trouble to slander and malign my good name - and to misrepresent this hard work - and I will require a retraction of their claims and a public apology. Failing which I will take legal action against them. That is my promise.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary "
I am assuming this is a two way street. When you finally realize that Q1 is not functioning or not connected properly in your FIG3 and FIG7, and when you finally realize that Q2 is never "disconnected from the battery" but is in reality biased into linear operation during the oscillation, and when you finally realize that there is indeed a low impedance path for AC current during oscillation, and when you finally realize that a "wire is not always just a wire" due to its inductance, I will also be expecting retractions and public apologies from you. But I fear it will be some time before your learning curve allows you to understand these things, so I for one, will not be holding my breath.
If you disagree with any claim I have made regarding inaccuracies and errors in your papers, you need only show my comments to a qualified EE who will surely agree with my assertions. Even your "supposed lab" should be knowledgeable enough to back up the assertions made regarding your circuit's operation and the issues regarding Q1 not turning on in the discussed captures. If you like, I will gather all my pertinent comments into one post if that would assist you in obtaining a consult regarding this. But, you won't, apparently you fear the truth. You won't even verify the 'scope reading regarding Q1 with LeCroy, and again, it must be out of fear of the truth.
As far as any future testing you may perform, based on your demonstrated limitations, I do not believe anyone will have much confidence in any results YOU obtain. I suggest you find an EE or someone who actually understands electronics and test equipment to perform future tests and review your commentary and analysis before producing another error ridden document.
And I must ask, based on your commentary in the link you provide, do you actually believe that in the current understanding regarding electricity and electronics we actually create, destroy, or somehow "use up" electrons? No wonder you feel the current views need to be rewritten, you apparently have never learned what the current views actually are...
In early times in Japan, bamboo-and-paper lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him.
"I do not need a lantern," he said. "Darkness or light is all the same to me."
"I know you do not need a lantern to find your way," his friend replied, "but if you don't have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it."
The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him.
"Look out where you are going!" he exclaimed to the stranger. "Can't you see this lantern?"
"Your candle has burned out, brother," replied the stranger.
A link to a US Army training instructional, helping to better understand TK's latest build: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/24-18/fm24-18_4.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/24-18/fm24-18_4.htm)
@TK and his fellow unfortunates may feel the need to view and respond to Rosemary's boilerplate word-soup.
But not me.
Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Ignore List - > "Rosemary Ainslie" -> Add
If she says anything worth saying, I'm sure it'll get through.
Any chance the device underconsideration is an application of Tesla's distribution plan below. This patent is confusing because he refers to megacycles and generators takingup and putting out energy and all sorts of stuff. I can't make heads nor tails out of it. And what the hell is a disruptive discharge and exactly what is it disrupting? There are references to gaining time and opposite electricities rushing towards capacitors. In rush currents are weird. I have seen them trip breakers rated well over locked rotor amps. I have had to install electronic soft start modules on one of identical units in a plant where the other units have no problem with in rush currents. I believe it has to do with the length of the conductors and the speed of the contact closure. And the hf produced when the contacts act as a spark gap. In this patent tesla is converting highvoltage to lower voltage. It appears that voltage is potential energy and current is kinetic energy so the higher the potential the more the current. Current is a work function and voltage is an energy function. The inrush currents charge a capacitor where energy is stored. The inrush currents of great magnitude charge the capacitor time and time again up to millions of times a second. The voltage rise on the capacitor terminal discharges through the loads (translating devices is how Tesla referred to them) where the voltage drop does such things as heat wires and cause currents to flow through various motor coils. I guess what Tesla was doing here was using inrush currents to charge the capacitor and dc potentials to drive the loads. The capacitor would be charged up to potentials that either alternated or oscillated it depended on what kind of translational load you wanted to drive. Also in this patent we have Tesla telling us that we can modify the currents in a portion of a circuit by attaching a capacitor. What I see is yes attach the capacitor in parallel with a load of highself-inductance where voltage developed on the local capacitor causes highmagnitude currents to flow in the load from conversion of voltage into current.
The inrush current part is what intrigues me as it seems quite instantaneous. Like how fast a field can propogate from an electron or proton. The field propogating from these little emwavefields appears to be instantaneously propogated.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=66VeAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=66VeAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Yes, and no.
In 462418, Tesla shows a system for taking a higher voltage source and regulating the distribution of power from this source to multiple loads, that may have different power requirements, by using sparkgaps and capacitors and wire lengths in tuned circuits. Tesla here isn't concerned about where the power came from or how it got to the source in this patent. He's just showing how to "down-convert" it, as sparks says, from HV perhaps low current source or supply, to LV, higher current source to power loads.
Yes, in that the receiver system of the Royer oscillator wireless power transmission system is doing that, in effect, especially in the receiver that powers the DC motor at high RPM: there you have all the elements, a spark gap at the commutator, a heavily inductive load, and a large reservoir capacitor that makes the whole thing work.
No, in that the present power transmission system appears to be strictly inductive in its mechanism, rather than the capacitative methods of wireless power transmission that Telsa seemed to prefer. Of course the transmission of power from Tesla's primary coils to his secondaries and tertiary coils was mostly inductive. But the longer range, globespanning systems were making use of the capacitance of the Schumann cavity for their instantaneous, lossless power transmission through the electric field. A big problem with that system, though, is that pretty much everything is a receiver for the power.... it is hard to "tune it _out_."
My TinselKoil v 2.0 is a solid-state analog of Telsa's disruptive discharge system. You can see that its power arc is of relatively great power for the size of the device. With a proper pulse-shaping network between the x-bridge and the primary, true DD performance could be attained and the output peak power increased greatly even over what is shown. Another alternative would be to incorporate a sparkgap-cap in a tuned tank between the xbridge and the primary, making a hybrid ss-sg system that might prove interesting indeed. Also might produce spectacular mosfet fireworks!
Quote from: mrsean2k on July 20, 2012, 09:37:17 AM
@TK and his fellow unfortunates may feel the need to view and respond to Rosemary's boilerplate word-soup.
But not me.
Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Ignore List - > "Rosemary Ainslie" -> Add
If she says anything worth saying, I'm sure it'll get through.
We've seen how she garbles simple information from single paragraphs that people here and elsewhere have posted to her. Her impression of QED is similarly garbled. If she can garble three or four facts in every paragraph of a discussion about simple electrical circuits... over and over..... imagine how scrambled her internal representation of QED or any other actual scientific construct must be. Especially since she has never had any formal study in the topic, never solved a real quantitative problem, and has no calculus, no trig, or even algebra from the looks of things.
She doesn't read the words, she only looks at the shapes, after all. And she assiduously avoids looking at anything, like my clear explanatory video demonstrations, that could disabuse her of her erroneously held assumptions about those things she has not studied. Willfully ignorant of her topic, she continues to respond NOT to actualities, but to her own delusions and hallucinations of what she _thinks_ people have said, what she would _like_ them to have said, and to what she _conceives_ a scientific construct like QED to be. And she gets it all wrong, more often than not, because, like the blind man, she doesn't need a light herself, it's all the same darkness to her, and when she bumps into somebody else, she thinks it's their fault for not seeing HER light..... but she can't see that her own light has gone out... or in this case, was never lit at all.
Guys I realise that the most of you are bored to tears with theory. And God knows that TK's handle on theory is somewhat tenuous. But I've attempted to answer some of this nonsense in this link. And I feel that I deserve some hearing to discount the entirely spurious objections that picowatt and TK are posing against our thesis on this. Also - it may at least serve to alert those of you who need it - to the absurdities of QED per TK and picowatt.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here's the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2729.html#msg2729
You deserve nothing but the contempt that you have so often and so skilfully earned. You lie, distort, misappropriate the work of others, attempt to cover up and hide your own "open source" data, you mislead everyone who deals with you and even now, nobody knows just what the TRUE schematic is for your device. You have no outside checkable references for any of your claims and you cannot refute me or PW or any one of us with demonstrations, data, and especially MATH.
Your "response" is another logorrhea, a word salad that betrays your amazing lack of understanding, not only of physics in general but QED in particular.... even to the definition of the term "quantum" and just what is meant by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We need fear not: anyone who has ever completed even a freshman physics class, or who ever has tinkered with an electronic circuit, will be able to discern that you, Ainslie, dolt, have no clue about what you attempt to discuss, whatsoever.
In short, you, Ainslie, are a willfully ignorant, overweeningly arrogant amateur, not even a proper aficionado, who actually gives "dilettantism" a bad name.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2012, 02:40:02 PM
Guys I realise that the most of you are bored to tears with theory. And God knows that TK's handle on theory is somewhat tenuous. But I've attempted to answer some of this nonsense in this link. And I feel that I deserve some hearing to discount the entirely spurious objections that picowatt and TK are posing against our thesis on this. Also - it may at least serve to alert those of you who need it - to the absurdities of QED per TK and picowatt.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here's the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2729.html#msg2729
And another quote:
"And while I'm at it - for picowatt's consideration. IF my test battery outlasts the control - then I take it he realises that will FINALLY disprove his absurd interpretations of quantum theories. And related to my knowledge of electronics. It is SPARCE - AT BEST. But I am NOT talking electronics in this really simple apparatus. I am TALKING PHYSICS PRINCIPLES - taht subject that they dare not discuss except as it relates to TK's somewhat ridiculous version of QED. He is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance. I've already tested this. WE WILL. BY A LONG SHOT.
"
I do not pretend to be a physicist. Personally, I have never believed any particles actually exist. Years from now our understanding may change drastically with regard to the present models. Until then, we use what works and follows the math.
But I have not discussed physics, I have discussed electronics. Whether an electron actually exists or not, or whether it should be called something else is not the point. The current models work very well in predicting the behaviour of something we call or visualize as an electron as it is manipulated through semiconductors and conductors.
An expert in the field of electronics need no more be a phycist than a plumber needs to be a chemist or auto mechanic a metallurgist. And I dare say that most physicists, chemists and metallurgists would be terrible electronic circuit designers, plumbers, and mechanics. All are separate disciplines that take years to become proficient at.
You attempt to somehow apply physics to explain an electronic circuit that is fully understood and obeys the present understanding of electronics as if there is some great mystery regarding its operation.
Everything you have thus far presented can and has been fully explained regarding how and why the circuit operates. Even your negative mean power measurement has been explained.
As to whether or not the circuit is somehow more efficient than any other circuit, no data has thus far been presented which would support any anomalous action.
Possibly you should acquire a bit of humility and just accept that regarding the electronic operation of your circuit, there are plenty of people around that fully understand its operation. Quit your constant arguing as if you are more expert than they in a field which you have very little knowledge and attempt to learn.
As to whether your circuit is somehow more efficient than one would expect it to be, present your data.
Why doesn't she just take one of my videos.... How Mosfets Work 2 and 3 for example.... and tell us, by references to timestamps, just what is wrong, what I am not understanding or explaining correctly, or how it does not apply to the understanding of her circuit?
She cannot, that's why. What I show in that one video alone is completely incompatible with her understanding of her circuit and electronics in general, much less the foundations of electronics in QED. She cannot refute it, she cannot explain it under her "thesis"... so she must ignore it, or call it fake. (Which latter amuses me greatly.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
Or... for a slightly more complex example..... this one offers plenty of grist for Ainslie's fantasy mill. Go ahead, Anslie.... watch it, and tear it up, with timestamp references.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo
Guys, I am getting more than a little tired of the repeated efforts of TK and Picowatt et al ... you notice how their names are perpetually 'linked' to this common cause ... take the trouble to post over select passages of my own post. They dare not simply post the link. Lest you read the whole of the post and not those selected passages where the sense is explained in the balance of that unpublished post. This is required for that 'perpetual spin' and is part of their propagandising techniques. In my defense therefore, let me post over the WHOLE of that post. I've posted it over in a couple of posts for easy reading. Here it is...
"And this Guys is about the perpetual 'spin' advanced by picowatt and TK...et al.
The foundation of Quantum theories is based on a simple premise. Excepting the photon, everything that can be known and measured about stable particles, their spin, their mass, their charge, is done when they are in an artificial state of relative rest. With regards to the electron - in it's natural state this particle is never in a state of rest. Therefore no-one knows what the electron is doing in it's orbital state. Not its velocity - nor its mass - nor strictly speaking - even its location within the atom. All predictions of an electron's action within an atomic abode are based on statistical PROBABILITY. It is a study of 'likely outcomes' and it is derived in precisely the same way that our statisticians predict outcomes. It's a dependable prediction - on a general or quantum basis. It is never applicable on a particular basis. Hence the term QUANTUM. What picowatt and TK are doing, poor sods, is to try and advance that quantum physics knows PRECISELY what is going on. Notwithstanding the acknowledged shortfall in quantum physics where all QED experts first and foremost - ACKNOWLEDGE this impossibility as the FOUNDATION STONE of all quantum studies. The experts can and will ONLY give a prediction based on probability. They freely confess that cannot be precise. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle EXPLAINS PRECISELY THIS PROBLEM.
NOW. TK is trying to describe the 'domino effect' of electrons as the transfer of current flow. On a step by step basis - which is the only justifiable explanation of current flow. And this because it is also the ONLY model that acknowledges that there are no extra electrons introduced that are extraneous to that electric circuitry. But here we have the first problem. The 'step by step' model or analogy has nothing to do with Quantum physics. It's something else. Possibly it's philosophy. But then it's really bad philosophy. It's trying to explain the particular by reference to the general. That step by step - that domino effect - is TK's analogy to the person who by entering a room then reaches the tipping point - that maximum occupancy. Whereupon he proposes that another occupant then leaves that room through a back door - in a precise and equal exchange. BUT. The thing is this. In order for the one person to 'come in' and for another to 'go out' takes a measurable quotient of time. And it's that time that our physicists have measured that it takes one electron to replace another electron in its proposed passage from one outer energy level of one atom to the outer energy level of another atom. IF this were the explanation for the continuous nature of current flow - THEN - it would take about 20 minutes for those electrons to shuffle through your average 2 - 4 meters of wire from the switch to the appliance - before that appliance would get the benefit of that 'exchange'. Again. It would take 20 minutes from the moment that you throw the switch 'on' to getting your kettle to start cooking - your light to light - your fan to turn - and so on.
continued / ...
Continued /...
What TK and picowatt are trying to infer is that they can explain what the electron is doing on that 'particular' basis. It is a question that our greats themselves - those pioneers of Quantum physics - have declined to answer. It is a question - nonetheless - that they and other electrical engineers have attempted to explain - are attempting to explain and will, no doubt CONTINUE to attempt to explain. But to do so they first need to reach into an abuse of philosophical argument that has everything to do with wild speculation and nothing to do with logic or science. Again. It has never been PROVED. This model ERRS. Radically. It is NOT APPLICABLE TO OUR MEASURED EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. On the contrary. The experimental evidence REFUTES this model.And yet, for some reason - picowatt and TK prefer it that I rely on their speculations related to this when our Greats themselves have declined to speculate. And they seem to see fit to criticise ME - for not following their argument. I will not. And would caution you all - you SHOULD not. It is a spurious argument based on spurious premises - that get progressively more absurd as they get more and more embroiled. It is an example of the courtiers to the Emperor who flatter him and themselves that they can see the colours in the Emperor's New Cloak.IT IS UTTERLY AND RIDICULOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE.
And while I'm at it - for picowatt's consideration. IF my test battery outlasts the control - then I take it he realises that will FINALLY disprove his absurd interpretations of quantum theories. And related to my knowledge of electronics. It is SPARCE - AT BEST. But I am NOT talking electronics in this really simple apparatus. I am TALKING PHYSICS PRINCIPLES - taht subject that they dare not discuss except as it relates to TK's somewhat ridiculous version of QED. He is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance. I've already tested this. WE WILL. BY A LONG SHOT.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Added
What our thesis does is this. It DEFINES the material property of charge in line with Faraday's Lines of Force. It is a self-consistent argument. It points to an energy potential that has been OVERLOOKED - to the entire benefit of our energy monopolists. To forfeit this model and replace it with that 'field study' will FOREVER leave us free of our grid locked dependencies. It is NO WONDER that picowatt and TK and 'The Boss' and Sean - et al - RELY on that ridiculous variation to Quantum Physics. I only caution you all to be alert to this."
Do take the trouble to read it. It's critical if you're going to fully appreciate that 'AGENDA' that they have. Regards,Rosemary
Hey Rosemary you little mute doll:
Here is a comment made to me very recently by one of the regular members of the forums:
QuoteI am sorry to see you are still in the Darkness, my friend...
The Clip will be taken down...over my DEAD BODY...My Dear Friend...I have ENOUGH Scientific Proof of what am posting here, My Science, is NOT about ANCIENT LAWS PUSHING...Wrong Models, Wrong Concepts, Mutilated Science...
I am not just a You Tube amateur video maker ...I am a Scientist.
If You do not like it, just don't watch it, am not forcing anyone to...
Considering this particular day today, how do you feel about threatening to reveal people's identities without their consent?
MileHigh
QuoteHe is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance. I've already tested this. WE WILL. BY A LONG SHOT.
That's really confidence building. The experimenter knows what the results of her experiments are going to be before even performing them.
Rosemary, if you actually try to perform some experiments by yourself my suggestion to everyone is to not offer her one single iota of help. It should be a real comedy and a complete shambles.
Little Miss Mosfet is going to test a MOSFET circuit when she doesn't even know how a MOSFET works.
Little Miss Mosfet is going to test a MOSFET circuit when she doesn't even know how a MOSFET works.
Little Miss Mosfet is going to test a MOSFET circuit when she doesn't even know how a MOSFET works.
Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want...
Sorry, my dear!
And where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don't bother, they're here.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 20, 2012, 10:07:50 PM
Hey Rosemary you little mute doll:
Here is a comment made to me very recently by one of the regular members of the forums:
Considering this particular day today, how do you feel about threatening to reveal people's identities without their consent?
MileHigh
I've answered you on my troll thread MileHigh. That's where this subject BELONGS.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2732.html#msg2732
Rosie Pose
Ainslie, take that one video, Mosfets How Do They Work Parts 2 and 3, watch it, and tell us specifically WHERE and HOW I am wrong about anything in it. Explain the phenomena illustrated using your "thesis" and what you think you know about physics.
You cannot.
For that matter, explain what I've been working on for the past several weeks: the wireless transmission of power... REAL power.... using methods and techniques and calculations and measurements that you claim are wrong. How, then, am I doing it? Do you think that I am "faking" what you see in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw)
Or this one, made just a few minutes ago?
http://youtu.be/MK90_CbnAeY
You are so far behind it would be pitiful if it wasn't so pathetic.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 20, 2012, 10:37:05 PM
Ainslie, take that one video, Mosfets How Do They Work Parts 2 and 3, watch it, and tell us specifically WHERE and HOW I am wrong about anything in it. Explain the phenomena illustrated using your "thesis" and what you think you know about physics.
You cannot.
INDEED I cannot. Nor will I. I no longer bother with those videos of yours TK. I prefer to be taught by articulate and intelligent members such as Poynty or Groundloop - or even directly from our Greats. You are utterly INCAPABLE of teaching anything at all.
Rosie Pose
And with reference to this - your unreferenced EDIT
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 20, 2012, 10:37:05 PM
For that matter, explain what I've been working on for the past several weeks: the wireless transmission of power... REAL power.... using methods and techniques and calculations and measurements that you claim are wrong. How, then, am I doing it? Do you think that I am "faking" what you see in this video?
I could not care LESS what you've been working on. But it's a comfort to read that you consider it BRILLIANT. In which case I'm sure that it's been inundated with thousands of viewers who share your opinion of your own brilliance. What I have read - with some alarm - are your absurdities related to the electron current flow. Sadly. If this is the measure of your contributions to science then unfortunately - and at best - it's RIDICULOUS
Rosie Posie
changed 'is' to 'are'
You are so full of yourself it's amazing. You cannot take my challenge AT ALL because you know that you will just show your ignorance.
Not only are you an overweening ignoramus you are also an amazing hypocrite. You say that I am wrong... but you WILL NOT bother to illustrate HOW, using my own very clearly presented videos.
Because you CANNOT, and you dare not try, because you will make yet another laughingstock of yourself.
added "overweening" , you hypocrite.
Rosemary:
QuoteMy 'feelings' related to identity exposure are irrelevant. What I think is that anyone who takes the trouble to malign or impugn or insult or denigrate the name or the work of anyone at all - then they should be absolutely FREE TO DO SO. That is in the interests of 'freedom of speech'. However - IF they do so then they must also post under their OWN NAMES - in order that the 'maligned' or impugned' or 'insulted' or 'denigrated' can access legal recourse in order to redress those abuses - AS REQUIRED. Else it's NOT freedom of expression. It's simply the illegal ABUSE of 'freedoms of speech' without the threat of accountability. It's that practice that is systematically ERODING the most excellent value of open source.
I am entirely satisfied that should any of you TROLLS have been forced to disclose your OWN identities - then you would have been somewhat less inclined to go to such extraordinary lengths to TRY TO DESTROY MY OWN.
Rosie
You made the choice to reveal your identity - tough noogies for you. It was a stupid thing to do and you can't undo it. When you are being called "stupid" with respect to electronics and energy and the proper use of oscilloscopes, the problem for you is that it's all true. It's all true Rosemary - every day you prove to the people that read you what a clueless ignoramus you are. It's the truth - you have "destroyed yourself" in a manner of speaking.
Calling you "stupid" is not an insult, it's actually an observation and it's true.
I can feel the heat building up with your ridiculous and blatantly untrue comments about TK's educational discussion and PW's comments. You are lying through your teeth and everybody knows it. It's pathetic.
Yes, it feels like the flame-out is coming soon. Perhaps you are subconsciously doing this because the alleged testing is coming up and you are actually mortified at the thought of doing it yourself. Remember, you have no clue how a MOSFET works and you have no clue how to operate an oscilloscope. Remember the smoke steaming off the top of Aaron's head as he made a complete fool of himself when he tried to replicate your first circuit? Your head will be on fire by comparison.
Indeed, it feels like another Rosie Posie flame-out is about to happen.
And you are disgusting because you will not acknowledge that you could endanger the lives of other people, even if the possibility is remote. Complete and total gutter trash moral bankruptcy. Shame on you, so revolting.
Flame out and disappear and start taking meds to get yourself away from this obsession. Chuck your garbage in the garbage and disappear. That would do you a lot of good.
MileHigh
Actually - while I'm at it I had better post my answer to MileHigh here as well - lest he IGNORE that answer and pretend that he's not seen it.
Rosie Pose
added
Apologies MileHigh. It seems I underestimate you. You DID INDEED post my reply. But I'll leave my post in nonetheless to remind people how thin is your argument. And WHAT IS A FLAME OUT? I've never heard the term?
Rosie
Here's that reply...
Quote from: Rosie on July 20, 2012, 10:31:09 PM
Quote from: MileHigh on July 20, 2012, 10:07:50 PM
Considering this particular day today, how do you feel about threatening to reveal people's identities without their consent?
MileHigh
My 'feelings' related to identity exposure are irrelevant. What I think is that anyone who takes the trouble to malign or impugn or insult or denigrate the name or the work of anyone at all - then they should be absolutely FREE TO DO SO. That is in the interests of 'freedom of speech'. However - IF they do so then they must also post under their OWN NAMES - in order that the 'maligned' or impugned' or 'insulted' or 'denigrated' can access legal recourse in order to redress those abuses - AS REQUIRED. Else it's NOT freedom of expression. It's simply the illegal ABUSE of 'freedoms of speech' without the threat of accountability. It's that practice that is systematically ERODING the most excellent value of open source.
I am entirely satisfied that should any of you TROLLS have been forced to disclose your OWN identities - then you would have been somewhat less inclined to go to such extraordinary lengths to TRY TO DESTROY MY OWN.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2012, 10:02:50 PM
IF this were the explanation for the continuous nature of current flow - THEN - it would take about 20 minutes for those electrons to shuffle through your average 2 - 4 meters of wire from the switch to the appliance - before that appliance would get the benefit of that 'exchange'. Again. It would take 20 minutes from the moment that you throw the switch 'on' to getting your kettle to start cooking - your light to light - your fan to turn - and so on.
continued / ...
In my opinion, if you are talking about AC the kettle or the light, the electrons moving back and forth in the wire from the plug outlet probably never reach the device being powered. Just back and forth, from one point to another. Many of the electrons that are in the filament of the bulb being powered probably never leave the filament, just back and forth or at rest.
Just because electrons seem to move slow, doesnt mean there isnt any power behind it. Like 1 molecule of water, then fill an empty ocean with them. Even what would look like a relatively slow looking wave can contain immense power.
Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that the reaction at the other end of the conductor cant possibly seem instantaneous when pressure is applied to the beginning of that wire.
Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that, what seem to be large value, big numbers cannot be applied to a record of their flow. Tiny buggers and a whole lot of them.
Ya cant let what seems to be slow, have any meaning in what can be done at that density and speed. What seems slow is really like an asteroid flying from solar system to solar system at speeds we can only dream of, if put to scale. imagine the energy it would take to do that.
But electrons dont always have to seem slow. Consider them in a vacuum, say a CRT(television picture tube), the speed of the electrons from the cathode guns to the anode screen at the front of the tube I would say is quite fast. So really slow from the circuit board to the cathode, then full charge from the cathode through the tubes vacuum to the positively charged screen, and then slow again once in the conductor circuit.
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on July 20, 2012, 11:43:53 PM
In my opinion, if you are talking about AC the kettle or the light, the electrons moving back and forth in the wire from the plug outlet probably never reach the device being powered. Just back and forth, from one point to another. Many of the electrons that are in the filament of the bulb being powered probably never leave the filament, just back and forth or at rest.
Just because electrons seem to move slow, doesnt mean there isnt any power behind it. Like 1 molecule of water, then fill an empty ocean with them. Even what would look like a relatively slow looking wave can contain immense power.
Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that the reaction at the other end of the conductor cant possibly seem instantaneous when pressure is applied to the beginning of that wire.
Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that, what seem to be large value, big numbers cannot be applied to a record of their flow. Tiny buggers and a whole lot of them.
Ya cant let what seems to be slow, have any meaning in what can be done at that density and speed. What seems slow is really like an asteroid flying from solar system to solar system at speeds we can only dream of, if put to scale. imagine the energy it would take to do that.
But electrons dont always have to seem slow. Consider them in a vacuum, say a CRT(television picture tube), the speed of the electrons from the cathode guns to the anode screen at the front of the tube I would say is quite fast. So really slow from the circuit board to the cathode, then full charge from the cathode through the tubes vacuum to the positively charged screen, and then slow again once in the conductor circuit.
MaGs
Golly Magsy, That's a new take. Indeed. We can all of us assume that the speed of light itself is relative. Good point. I'm sure you're right. The trouble is that you can't measure a speculated velocity. One can only measure ACTUAL velocity. And our chemists and particle physicists have done this. And that's the speed. Take it or leave it. Think what you like about it. It's still a paradox. Sadly. And IF there's pressures somewhere - somehow - then those pressures are WHAT? Nothing? A field? And then? A field of WHAT? A force exerted by the vacuum? So? What's that vacuum? A place that exerts a force? It explains NOTHING - sadly. And it's that 'nothing' that you guys have not been able to explain. The best you can manage is 'holes' - which in turn makes no kind of logical sense AT ALL.
Kindest regards Magsy,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2012, 10:42:15 PM
INDEED I cannot. Nor will I. I no longer bother with those videos of yours TK. I prefer to be taught by articulate and intelligent members such as Poynty or Groundloop - or even directly from our Greats. You are utterly INCAPABLE of teaching anything at all.
Rosie Pose
This is great! There is much .99 and GL can teach you. The question is, however, will you learn?
If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?
Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?
Just curious...
Quote from: picowatt on July 20, 2012, 11:57:25 PM
This is great! There is much .99 and GL can teach you. The question is, however, will you learn?
If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?
Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?
Just curious...
The difference between Poynty and Groundloop is that they're both highly intelligent and in their own fields - frankly - I think they're geniuses. I have not and will not comment on their arguments until I hear them. Right now I have NOT heard them. And IF they're right - then we will NEVER be able to extend the capacity of a battery beyond its watt hour rating. No-one will. We have done those experiments - TO DEATH. We know what the outcome will be - certainly as it relates to the COP>17 test. Not yet on our NERD circuit. So. Whatever argument is finally USED - then it has to incorporate that gain. Short of this their arguments will be void. BUT their knowledge of electronics will ALWAYS be far in excess of my own. Anyone's is. But in my view their talents are the acme of electronics and circuitry. And while I have very little of that knowledge I have I have a fair understanding of pure physics. Which is the subject of that apparatus. And that knowledge of the fundamentals of physics is also the foundation for my own argument. You guys can scoff it as long as you dare. It's a required process to the introduction of new paradigm shifts. And I'm perfectly happy that I'm the brunt. But history reverses - and we'll see what happens when I finally do those demonstrations.
And regarding both Groundloop and Poynty - they both have the further merit of being able to write a post without insulting the technology or myself. That far exceeds your own competence picowatt - and CERTAINLY it exceeds TK's. He can't post without including gratuitous insults. But that's because he's intellectually constrained by his GER... as a measure of ...dare I say it... his pickle? Something like that. I've never quite got my head around it. They both seem somewhat incidental and irrelevant. Frankly I get the distinct impression that he's trying to make us think that they're measurable. Golly.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 12:10:16 AM
The difference between Poynty and Groundloop is that they're both highly intelligent and in their own fields - frankly - I think they're geniuses. I have not and will not comment on their arguments until I hear them. Right now I have NOT heard them. And IF they're right - then we will NEVER be able to extend the capacity of a battery beyond its watt hour rating. No-one will. We have done those experiments - TO DEATH. We know what the outcome will be - certainly as it relates to the COP>17 test. Not yet on our NERD circuit. So. Whatever argument is finally USED - then it has to incorporate that gain. Short of this their arguments will be void. BUT their knowledge of electronics will ALWAYS be far in excess of my own. Anyone's is. But in my view their talents are the acme of electronics and circuitry. And while I have very little of that knowledge I have I have a fair understanding of pure physics. Which is the subject of that apparatus. And that knowledge of the fundamentals of physics is also the foundation for my own argument. You guys can scoff it as long as you dare. It's a required process to the introduction of new paradigm shifts. And I'm perfectly happy that I'm the brunt. But history reverses - and we'll see what happens when I finally do those demonstrations.
And regarding both Groundloop and Poynty - they both have the further merit of being able to write a post without insulting the technology or myself. That far exceeds your own competence picowatt - and CERTAINLY it exceeds TK's. He can't post without including gratuitous insults. But that's because he's intellectually constrained by his GER... as a measure of ...dare I say it... his pickle? Something like that. I've never quite got my head around it. They both seem somewhat incidental and irrelevant. Frankly I get the distinct impression that he's trying to make us think that they're measurable. Golly.
Rosie Pose
You will find that if you go back and read your locked thread, it was YOU that first denigrted MY abilities when I asked you about Q1. You wanted to argue that I was not even qualified to read your 'scope. But no matter.
I will repeat my previous post for you, as again you provide no answers...
"This is great! There is much .99 and GL can teach you. The question is, however, will you learn?
If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?
Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?
Just curious..."
My dear picowatt - YOU need to reread that thread and your own contributions. And you really need to learn the trick of saying something new. That is if you expect anyone at all to respect your opinions.
Rosie Pose
Lets put it this way Rosie. If they move at light speed, how long do you think your battery charge will last with the electrons moving from the NEG post to the POS post, at light speed?
Or a super capacitor, 3000 Farads at 2.3v, how is it going to keep the led lit for so long if the electrons escape to the POS side of the cap, through the lit led, at light speed?
Say we have a 16awg wire and we slice a pepperoni off the end 1 atom thick. How many atoms of copper could you possibly imagine there might be in that copper pepperoni?
Thats a lot of electrons to move, just in that 1 slice. Now stack those slices 100 atoms thick. 100 times more electrons to move, just 100 atoms thick. Compared to the AWG diameter of the copper disk, we need a whole lot more layers for the stack length to equal the 16awg width of the wire.
Its the speed of how a circuit reacts as a whole, that is what happens at the speed of light. A wire from NY to Cali can transfer an ac signal because of chain reaction in the wire. A wave. Wave Waveform positive negative pressure and decompression back and forth.
Like a wave in the ocean, out at sea. The ups are where pressure is applied, and the dips are depressurized. But just because that wave traveled 100 feet from your boat to my boat doesnt mean that the actual water molecules traveled from your boat to mine.
MaGs
Magsy,
Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 12:26:52 AM
Lets put it this way Rosie. If they move at light speed, how long do you think your battery charge will last with the electrons moving from the NEG post to the POS post, at light speed?
Or a super capacitor, 3000 Farads at 2.3v, how is it going to keep the led lit for so long if the electrons escape to the POS side of the cap, through the lit led, at light speed?
Say we have a 16awg wire and we slice a pepperoni off the end 1 atom thick. How many atoms of copper could you possibly imagine there might be in that copper pepperoni?
Thats a lot of electrons to move, just in that 1 slice. Now stack those slices 100 atoms thick. 100 times more electrons to move, just 100 atoms thick. Compared to the AWG diameter of the copper disk, we need a whole lot more layers for the stack length to equal the 16awg width of the wire.
Its the speed of how a circuit reacts as a whole, that is what happens at the speed of light. A wire from NY to Cali can transfer an ac signal because of chain reaction in the wire. A wave. Wave Waveform positive negative pressure and decompression back and forth.
Like a wave in the ocean, out a sea. The ups are where pressure is applied, and the dips are depressurized. But just because that wave traveled 100 feet from your boat to my boat doesnt mean that the actual water molecules traveled from your boat to mine.
MaGs
It is my opinion which is supported by the measured evidence - that electrons do not move at light speed through a circuit. I believe that some material outside of the atom and incidental to the electron - moves at twice the speed of light. But that's my thesis. The point being that IF one includes that 'field' AND it's particle - then we would have a reasonable explanation for the instantaneous property of electric energy. And again. It is NOT my theory. I am only using Faraday's field theory. And I'm theoretically proposing a particle to that field. It would not conform to the standard model. And it would yet reflect the required properties to answer ALL outstanding questions related to the 'missing particle' or the 'god particle' or 'Higgs boson'. Or call it what you will.
But it's not required that you buy into the concept. On the contrary. If you're happy that the standard model answers everything - then that's fine. No-one is obliged to believe anything at all. But leave it there Magsy. I'm not about to discuss my thesis on this rather unfortunate thread.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 12:22:36 AM
My dear picowatt - YOU need to reread that thread and your own contributions. And you really need to learn the trick of saying something new. That is if you expect anyone at all to respect your opinions.
Rosie Pose
I have reread portions of that that thread, several times. At least you have dropped the "offset argument" regarding how to read your 'scope.
Something new? How does that "trick" change a fact. I would indeed move on and speak to something new if you would ever provide the correct answer to my very first question and respond ethically by retracting the erroneous data related thereto.
If you value .99's and GL's genius, then why not ask them about Q1?
In FIG3, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, approximately +12volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. All will agree that +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 will turn Q1 fully on. Yet, during that same portion of the FG cycle, no significant current flow is indicated by the CSR trace as would be anticipated if Q1 were turned on. This can only mean that Q1 is either non-functional or is not connected as per the schematic.
As well, in FIG6 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn Q1 on while the CSR trace indicates no significant current flow. Again, this can only mean that Q1 is non-functional or not connected as per the schematic.
In FIG5, a capture from the month prior, approximately +5 volts is indicated as Q1 gate drive and, as expected, significant current flow is indicated by the CSR.
Moving on to "something new" and just pretending these facts will fade away does not address them at all...
I would say that when an electron jumps from one atom to the next, that the jump happens at light speed. that distance is very small But to say that some extra (say 500)electrons pumped into the wire from NY to Cali, and believe that it is those 500 electrons that made it to cali, bypassing all the other electrons in the cable is just silly. Those 500 electrons will be pumped into the beginning of the wire, applying pressure/tension in the wire. In Cali, 500 electrons that were sitting at the very end of the cable will be pumped out and thats it.
If we have a tube the size of a quarter(US 25cent piece) roll from US to you and it is filled with quarters, from me to you. If I push 10 quarters in my end, 10 quarters will fall out at your end, instantly. But my quarters didnt travel at light speed. But you received what I sent, at virtually the speed of light. Is that so hard to believe?
This new theory you have. Have you seen it? Measured it?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 01:11:45 AM
I would say that when an electron jumps from one atom to the next, that the jump happens at light speed. that distance is very small But to say that some extra (say 500)electrons pumped into the wire from NY to Cali, and believe that it is those 500 electrons that made it to cali, bypassing all the other electrons in the cable is just silly. Those 500 electrons will be pumped into the beginning of the wire, applying pressure/tension in the wire. In Cali, 500 electrons that were sitting at the very end of the cable will be pumped out and thats it.
If we have a tube the size of a quarter(US 25cent piece) roll from US to you and it is filled with quarters, from me to you. If I push 10 quarters in my end, 10 quarters will fall out at your end, instantly. But my quarters didnt travel at light speed. But you received what I sent, at virtually the speed of light. Is that so hard to believe?
Yes it's hard to believe. If you push 10 quarters in at one end then DOWN THAT LINE ten quarters need to be replaced - one, by one, by one. No other way to complete that journey. And that speed is NOT at light speed. It is measurably SLOWER. That's NOT my argument. That's our EXPERTS. And they really do know how to measure this. So. If you choose to believe this - then, frankly, you're on your own. But feel free. No-one is prescribing beliefs. It's just that belief has nothing to do with science.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 01:11:45 AMThis new theory you have. Have you seen it? Measured it?
YES INDEED. We've measured it in both our COP>17 tests and in our NERD circuits. And we've reconciled it with the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron. We've argued it as a field - and we've used self-consistent arguments THROUGHOUT.
added
Here's the multiple proof...
It reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron
It reconciles the Casimir effect
It reconciles the gravitational force
It answers to the requirement of missing matter measured by our astrophysicists
It conforms to the non-standard properties of the Higgs Boson
It reconciles all the forces
It conforms to known physical principles
It conforms to the composite structure proposed in the protons
It introduces the concept of a fundamental particle as the basis of all particles as required by our particle physicists
It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.
That's not a bad start.
Rosie
added...It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.
Don't forget... last year she went for a solid MONTH, over 400 posts, deliberately misleading everyone about the schematic they claimed to use in the video demo that she denied posting to her own YT account. And just a few days ago she bemoaned the fact that she and .99 couldn't have kept it under wraps for even longer. .99's "rather unfortunate" publication of the correct schematic... at least correct for THAT DEMO... upset her duplicitous applecart, though.
There is absolutely no telling how she had things hooked up, for any trial except those where we can see actual photographs of the apparatus. SHE CAN'T EVEN READ a schematic today. And after all this... especially the demo, where one schematic was shown in the video (incorrect, a single mosfet and no FG black lead), another described in the video ( all 5 in parallel), two more given in the "papers" describing the demonstration's trials, and a fifth one finally shown to be used, by .99...... after all that, and her express admission that she deliberately wanted to keep that schematic secret..... how can anyone believe anything she says about schematics and what was used when?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 01:24:45 AM
Don't forget... last year she went for a solid MONTH, over 400 posts, deliberately misleading everyone about the schematic they claimed to use in the video demo that she denied posting to her own YT account. And just a few days ago she bemoaned the fact that she and .99 couldn't have kept it under wraps for even longer. .99's "rather unfortunate" publication of the correct schematic... at least correct for THAT DEMO... upset her duplicitous applecart, though.
There is absolutely no telling how she had things hooked up, for any trial except those where we can see actual photographs of the apparatus. SHE CAN'T EVEN READ a schematic today. And after all this... especially the demo, where one schematic was shown in the video (incorrect, a single mosfet and no FG black lead), another described in the video ( all 5 in parallel), two more given in the "papers" describing the demonstration's trials, and a fifth one finally shown to be used, by .99...... after all that, and her express admission that she deliberately wanted to keep that schematic secret..... how can anyone believe anything she says about schematics and what was used when?
Indeed - TK. I was MOST anxious to prevent either you or FTC from stealing this as is your wont. SADLY it didn't work. You've attempted to appropriate this as your own work - and as expected. And like FTC you're also trying to trivialise the numbers. And sadly - there's nothing I can do to stop you short of those demonstrations. Then you'll need to learn to sing to another tune. Or you'll need to be very busy decrying the evidence in spite of that evidence. Can't wait. My apparatus will be back on MONDAY. And then it's ready - set - go. How nice is that?
Rosie Posie
ADDED
AND TODAY IS OUR WINTER EQUINOX. THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER HERE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. A NICE OMEN FOR US. Not so good for you TK - picowatt - Sean - Mookie - The boss - and the rest. I believe you're moving into a winter. I trust it will only give you all a great deal of 'discontent'.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 01:17:53 AM
Yes it's hard to believe. If you push 10 quarters in at one end then DOWN THAT LINE ten quarters need to be replaced - one, by one, by one. No other way to complete that journey. And that speed is NOT at light speed. It is measurably SLOWER. That's NOT my argument. That's our EXPERTS. And they really do know how to measure this. So. If you choose to believe this - then, frankly, you're on your own. But feel free. No-one is prescribing beliefs. It's just that belief has nothing to do with science.
YES INDEED. We've measured it in both our COP>17 tests and in our NERD circuits. And we've reconciled it with the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron. We've argued it as a field - and we've used self-consistent arguments THROUGHOUT.
added
Here's the multiple proof...
It reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron
It reconciles the Casimir effect
It reconciles the gravitational force
It answers to the requirement of missing matter measured by our astrophysicists
It conforms to the non-standard properties of the Higgs Boson
It reconciles all the forces
It conforms to known physical principles
It conforms to the composite structure proposed in the protons
It introduces the concept of a fundamental particle as the basis of all particles as required by our particle physicists
It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.
That's not a bad start.
Rosie
added...It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.
It's a stupid bunch of word salad, that's what it is. Go ahead, show us here just exactly how it "reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron". You cannot. You don't even understand how to derive quantities at all. You are dreaming.
You can't even _define_ the Casimir effect, and when you start talking about "our string theorists" I cannot even imagine the jumble of nonsense that you have inside your head. YOU CAN'T EVEN GET A SIMPLE STATEMENT ABOUT YOUR OWN CIRCUIT RIGHT. Over and over you misrepresent and misunderstand the simplest things people say to you. And you really expect people to believe that you understand the things you mention above. You are a real joke, Ainslie. Your "thesis" does none of the things you think it does, at all. You cannot use it to predict a single valid experimental result, for example. You cannot use it to explain HOW A CAPACITOR FUNCTIONS. You cannot use it to explain ANY of the phenomena I show in my videos concerning caps, mosfets and their relationship to your circuit. In short, your word salad "thesis" is not worth the pixels used to display it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 01:30:14 AM
Indeed - TK. I was MOST anxious to prevent either you or FTC from stealing this as is your wont. SADLY it didn't work. You've attempted to appropriate this as your own work - and as expected. And like FTC you're also trying to trivialise the numbers. And sadly - there's nothing I can do to stop you short of those demonstrations. Then you'll need to learn to sing to another tune. Or you'll need to be very busy decrying the evidence in spite of that evidence. Can't wait. My apparatus will be back on MONDAY. And then it's ready - set - go. How nice is that?
Rosie Posie
ADDED
AND TODAY IS OUR WINTER EQUINOX. THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER HERE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. A NICE OMEN FOR US. Not so good for you TK - picowatt - Sean - Mookie - The boss - and the rest. I believe you're moving into a winter. I trust it will only give you all a great deal of 'discontent'.
R
AND TODAY IS OUR WINTER EQUINOX. Golly, Ainslie... on what planet do you live? THE EQUINOXES OCCUR IN MARCH AND SEPTEMBER, on Earth, you idiot. And the solstices in June and December.
And today is.... JULY 21. In other words, you once again talk about something that you know nothing of.
Now there will be post after post of Ainslie telling us that no matter what WIKI, or astronomers might say, THE WINTER EQUINOX IN SOUTH AFRICA is on July 21st.
And I believe that in the middle of July in South Texas.... we are pretty durn far from "moving into winter".
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 01:56:00 AM
AND TODAY IS OUR WINTER EQUINOX.
Golly, Ainslie... on what planet do you live? THE EQUINOXES OCCUR IN MARCH AND SEPTEMBER, on Earth, you idiot. And the solstices in June and December.
And today is.... JULY 21. In other words, you once again talk about something that you know nothing of.
Now there will be post after post of Ainslie telling us that no matter what WIKI, or astronomers might say, THE WINTER EQUINOX IN SOUTH AFRICA is on July 21st.
Quite right. I meant to say solstice. Either way. It's a GREAT BEGINNING TO THE SEASON FOR US.
Regards little TK. And let us know more about that GER.... thingy. We need this to substantiate your definition of word salad.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 02:00:23 AM
And I believe that in the middle of July in South Texas.... we are pretty durn far from "moving into winter".
Quite right little TK. As ever. The use of the analogy was simply to imply that the looming 'winter of discontent' is more to do with the unfolding evidence that we'll be orchestrating. Which leaves you where? In the full flood of an enjoyable Texan sun. It seems your 'GER' can't quite accommodate analogy. You need to try and enlarge it.
Rosie Pose
QuoteIndeed - TK. I was MOST anxious to prevent either you or FTC from stealing this as is your wont. SADLY it didn't work. You've attempted to appropriate this as your own work - and as expected.
That, you reprehensible and ignorant plagiarist and liar ... is a slanderous lie.
Your entire saga is peppered throughout with similar lies about what you did and about your collaborators. I, on the other hand always give credit where it is due. You seek to cover up and hide and denigrate the contributions and hard work of others, especially those... all of those.... who eventually find that they cannot agree with your bogus claims.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 02:00:47 AM
Quite right. I meant to say solstice. Either way. It's a GREAT BEGINNING TO THE SEASON FOR US.
Regards little TK. And let us know more about that GER.... thingy. We need this to substantiate your definition of word salad.
Rosie Pose
Equinoxes.... March and September.
Solstices.... June and December.
Today... 21 July.
You... FAIL.
And your "GER" is again your own hallucination, as is your constant obsession with the size and texture of my pickle.
We have been through this before you ignorant tipsy bloviator.
The GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION, or GRE, is a standardised set of tests administered several times yearly as ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS FOR POST GRADUATE STUDY PROGRAMS, doctoral programs, Ainslie. It is one of the tests accepted by MENSA as qualifying exams for their membership. You can be assured that you would not do well on this set of tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examinations
http://www.petersons.com/graduate-schools/sample-gre-test-questions.aspx
And since you asked about my pickle YET AGAIN... here you go.
Actually there's more...
It reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron
It reconciles the Casimir effect
It reconciles the gravitational force
It answers to the requirement of missing matter measured by our astrophysicists
It conforms to the non-standard properties of the Higgs Boson
It reconciles all the forces
It conforms to known physical principles
It conforms to the composite structure proposed in the protons
It introduces the concept of a fundamental particle as the basis of all particles as required by our particle physicists
It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.
It conforms to Faraday's Lines of Force
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 01:17:53 AM
Yes it's hard to believe. If you push 10 quarters in at one end then DOWN THAT LINE ten quarters need to be replaced - one, by one, by one. No other way to complete that journey. And that speed is NOT at light speed. It is measurably SLOWER. That's NOT my argument. That's our EXPERTS. And they really do know how to measure this. So. If you choose to believe this - then, frankly, you're on your own. But feel free. No-one is prescribing beliefs. It's just that belief has nothing to do with science.
YES INDEED. We've measured it in both our COP>17 tests and in our NERD circuits. And we've reconciled it with the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron. We've argued it as a field - and we've used self-consistent arguments THROUGHOUT.
added
Here's the multiple proof...
It reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron
It reconciles the Casimir effect
It reconciles the gravitational force
It answers to the requirement of missing matter measured by our astrophysicists
It conforms to the non-standard properties of the Higgs Boson
It reconciles all the forces
It conforms to known physical principles
It conforms the composite structure proposed in the protons
It introduces the concept of a fundamental particle as the basis of all particles.
That's not a bad start.
Rosie
The tube from me to you is full of quarters, full. I push 10 extra quarters in my end and 10 quarters will fall out your end. But you dont have the actual quarters that I pushed into my end. You have the 10 quarters that were sitting in your end of the tube, because the tube is full.
So our cable from NY to Cali is full of copper. Electrons are more free to break their bonds in conductive materials. A capacitors plates can be pumped with more electrons than the metal plate normally has at neutral charge, and the plate can be depleted of electrons, less than the metal plates normal holdings.
That cable from NY to Cali, I could pump extra electrons in the cable, even though the Cali end of the cable is disconnected. Not connected to anything. Now the cable has a static negative charge. After I pump the charge in at the NY end and disconnect, then the people at the Cali end can hook up and use that charge, whenever they decide to do so. However large the charge is, what ever I am able to put in, that is what will be available to the end user in Cali. Even if its just a pip, or a static zap.
When I pump the electrons in at the NY end, and the Cali end is not connected yet, we are cramming more electrons into the copper cable than it normally would have at neutral charge. This creates tension, pressure. These electrons dont like room mates, they like to live alone. They will take any hole they can jump to to get away from a room mate electron. If we introduce 500 extra electrons, we are forcing room mate ism. The 500 move in to other electrons apartments and then some of the original apartment dwellers move on to live with someone else, and so on and so on till those 500 extra electrons have created so much change in the cable, that there are 500 room mated apartments somewhere along that cable, spread out relatively evenly from one end of the cable to the other. This still creates tension and pressure, untill there is a release by making a connection at either end.
You do believe in static charge dont you Rose? Do you believe we can pump extra electrons into the open ended cable, as a static charge? And do you believe that we can extract that static charge from the cable at a later time? Like rubbing shoes on carpet and later discharging with the touch of a finger to a metal desk or pipe.
So if I pump those 500 electrons into the cable as a static charge, where are my 500 electrons exactly? Are they near the input end of the cable, or at the Cali end of the cable? ;)
Have you ever seen an Avramenko Plug circuit? It pumps one side of a capacitor at a time. Pumpin in 1 plate, then pumping out of the other in opposing cycles of AC.
Input is 1 wire from a secondary of a transformer, and we can charge a cap, 1 wire in.
Ive done it. I use 1 wire from a secondary of a tiny 1kv neon transformer, into a 2 diode AV plug and charge a cap, vi 1 wire, HV ac, 1 side of the cap at a time, depending on the neg or pos cycle of the AC.
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 02:09:24 AM
The tube from me to you is full of quarters, full. I push 10 extra quarters in my end and 10 quarters will fall out your end. But you dont have the actual quarters that I pushed into my end. You have the 10 quarters that were sitting in your end of the tube, because the tube is full.
So our cable from NY to Cali is full of copper. Electrons are more free to break their bonds in conductive materials. A capacitors plates can be pumped with more electrons than the metal plate normally has at neutral charge, and the plate can be depleted of electrons, less than the metal plates normal holdings.
That cable from NY to Cali, I could pump extra electrons in the cable, even though the Cali end of the cable is disconnected. Not connected to anything. Now the cable has a static negative charge. After I pump the charge in at the NY end and disconnect, then the people at the Cali end can hook up and use that charge, whenever they decide to do so. However large the charge is, what ever I am able to put in, that is what will be available to the end user in Cali. Even if its just a pip, or a static zap.
When I pump the electrons in at the NY end, and the Cali end is not connected yet, we are cramming more electrons into the copper cable than it normally would have at neutral charge. This creates tension, pressure. These electrons dont like room mates, they like to live alone. They will take any hole they can jump to to get away from a room mate electron. If we introduce 500 extra electrons, we are forcing room mate ism. The 500 move in to other electrons apartments and then some of the original apartment dwellers move on to live with someone else, and so on and so on till those 500 extra electrons have created so much change in the cable, that there are 500 room mated apartments somewhere along that cable, spread out relatively evenly from one end of the cable to the other. This still creates tension and pressure, untill there is a release by making a connection at either end.
You do believe in static charge dont you Rose? Do you believe we can pump extra electrons into the open ended cable, as a static charge? And do you believe that we can extract that static charge from the cable at a later time? Like rubbing shoes on carpet and later discharging with the touch of a finger to a metal desk or pipe.
So if I pump those 500 electrons into the cable as a static charge, where are my 500 electrons exactly? Are they near the input end of the cable, or at the Cali end of the cable? ;)
Have you ever seen an Avramenko Plug circuit? It pumps one side of a capacitor at a time. Pumpin in 1 plate, then pumping out of the other in opposing cycles of AC.
Input is 1 wire from a secondary of a transformer, and we can charge a cap, 1 wire in.
Ive done it. I use 1 wire from a secondary of a tiny 1kv neon transformer, into a 2 diode AV plug and charge a cap, vi 1 wire, HV ac, 1 side of the cap at a time, depending on the neg or pos cycle of the AC.
MaGs
Mags you'll need to argue this with our academics. If you're onto something then I'm sure they'll be delighted. They're all looking for an explanation.
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 02:07:54 AM
Actually there's more...
It reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron
It reconciles the Casimir effect
It reconciles the gravitational force
It answers to the requirement of missing matter measured by our astrophysicists
It conforms to the non-standard properties of the Higgs Boson
It reconciles all the forces
It conforms to known physical principles
It conforms to the composite structure proposed in the protons
It introduces the concept of a fundamental particle as the basis of all particles as required by our particle physicists
It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.
It conforms to Faraday's Lines of Force
Rosie
NOT actually, Ainslie. Your "thesis" does none of these things. NONE.
IN fact... it cannot even "reconcile" or explain the simple phenomena that I illustrate in my videos. Think of how nice it would feel and how you could crow... if only you could explain the VDG oil jet video...or even the simple operation of a Van De Graaff machine using your silly "thesis". But you cannot. On the other hand using QED one can precisely predict and successfully measure VDG voltages and currents based on materials used and belt speeds and size of capacity.
Yeah, Mags... .they are all looking for an explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLkgGkEzk0c
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 02:26:55 AM
Yeah, Mags... .they are all looking for an explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLkgGkEzk0c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLkgGkEzk0c)
Yeah, he invented that in 1929. Did they burn all the old books in colleges?
MaGs
So I guess she won't be asking .99 or GL about the Q1 issue anytime soon...
QuoteI could not care LESS what you've been working on. But it's a comfort to read that you consider it BRILLIANT. In which case I'm sure that it's been inundated with thousands of viewers who share your opinion of your own brilliance.
Not actually _thousands_ yet.
In fact I am still somewhat behind you in total views. But then... I've not made any fraudulent claims, I'm sharing my work completely, my schematic is actually known for sure, I've given credit where due.... all in all, my work is not nearly as controversial or entertaining as yours is.
It just works, and does what I say it does.
By the way.... the Ainslie demo video on the dooziedont channel... Ainslie's YT channel... has garnered
1,649 views since it was posted over a year ago on March 22, 2011.
I have posted several Wireless Power demonstration videos, the first one on July 8, thirteen days ago. They have garnered
986 views in total, as of today. Some of those are no doubt duplicates, as people are interested enough to follow through the new reports of new testing and developments.
Do. The. Math.
8)
Electrostatic voltmeters.... how the Heck do they work?
I'd like to see Ainslie's "thesis" explain the operation of an electrostatic voltmeter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E
Quote from: picowatt on July 21, 2012, 02:41:19 AM
So I guess she won't be asking .99 or GL about the Q1 issue anytime soon...
She thinks the equinox (or the solstice) comes in July. There is no telling when "soon" comes, in Ainslie-speak. It sure won't be anytime soon though.
QuoteElectrostatic voltmeters.... how the Heck do they work?
Har har I can take an educated guess on that one where the roots of the answer go all the way back to Grade 11 physics class.
Just the name of the device tells all. I am sure many of us remember the gold-leaf electroscope experiments. So I am betting the device is based on a large gold-leaf electroscope. Inside the device there is a pair of large ultra-thin metal plates like a "hanging sandwich" that are in electrical contact. There are some very delicate springs between the two plates. As the voltage on the plates increases the plates push apart and the springs are then put under tension. The separation distance between the plates is proportional to the voltage.
To complete the picture the device is like a bell jar capacitor. The "ground" plate of the capacitor lines the inside of the cylinder and the "hot" plate of the capacitor is the two ultra-thin metal plates as described above.
Exactly how that plate separation distance is converted into the needle movement I don't know, but the heart of the device is a giant gold-leaf electroscope.
No Google I swear.
MileHigh
Hi Guys,
Just an update and a ramble down memory lane and renewed focus for any sincere research into this subject.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2739.html#msg2739
The jig is up on you Rosemary. You are not a serious researcher and you can't do science because you are clueless. You have been broadcasting that message out on the free energy forum airwaves for several years now.
You are living in your own fishbowl under the delusion that you are a serious researcher that wants to discuss science. There is nothing scientific about what you are doing. It's all a farce.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 04:54:33 PM
The jig is up on you Rosemary. You are not a serious researcher and you can't do science because you are clueless. You have been broadcasting that message out on the free energy forum airwaves for several years now.
You are living in your own fishbowl under the delusion that you are a serious researcher that wants to discuss science. There is nothing scientific about what you are doing. It's all a farce.
So you keep saying MileHigh. I'm wondering if pure repetition does it for you. It seems to satisfy TK and picowatt. Take care there MileHigh. Your own contributions to science are invaluable.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
Hi Guys,
Just an update and a ramble down memory lane and renewed focus for any sincere research into this subject.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2739.html#msg2739
Why don't you resolve the Q1 not functioning properly issue by asking .99 about it. Just think of all the fun you will have if he tells you I am wrong...
Rosemary:
Pure repetition is much more your game than mine. Plus there has been extensive repetition in trying to teach you the same basic concepts over and over and over - and you never understand them for more than seven minutes - and then you go onto talk authoritatively about your circuit when you clearly don't understand how it works - and then you go on to denigrate others that do.
It's all a complete farce.
MileHigh
You are a penguin trying to catch buckets of zipons trapped on a never-ending spinning disk of your own imagination:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2bTwSfWtsE
The disk is never going to stop spinning and you will never stop trying to catch those zipons.
(Not to be confused with TK's mascot.)
Solstice? Equinox? You, Ainslie, continue to REPEAT over and over the same ignorant errors--- but that doesn't keep you from coming up with NEW ONES.
You know as much about the calendar and the seasons as you do about electronics and physics, apparently.... you are a month late and can't keep your terminology straight.
What a bad humorless joke you are.
@MH: You are on the right track, only the mechanism is a bit more robust. Think overlapping fixed vanes and moving vanes on an insulated axle, like an air variable capacitor.... well, not even "like" an air variable. IN FACT, it is an air variable capacitor. But the charge determines the resultant capacitance, by moving the vanes together or apart, whereas in the normal air variable cap you vary the capacitance and that varies the charge on it.
The point, though, is that Ainslie's so-called "thesis" cannot accurately describe the ES voltmeter, NOR the device that I use to generate over 50 kV in a couple of seconds, several times during that demonstration, and many times during others. Nor can she explain how I can generate fields that exert forces many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity by running a rubber band over a plastic roller connected to a couple of soup bowls and some bead chain.
Nor can she explain the oil jet demonstration, showing charge carriers, bound to non-conductive oil, finding a weak point and fleeing the Voltage Room by the most direct means available to them as I stuff more... ELECTRONS.... into the voltage room behind them.
Capacitors in general illustrate just some of the failures of Ainslie's "thesis" even to describe many everyday phenomena accurately, much less do what she, in her magnificent delusion, claims and apparently believes that it does. And then combine capacitors with electrostatics.... and the zipons just stand around with their hands in their pockets, because there is nothing for them to do at all.... and they don't even fit the job description.
Cool TK, it feels sometimes like you have old NORAD equipment and stuff from Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory. You should start charging admission! lol
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
Hi Guys,
Just an update and a ramble down memory lane and renewed focus for any sincere research into this subject.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2739.html#msg2739 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2739.html#msg2739)
Have you been drinking in the afternoon again? Misquoting, false accusations, paranoid fantasies, outright lies, threats..... it's a typical Ainslie pile.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 05:33:04 PM
Cool TK, it feels sometimes like you have old NORAD equipment and stuff from Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory. You should start charging admission! lol
Well... if things keep going the way they have been, you'll be able to pick it all up cheap at the next garage sale.
A little present for TK
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2740.html#msg2740
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 06:11:15 PM
A little present for TK
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2740.html#msg2740
Rosie Pose
So, how about we let .99 act as arbitrator and resolve the Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3,6, and 7 issue?
I present my case, you present yours... we accept his conclusion...
Rosemary:
QuoteThis riddle's for our little TK.
By rights your age needs must be told
Take heart and be a little bold
I know the place where you reside
And who you live with by your side
I know your school I know your major
I know your phone but not your pager
So rest assured my little pickle
Your name will not be worth a nickle.
When I am done then all that tar
Will rub on you and who you are.
And here's a point that makes me laugh
I even have your photograph
Don't you dare. I had to wash the blood off the stairs of my sister's house so her young children and my mother would not see it. She was murdered in a rage killing just like Nicole Brown Simpson. I know what MURDER feels like you stupid bitch and don't you dare cross that line. Fuck you with your bullshit and shut your fucking TRASH MOUTH.
Is that sinking in?
MileHigh
This horrible diseased woman will pay for that last comment.
My dear MileHigh
I have ABSOLUTELY no need to make that disclosure public. If I intended to I would have done so already. What I intend doing is advising sundry authorities about internet theft and internet abuse and then let them do what is required. In fact - it's precisely one branch of your own authorities who have advised me about TK's details.
MEANWHILE - your speech - your address to me - is doing what? Don't you think that such UNBRIDLED HATRED is likely to enrage your sympathisers against ME? Have you considered that every time you apply those disgusting epithets to my good name - that there's some weak minded person - likely to see every need to get rid of ME? And in my efforts to stop this escalating malice - you then CONTINUE with that parade of hatred? It is you - unfortunately - who are as much a cause of this confrontation as picowatt - Sean - that idiot who calls himself 'the boss' ... PLEASE 8) - Mookie (whose identity I also know) and the rest - who are corrupting the fine and EXCELLENT intentions of open source - precisely by avoiding accountability.
This has left you with the idea that you are free to trash who or what you wish - with no reasonable application of decent dialogue and discourse - and in defiance of good manners, human decency - good taste - all those things that still matter in a civilized world. And for what? That I have a claim that is supported unequivocally by 5 highly qualified engineers and a host of independent examiners. But you all quarrel with that assessment? It makes NO SENSE.
Rosemary
Quote from: The Boss on July 21, 2012, 07:02:27 PM
This horrible diseased woman will pay for that last comment.
BRING IT ON - YOU COWARD.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary:
You know what makes no sense? You are just as guilty of disgusting epithets and escalating malice as anybody else here.
You STOP your threats because these forums are rife with unbalanced people. Unbalanced people around here would be one-thousand times more likely to try to kill someone like TK or myself as compared to you because of what we post.
You made a mistake by using your real name there is nothing I can do about it.
You SHUT YOUR MOUTH and STOP IT. You STOP YOUR THREATS and STFU.
Beyond that, technically you have nothing and you are an insult to science and engineering. That is a fact.
You don't know what you can cause and I have lived it. Shut your trash mouth.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 07:04:56 PM
My dear MileHigh
I have ABSOLUTELY no need to make that disclosure public. If I intended to I would have done so already. What I intend doing is advising sundry authorities about internet theft and internet abuse and then let them do what is required. In fact - it's precisely one branch of your own authorities who have advised me about TK's details.
MEANWHILE - your speech - your address to me - is doing what? Don't you think that such UNBRIDLED HATRED is likely to enrage your sympathisers against ME? Have you considered that every time you apply those disgusting epithets to my good name - that there's some weak minded person - likely to see every need to get rid of ME? And in my efforts to stop this escalating malice - you then CONTINUE with that parade of hatred? It is you - unfortunately - who are as much a cause of this confrontation as picowatt - Sean - that idiot who calls himself 'the boss' ... PLEASE 8) - Mookie (whose identity I also know) and the rest - who are corrupting the fine and EXCELLENT intentions of open source - precisely by avoiding accountability.
This has left you with the idea that you are free to trash who or what you wish - with no reasonable application of decent dialogue and discourse - and in defiance of good manners, human decency - good taste - all those things that still matter in a civilized world. And for what? That I have a claim that is supported unequivocally by 5 highly qualified engineers and a host of independent examiners. But you all quarrel with that assessment? It makes NO SENSE.
Rosemary
And you, of course, never make snide comments or denigrate other's abilities... Reread your locked thread...
So how about dealing with the Q1 issue?
Feel like letting .99 arbitrate?
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:16:29 PM
Rosemary:
You know what makes no sense? You are just as guilty of disgusting epithets and escalating malice as anybody else here.
You STOP your threats because these forums are rife with unbalanced people. Unbalanced people around here would be one-thousand times more likely to try to kill someone like TK or myself as compared to you because of what we post.
You made a mistake by using your real name there is nothing I can do about it.
You SHUT YOUR MOUTH and STOP IT. You STOP YOUR THREATS and STFU.
Beyond that, technically you have nothing and you are an insult to science and engineering. That is a fact.
You don't know what you can cause and I have lived it. Shut your trash mouth.
MileHigh
My dear MileHigh
I have single handedly fended off the attack from no less than 8 of you - and I've done it with, I believe, a commendable constraint. It is a sorry truth that you and TK and your 'friends' are somewhat lacking in any kind of human decency. I am guilty of NOTHING other than attempting to advance some unequivocally anomalous measurements and some equally confrontational results in a prior claim - and on a forum that purports to be interested in such. And it has evoked an attack that makes no sense at all. And that attack is considerably less than legally permissible.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
Just shut up and stick to playing with your pulsing coils and your zipon fantasies.
MileHigh
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
My dear MileHigh
I have single handedly fended off the attack from no less than 8 of you - and I've done it with, I believe, a commendable constraint. It is a sorry truth that you and TK and your 'friends' are somewhat lacking in any kind of human decency. I am guilty of NOTHING other than attempting to advance some unequivocally anomalous measurements and some equally confrontational results in a prior claim - and on a forum that purports to be interested in such. And it has evoked an attack that makes no sense at all. And that attack is considerably less than legally permissible.
Rosemary
That's a crock. I asked a simple question back in the locked thread and instead of an answer you fired off as many snide and denigrating comments at me as you could, rather than deal with the issue ethically and scientifically. Reread your locked thread, its all there.
And yes, I lost all respect for you after your repeated threats.
So, you reap what you sow, from me at least.
How about .99 arbitrating the Q1 issue?
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 30, 2012, 12:49:51 AM
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 11:30:32 PM
****** BUMP ******
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on June 29, 2012, 08:24:05 AM
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 29, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Not actually. I both can and have.
Rosie Pose
RIGHT Rosemary .... slime your way out of these two questions, I'm sure the "Open Source Community" would like to see answers without your constant bloviating
1) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located "specifically" for Test #3 referenced in your "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf [attached file] ) that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
2) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located for "ANY" test using a 555 timer replacing the functions generator that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 30, 2012, 12:03:13 AM
Hi Fuzzy
How's that 'class action' lawsuit coming on? Do let us know. I've told you where to present your papers. And I know your address if you ever want a reply.
Rosie Pose
Rosemary you low life idiot slimeball .... again you change the subject because you cannot and never have made publically available posted links with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY device(s) operation.
You are a nothing but a toothless super troll giving information on devices you created that are "FRAUDULENT" having "NO" proof of their operation other than cherry picked data for a THESIS.
So Rosemary ..... when are you going to give us the open source community and myself the location of the documents I asked for June 29, 2012?? ???
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Your answer Rosemary given to me was .... :P
Not actually. I both can and have.
OK Rosemary .... so .... where are the scope shots and accompanying data dumps, 10 ohm resistor/inductor heating profile, photographs of the device setup, device schematic and components used including wire lengths and awg sizes and time duration on information collection of the test, "specifically" for Test #3 referenced in your "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf [attached file] ) that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ?? ::)
WHERE ?? WHERE ARE THEY ?? ???
OR, THIS WHOLE CHINESE FIRE DRILL EXERCISE OF YOURS IS ONLY FOR A THESIS YOU CONCOCTED AND HOGGED PODGED UP AS
"EVERYONE" THINKS ?? :o
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:28:25 PM
Rosemary:
Just shut up and stick to playing with your pulsing coils and your zipon fantasies.
MileHigh
I will NOT be quiet on this issue. I am committed to finding out each and every player who has done this damage to our technology. And it is my MISSION to ensure that this is addressed - on whatever basis is required. You have all enjoyed a freedom from accountability that is now nearing its end. And I am proud to do my bit in getting it to this point. I do not PLAY with my technology. It constitutes serious research - both on a theoretical and experimental basis - and it is your own flaunted disrespect of this work together with your 'gang' that has mitigated against its advancement.
But that is soon likely to end. Thank you God.
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 07:34:01 PM
I will NOT be quiet on this issue. I am committed to finding out each and every player who has done this damage to our technology. And it is my MISSION to ensure that this is addressed - on whatever basis is required. You have all enjoyed a freedom from accountability that is now nearing its end. And I am proud to do my bit in getting it to this point. I do not PLAY with my technology. It constitutes serious research - both on a theoretical and experimental basis - and it is your own flaunted disrespect of this work together with your 'gang' that has mitigated against its advancement.
But that is soon likely to end. Thank you God.
Rosemary
Exactly what damage have I done to your technology? I did not publish papers with 'scope captures demonstrating errors in disagreement with the schematic and text therein. YOU did that.
Again, I have only discussed the electronics involved in schematics and measurements/captures YOU provide.
As to the negative mean power measurement, I agree with .99's analysis.
As to any anomalous efficiency, I await some proper, error free data.
So, how about accepting .99 as arbitrator of the Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3, 6, and 7 issue?
Rosemary:
QuoteIt constitutes serious research - both on a theoretical and experimental basis
That's your fantasy but it's not the reality at all. You have nothing but you are too stupid and pig-headed and obsessed to realize it and acknowledge it.
It will be a complete farce if you do any experimentation by yourself because you are clearly not capable of doing so. If you hire a qualified person to help you then it will take said person about 30 minutes to realize that you are clueless and chances are the relationship will end within one working day. If you hire someone that is clueless or a sycophant or someone that is just going to play you for the money then your experiments will be "successful" but in fact you will not have advanced your "cause" by a single iota.
You will never get serious professional or academic consideration at a company or at a lab or at a university because if anyone has a technical discussion with you face-to-face it will take them a maximum of 30 minutes to realize that you are deluded and clueless.
There is no happy ending for your proposition, none. You are so far from serious science that you simply don't stand a chance. The only traction you will ever get is on the free energy forums. And in fact even on the free energy forums, people that support you are like shooting stars, you only see one every few months and then they disappear.
That is your story - you are just going to spin your wheels on the free energy forums and no university, lab, or tech company is ever going to have anything to do with you or your proposition.
And you are not going to put people in danger for this useless nonsense.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:50:31 PM
That's your fantasy but it's not the reality at all. You have nothing but you are too stupid and pig-headed and obsessed to realize it and acknowledge it.
WRONG. IF it's a fantasy - then it's shared by many of us.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:50:31 PMIt will be a complete farce if you do any experimentation by yourself because you are clearly not capable of doing so. If you hire a qualified person to help you then it will take said person about 30 minutes to realize that you are clueless and chances are the relationship will end within one working day. If you hire someone that is clueless or a sycophant or someone that is just going to play you for the money then your experiments will be "successful" but in fact you will not have advanced your "cause" by a single iota.
WRONG. IF this were true then I would not have collaborators nor friends.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:50:31 PMYou will never get serious professional or academic consideration at a company or at a lab or at a university because if anyone has a technical discussion with you face-to-face it will take them a maximum of 30 minutes to realize that you are deluded and clueless.
WRONG. Not only have academics engaged but there are those who will actively engage in the evaluation of those tests. Required for full accountability.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:50:31 PMThere is no happy ending for your proposition, none. You are so far from serious science that you simply don't stand a chance. The only traction you will ever get is on the free energy forums. And in fact even on the free energy forums, people that support you are like shooting stars, you only see one every few months and then they disappear.
WRONG. Support on these forums have been drowned out by the distasteful contributions of the likes of you. When you are all finally SILENCED then I believe the full and healthy interest in this subject will be allowed to blossom.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:50:31 PMThat is your story - you are just going to spin your wheels on the free energy forums and no university, lab, or tech company is ever going to have anything to do with you or your proposition.
WRONG. We already have undertakings regarding this.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 07:50:31 PMAnd you are not going to put people in danger for this useless nonsense.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. The ONLY person who has been put under considerable physical and emotional duress has been myself - by the bully tactics employed by the likes of you and The Boss and TK and the rest. If you are in DANGER as you put it - it is the danger of legal accountability.
Again,
Rosemary
added
Did you see the penguins on the spinning turntable caught in an infinite loop trying to fill their buckets with zipons?
Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 08:06:04 PM
Did you see the penguins on the spinning turntable caught in an infinite loop trying to fill their buckets with zipons?
No. Did you?
Rosie Pose
Do you see Q1 not functioning as per the schematic in FIG3, 6, and 7?
Yes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2bTwSfWtsE
I don't follow TK's work. So I won't be watching any of his videos.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 06:11:15 PM
A little present for TK
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2740.html#msg2740 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2740.html#msg2740)
Rosie Pose
Zodiac? BTK? Which little message-sender are you emulating here with your threats? Son of Sam? Kazinski? Moses Sithole? I can't quite recognise the style.
Oh... .wait..... "Little". And of course the obsession with the "pickle". Only Ainslie is quite stupid enough to leave such a blatant signature on her crimes.
No, Rosie Posie, that's a metaphor for your work. Zipons of the Absurd.
How about some super-scientific highly technical discussion?
Why is Q1 not functioning as per the schematic in FIG3, 6, and 7?
Just asking...
MileHigh said that Rosie's work is never up to standard
And that's because he speaks his mind
and always is most candid
And Rosie said that MileHigh is devoid of any kind of brain
It melted in the stratosphere
And fell to earth like rain.
Rosie Pose
edited.
Deleted two verses as they were repetitive.
You know she can't answer. She does not even comprehend the question.
She has never even checked on the applied signal voltage, because she didn't consider it relevant.
What do you make of that, then, picowatt? I certainly see it as further proof that she is an ignoramus, willfully ignorant and can neither read nor discuss schematics coherently, much less oscilloscope traces. She still has no conception of the linear conductance region of a mosfet's operation. She still believes that DC current flows across the mosfet gate, and that the drain-source channel is either at 0 ohms (sic) or that it's open, "disconnected" and cannot pass any current whatsoever, AC or DC.
What, I wonder ... does Ainslie think the blue trace represents in all of her scopeshots?
Is there some _other_ applied signal voltage to be considered in the Ainslie apparatus? I don't think so.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 08:11:14 PM
I don't follow TK's work. So I won't be watching any of his videos.
Rosie Pose
Why are you commenting here, then, you hypocrite? Not getting any traffic on your crazy forum? It has been a while since anyone has commented there besides you and your sock puppet chessnutcase.
You won't be watching my videos for the same reason an eight year old child won't watch a scary movie: you'd probably pee in your panties, from seeing so much that terrifies you and that you are just too immature to process.
How do Mosfets Work, Parts 2 and 3. Nine minutes and sixteen seconds of horror, and think of the fun you will have pointing out just where and how I am wrong in what I show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 08:32:10 PM
Rosie Pose
edited.
Deleted two verses as they were repetitive.
Deleted the rest, as they were idiotic and insulting.
Quite right little TK. I think I've overstayed my welcome.
Rosie Pose
Don't forget, Ainslie.... from March 22 2011 until April 18 2011, you deliberately lied and misled an entire community of researchers, including active workers like .99 and others, about the actual schematic and arrangement of your transistors. Over 400 forum posts discussing that schematic and that performance, with you, between those dates, are preserved in my database. Every one of them a deliberate, crafty lie... by your own admission. I have your own admission from just a few days ago that you FULLY INTENDED to continue with that fraudulent deception, even at a time when you were trying to get a manuscript published in a scientific journal and were applying for monetary prizes. I have documented proof that you engaged in this deliberate deception and intended to continue it for as long as possible... until .99 spoiled your evil plot.
Documented proof of your month of deception, a very serious thing, there, Ainslie. Don't forget that "little" episode, when you DO THE MATH. I'll be glad to share my proof of this fraud, this utter pseudoscientific misconduct, with your imaginary lawyers or "our" local authorities at any time.
I also have the documented threats that you have made against my physical safety. So just remember: People who live in glass houses shouldn't make oxtail soup.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 08:32:18 PM
You know she can't answer. She does not even comprehend the question.
She has never even checked on the applied signal voltage, because she didn't consider it relevant.
What do you make of that, then, picowatt? I certainly see it as further proof that she is an ignoramus, willfully ignorant and can neither read nor discuss schematics coherently, much less oscilloscope traces. She still has no conception of the linear conductance region of a mosfet's operation. She still believes that DC current flows across the mosfet gate, and that the drain-source channel is either at 0 ohms (sic) or that it's open, "disconnected" and cannot pass any current whatsoever, AC or DC.
What, I wonder ... does Ainslie think the blue trace represents in all of her scopeshots?
Is there some _other_ applied signal voltage to be considered in the Ainslie apparatus? I don't think so.
TK,
Yep, if I was going to go looking for 160ma or so of bias current, I wouldn't waste my time looking for 40millivolts at the 0R25 CSR, when the voltage drop across the FG's 50R provides a way more sensitive point to view the bias current.
Of course, one would need to know the FG output "open circuit" voltage and then subtract the FG output "in circuit" voltage and divide the result by 50, but hey, that's why they make calculators.
You would have thought someone would have noticed that no matter how far negative the FG offset was adjusted, the voltage at the Q2 source always hovered at around -4 volts. And then asked themselves why...
But, I digress, why is Q1 not functioning as per the schematic in FIG3, 6, and 7?
Sadly, back in the locked thread, I even hinted at a possible response and direction she could take that would allow her to save face, but she was on the attack at the time and did not even grasp what was being suggested.
PW
Just completed SN002, first light, burning in, testing a different capacitor set. I only have one more set of the orange drops and my supplier can't seem to get any more.
I also have another alternative... he has some more of the poly silver rolls like I used in the prototype, which work quite well but are bulky.
I have a nice layout worked out for these pad-per-hole circuit boards that is easy to do, and the boards are available at Radio Shack and elsewhere, so the hurdle of making a PC board isn't necessary for a neat layout any more.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 09:01:20 PM
Just completed SN002, first light, burning in, testing a different capacitor set. I only have one more set of the orange drops and my supplier can't seem to get any more.
I also have another alternative... he has some more of the poly silver rolls like I used in the prototype, which work quite well but are bulky.
I have a nice layout worked out for these pad-per-hole circuit boards that is easy to do, and the boards are available at Radio Shack and elsewhere, so the hurdle of making a PC board isn't necessary for a neat layout any more.
TK,
What's the value/voltage on those caps? What's the total C you're going for?
PW
Total desired capacitance is around 60 - 70 nF.
Those are 5.6 nF each, x 11, but they are only rated 250 V so they may not hold up.
The current from reactive power circulating in the loop/caps is incredibly large.
The orange drops in SN001 are 6.8 nF 600 V each, x 9, and the silver poly rolls in the prototype are 10 nF each, 500 V, x 6.
The schematic again:
-tested to 18 V input, 7 amps draw from supply
-suggest fusing at 7.5 amps
-could go higher with adequate caps and heatsinks and forced cooling
-have not yet blown a mosfet
What are you staring at?
Don't you know, that if you look too long into the face of the Abyss... the abyss will look long, into you.......
TK!
Very clever, sir! (It's the front view of you in the same pose as that back view pic with the light on your head!)
...so, this gets me into the illuminati MIB disinformation agent club, right?
polln8r
Hmmm..... the "probe" of the battery is providing a positive "signal" to the gates of BOTH mosfets simultaneously through the 100 Rs. And the "terminal" of the battery is providing a negative "signal" to BOTH sources directly, at the same time. 12 volts, too. So BOTH mosfets will be turned on hard, directly short circuiting the battery through the very low on-state resistance of the mosfets and the negligible resistance of the 100 uH chokes. The "transfer loop" is another direct short circuit, as anyone can see, keeping the drains of both mosfets at exactly the same voltage. And of course the capacitors don't do anything, we know they block DC.
What is the matter with you TK, do you really think anyone is going to fall for that silly face, thinking it's a working diagram of anything? Ainslie might be a total ignoramus when it comes to circuitry, but her boffins, to a man, highly accredited academics, are far too sophisticated to fall for that silly, mocking cartoon of a schematic. Why, it's veritably _actionable_.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 11:42:32 PM
Hmmm..... the "probe" of the battery is providing a positive "signal" to the gates of BOTH mosfets simultaneously through the 100 Rs. And the "terminal" of the battery is providing a negative "signal" to BOTH sources directly, at the same time. 12 volts, too. So BOTH mosfets will be turned on hard, directly short circuiting the battery through the very low on-state resistance of the mosfets and the negligible resistance of the 100 uH chokes. The "transfer loop" is another direct short circuit, as anyone can see, keeping the drains of both mosfets at exactly the same voltage. And of course the capacitors don't do anything, we know they block DC.
What is the matter with you TK, do you really think anyone is going to fall for that silly face, thinking it's a working diagram of anything? Ainslie might be a total ignoramus when it comes to circuitry, but her boffins, to a man, highly accredited academics, are far too sophisticated to fall for that silly, mocking cartoon of a schematic. Why, it's veritably _actionable_.
Is it due to the inequality of the components, tolerances, that gets one transistor going first into trading punches?
MaGs
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 11:42:32 PM
Hmmm..... the "probe" of the battery is providing a positive "signal" to the gates of BOTH mosfets simultaneously through the 100 Rs. And the "terminal" of the battery is providing a negative "signal" to BOTH sources directly, at the same time. 12 volts, too. So BOTH mosfets will be turned on hard, directly short circuiting the battery through the very low on-state resistance of the mosfets and the negligible resistance of the 100 uH chokes. The "transfer loop" is another direct short circuit, as anyone can see, keeping the drains of both mosfets at exactly the same voltage. And of course the capacitors don't do anything, we know they block DC.
What is the matter with you TK, do you really think anyone is going to fall for that silly face, thinking it's a working diagram of anything? Ainslie might be a total ignoramus when it comes to circuitry, but her boffins, to a man, highly accredited academics, are far too sophisticated to fall for that silly, mocking cartoon of a schematic. Why, it's veritably _actionable_.
TK,
I would try to follow your schematic, however, I now have three laptops with melted screens from trying to burn it before I read it.
Would it be OK if I just read it first?
PW
TK unmasked!
Tk
Do the thick copper rails that the caps are soldered to, act as part of the length of the loop? I see that the transistors are connected at the far ends of the copper strips from the loop itself.
Nice build.
MaGs
You all be careful now cause when large amounts of reactive power become active power boom. I once was approached by a very slippery character. He was selling bascially cheat the wattmeter electrical systems that instead of increasing power factor decreased it to get by the wattmeter then recombined the wattless components into wattable :o components. I knew exactly what this guy was pitching but played the fool. I had a little time on my hands and the guy was an interesting charactor so I let him go through the whole pitch then asked him if my electrician would need a special permit to install the system. He got pissed and stormed out. Tesla's cap coils have huge amounts of reactive energy stored in them. Currents completely out of phase with voltage. That's how he stores up the energy without melting wires and such.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 22, 2012, 12:23:13 AM
Tk
Do the thick copper rails that the caps are soldered to, act as part of the length of the loop? I see that the transistors are connected at the far ends of the copper strips from the loop itself.
Nice build.
MaGs
Yes. The drains of the transistors and all the caps are connected to the thick copper ribbons which are connected to the transfer loop. The sources of the transistors are connected on the top side of the board by heavy green wires to the negative supply point. The thick center conductor is the positive rail. So all of the PS-Transistor-cap-loop circuitry is heavy and can carry lots of amps. I'd make this whole circuit as tight and heavy as possible. The fact that the transistors are in TO220 packs makes it difficult though. I'd like to find TO247 or TO3P packs that would work as well or better. Might try these IRFP350s just to see.
Yes, the circuit needs some kind of slap to wake it up. If you just ramp up the power slowly it will look like a direct short circuit and stay that way until it opens from the heat, so you need to turn it on with a relay or switch, with the full supply voltage. I imagine that any little asymmetry will wake it up and once it starts, it's feedback city.
The more I think about this, the more astounded I am.
What if you got a letter in your mailbox and it said the following things:
QuoteI know where you live.
I have your photograph, and I know how old you are.
I know where you went to school and I have your phone number.
I know who you live with, too.
And I am planning to do my damnedest to damage your reputation and destroy your good name
as soon as I am able to.
What if?
And what if you knew that the person who sent you that letter had a history of mental illness? What then?
Would you be taking steps to assure your own safety? Would you be contacting authorities in the locale where the letter originated? Relatives of the sender, business and personal associates of the sender? Just what is the appropriate action that one should take, when on the receiving end of such a threatening, frightening missive from a patently mentally unstable individual?
Quote from: polln8r on July 21, 2012, 11:37:48 PM
TK!
Very clever, sir! (It's the front view of you in the same pose as that back view pic with the light on your head!)
...so, this gets me into the illuminati MIB disinformation agent club, right?
polln8r
Ah hah.... so that's where Ainslie and her minions have found my photograph. Curses..... the illuminati MIBs have strucken agin !
They probably deconvoluted the mirror reflection of my face in that teaspoon sitting in my coffee cup on the counter, decoded it into a software sim and came up with the top secret prosoponophone circuit.
@PW: The trick is to use adequate cooling. Try settling down with a nice tall glass of your favorite beverage.
And burn _something else_ before reading the schematic, silly. Toast, or the beef wellington, or that pile of old newspapers and Ainslie printouts cluttering up the bin.
Just for the sake of posterity let's see Rosie confirm and broadcast out to the world that on this day, July 22, 2012, that she still doesn't have the slightest clue what she is talking about:
QuoteOk. I see where the problem is. Let me try this again...
'...what I really want to see is if one applied a positive signal to the negative rail of the battery supply - that this would prevent the flow of current from that supply.'
QuoteBUT. When we apply a positive signal to Q1 with Q2 disconnected - we are then simultaneously applying a negative signal to the negative battery rail via the FG terminal. We KNOW that this allows the current discharge from the battery supply - in the normal manner. SO. What I want to test is this. What happens when we apply a positive to that negative rail.
And this woman is claiming that she is interacting with people at academic institutions?
I was going to post another Electric Koan... but I now realize that Ainslie is incapable of seeing similarities and differences between schematics and is incapable of interpreting the differences in circuit behaviour that result from differences in schematics.
Not only that but her "full cup" is blocking and preventing her from absorbing the simple poynts that .99 is trying to make. Her model of voltage and current is so incorrect that she can't even ask the right questions, and it's impossible to integrate the right answers into her system... so she gets the information all garbled, rather than realizing that it is her model that is incorrect and that is preventing her from attaining enlightenment about electricity. Much less about active electronic components, that are modeled in her fantasy as simple switches, but in reality have far more complex behaviours that her model can neither describe, predict... nor control.
Ainslie's only possible claim for "official publication" of her daft manuscripts is on Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics blog, where the manuscripts are supposed to have been "peer reviewed" before being put on the blog, and where comments are posted concerning it.
Today, July 22, 2012, the official publication on Rossi's blog still contains the lie that 5.9 megaJoules were dissipated in 1.6 hours, and the dangling "battery capacity is...." fragment. Both of these, as we know, have been removed from the version now posted by Ainslie in her honeytrap forum.
Also still present in Rossi's version... the OFFICIAL version.... is the claim that 6 batteries were used to produce the Figure 5 scopeshot... when it is plain from the trace itself that only 4 were used.... and indeed, in the "new edit" posted on the honeytrap, the description has has been changed, without comment, to read that 4 batteries were used. However, as anyone can clearly see.... in the new edit version the BASELINE MARKER for the battery channel has been removed from the image, edited away by that mysterious "compression artefact" that only removes significant probative data from controversial scopeshots AND NOTHING ELSE.
Attached below:
1. Current capture from JNP publication showing the bogus lie of 5.9 megajoules still there, taken today, 22 July 2012.
2. Current capture from JNP publication showing the Figure 5 in that publication (the "6 battery" description is on the same page).
3. Current capture from the new edit on the honeytrap forum showing the present Figure 5, missing the battery baseline marker and stating "4 batteries" instead of the 6 stated in the official publication.
I applaud her recent efforts to learn, but her biggest problem is that she is a terrible student. She needs to conjure up a little humility and accept the fact that she is pretty much clueless with regard to basic electricity, let alone electronics.
If she wants to learn, then she needs to accept what the teacher says as fact and try to understand what is being said and why it is so, not try to argue every point as if she knows the teacher is wrong and that she is somehow going to prove it.
Anyone skilled in the art can take a look at her schematic and in well under a minute estimate all the DC conditions, voltages, currents, and power dissipations by and at every component during both the positive and negative portion of the FG cycle. She does not believe or realize this, as it is all some great mystery to her. Both the Q1 and Q2 configurations have been used since the early days of triodes, but again, she feels her circuits are unique and somehow don't obey "the rules" related to very simple and quite basic electronics.
So, in order for her to be a good student, she has to take what .99 says as gospel, attempt to understand it, and quit trying to disprove that which is abundantly clear to all with even minimal electronic skills.
As it took months just to convince her the FG output was 50R, I do not believe she is going to learn the electronic skills required to understand her circuit's most simple DC conditions, let alone the positive and negative feedback, reactance, etc necessary for AC conditions, in a reasonable amount of time. Best she find an EE or similar to team up with to perform her tests.
However, if she IS going to attempt to learn, then she really needs to hone up on her "being a student" skills and quit acting like she knows anything at all about her circuit's operation, or electronics in general, while constantly threatening to prove the teacher wrong. The teacher is correct!
Had she not spent the past months arguing with everyone that attempted to teach her a thing or two, she might have learned a few more things by now.
Learn how to learn!
Quote from: picowatt on July 22, 2012, 03:00:54 PM
I applaud her recent efforts to learn, but her biggest problem is that she is a terrible student. She needs to conjure up a little humility and accept the fact that she is pretty much clueless with regard to basic electricity, let alone electronics.
If she wants to learn, then she needs to accept what the teacher says as fact and try to understand what is being said and why it is so, not try to argue every point as if she knows the teacher is wrong and is somehow going to prove it.
Anyone skilled in the art can take a look at her schematic and in well under a minute estimate all the DC conditions, voltages, currents, and power dissipations by and at every component during both the positive and negative portion of the FG cycle. She does not believe or realize this, as it is all some great mystery to her. Both the Q1 and Q2 configurations have been used since the early days of triodes, but again, she feels her circuits are unique and somehow don't obey "the rules" related to very simple and quite basic electronics.
So, in order for her to be a good student, she has to take what .99 says as gospel, attempt to understand it, and quit trying to disprove that which is abundantly clear to all with even minimal electronic skills.
As it took months just to convince her the FG output was 50R, I do not believe she is going to learn the electronic skills required to understand her circuit's most simple DC conditions, let alone the positive and negative feedback, reactance, etc necessary for AC conditions, in a reasonable amount of time. Best she find an EE or similar to team up with to perform her tests.
However, if she IS going to attempt to learn, then she really needs to hone up on her "being a student" skills and quit acting like she knows anything at all about her circuit's operation or electronics in general, while constantly threatening to prove the teacher wrong. The teacher is correct!
Had she not spent the past months arguing with all that attempted to teach her a thing or two, she might have learned a few more things by now.
And to this end please remember an ancient declaration- blessed be the peacemakers for thine is the kingdom of the heavens.- Peace starts at home within ourselves where it becomes contagious beyond measure if allowed to propogate in the human family. Various vaccines now employed against the disease of peace are in place and clearly demonstrated in this thread. I will not reiterate the commonly recognized vaccines introduced in humankind against the peace disease but leave it up to the reader to determine exactly which vaccines they have recently been forced to take at doctor up to no good's office.
And just as an aside, she is correct, it will be very difficult to see the 160ma of bias current at the CSR, especially while the circuit is oscillating.
What DC voltage would we be looking for at the CSR if indeed 160ma of current is flowing? .160ma X.25R=40millivolts. Look at her captures. At the 'scope sensitivity used to monitor the CSR, how well do you think we will be able to see 40millivolts (that's forty thousandths of a volt) using that trace?
A better place to observe the bias current would be the voltage drop across the FG's 50R resistor. .160ma X 50R=8volts. It is a lot easier to see and measure 8 volts than 40millivolts.
As an example:
Disconnect the FG output from the circuit and measure its voltage with the 'scope. Set its voltage to -12 volts. This is the "open circuit" voltage of the FG. Now, without changing any FG settings, connect the FG output to the source terminal of Q2 and again measure the FG output, it will now read approximately -4 volts. This is the "in circuit" voltage. The difference between the two readings is the voltage drop across the 50 ohm resistor inside the FG. Now, do simple Ohm's law math, 8volts divided by 50 ohms equals 160ma.
(Note that due to MOSFET turn on variations, temperature dependence, and the actual FG open circuit voltage, the -4 volts measured at the source of Q2 will likely vary from -3.5 to -4.5 volts or so depending on those conditions.)
Alternately, bias current could as well be measured by noting the DC drop across Rload. Its 11R resistance will provide 1.76volts of drop with 160ma flowing. 1.76volts is also easirer to see/measure than 40millivolts.
Millisecond, microsecond.... what's a factor of 1000, between friends?
Every day that these daft, error ridden and mendacious manuscripts are allowed to remain posted, as CLAIMS OF EXTRAORDINARY PERFORMANCE or even "measurements" of the same..... is another day full of lies by Ainslie AND the other authors listed in the manuscripts, although Ainslie bears full responsibility as lead author.
Quote from: picowatt on July 22, 2012, 03:28:09 PM
Alternately, bias current could as well be measured by noting the DC drop across Rload. Its 11R resistance will provide 1.76volts of drop with 160ma flowing. 1.76volts is also easirer to see/measure than 40millivolts.
She tried to measure the voltage drop across the load, one time and one time only. She did it with the other scope leads connected up as normally. She also chastised me severely for "claiming" to have measured across the load, since she had such a hard time when she tried it. Of course, when I measure the voltage drop across the load, as I sometimes do.... I have the wit to disconnect the other scope probes, or to use an isolated differential voltage probe, or a scope with isolated signal references like a Fluke 199 (or 123) ScopeMeter.
I believe that this is how she damaged her borrowed LeCroy oscilloscope and had to purchase it and have it repaired and calibrated. The BNC scope probe ground connections likely welded themselves to the input jacks on the scope itself.
I think she did this by having one of the battery leads disconnected, making the scope probe ground lead connections, then hooking up the battery lead back to the battery.
This was one result:
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
She tried to measure the voltage drop across the load, one time and one time only. She did it with the other scope leads connected up as normally. She also chastised me severely for "claiming" to have measured across the load, since she had such a hard time when she tried it. Of course, when I measure the voltage drop across the load, as I sometimes do.... I have the wit to disconnect the other scope probes, or to use an isolated differential voltage probe, or a scope with isolated signal references like a Fluke 199 (or 123) ScopeMeter.
I believe that this is how she damaged her borrowed LeCroy oscilloscope and had to purchase it and have it repaired and calibrated. The BNC scope probe ground connections likely welded themselves to the input jacks on the scope itself.
I think she did this by having one of the battery leads disconnected, making the scope probe ground lead connections, then hooking up the battery lead back to the battery.
This was one result:
Of course one could just use two channels and two probes, one probe at each end of Rload and measure the diff.
An isolated DC voltmeter is aother possibility.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 22, 2012, 03:59:20 PM
Of course one could just use two channels and two probes, one probe at each end of Rload and measure the diff.
An isolated DC voltmeter is aother possibility.
PW
Yes, that's right. One end of Rload is of course the Vbatt signal, and the other end of Rload would be the mosfet common drain signal. On a scope with four input channels and the ability to display four traces on the screen, I might have monitored VBatt, VDrain, VCSR and VFGRed,
then used the math trace to display either the computed ((Vbatt-Vdrain)/Rload) for the current through the load, or her "Vbatt x Vcsr" that she uses, swapping them into and out of the 4th screen display channel in lieu of a live displayed measurement of one of the parameters.
But then, what do I know about drawing pretty pictures on DSOs. I am concerned with displaying relevant data in usable form.
Couldn't we all save some time and just insert a capacitor in place of the battery and put this "baby to rest". This appears to be the down and dirty way of proving overunity like effects. It is quite simple to parallel a capacitor across the scource and a two pole breaker switch. Open the switch disconnect the battery and see how long the lightbulb remains lit. If it runs for hours on end it is a go. No hours of computational circuit analyses and such. Reaffirmation of Faraday's laws of induction are beginning to become tedious. TK and Picowatt have clearly demonstrated their skills of the trade of electrical engineering and circuit design and analyses. Hell lets move on to bigger and better things.
Quote from: sparks on July 22, 2012, 04:26:17 PM
Couldn't we all save some time and just insert a capacitor in place of the battery and put this "baby to rest". This appears to be the down and dirty way of proving overunity like effects. It is quite simple to parallel a capacitor across the scource and a two pole breaker switch. Open the switch disconnect the battery and see how long the lightbulb remains lit. If it runs for hours on end it is a go. No hours of computational circuit analyses and such. Reaffirmation of Faraday's laws of induction are beginning to become tedious. TK and Picowatt have clearly demonstrated their skills of the trade of electrical engineering and circuit design and analyses. Hell lets move on to bigger and better things.
Sparks,
Of course not! She attempted this at one time, and when the cap ran down, she created yet another new theory that stated the "potential" of the battery was required (not necessarily any current mind you, just potential).
Of course, the cap discharging indicated something else to most everyone else...
PW
Quote from: sparks on July 22, 2012, 04:26:17 PM
Couldn't we all save some time and just insert a capacitor in place of the battery and put this "baby to rest". This appears to be the down and dirty way of proving overunity like effects. It is quite simple to parallel a capacitor across the scource and a two pole breaker switch. Open the switch disconnect the battery and see how long the lightbulb remains lit. If it runs for hours on end it is a go. No hours of computational circuit analyses and such. Reaffirmation of Faraday's laws of induction are beginning to become tedious. TK and Picowatt have clearly demonstrated their skills of the trade of electrical engineering and circuit design and analyses. Hell lets move on to bigger and better things.
Done, and done. Long ago, relatively speaking.
Ainslie accepts that my Tar Baby is a replication of her circuit, except when it does things she doesn't like (and hasn't tested her circuit doing).
She has of course made the claim that the circuit won't run on capacitors because the oscillations collapse. Duh. The Altoid circuit, which .99 designed as a single-mosfet oscillator showing negative mean power product runs for nearly ten minutes on a 2-F capacitor charged to 5.5 volts, and the Tar Baby itself runs for a significant time in full Load Heating, Negative Mean Power mode using a suitably sized capacitor bank _alone_ just as you suggest.
Here is the proof, in several more videos that frighten Ainslie so much that she refuses to acknowledge their existence nor what they demonstrate. She has implied that rechargeable batteries are necessary to get the full effect that she claims... but she knows nothing of electrolytic capacitors: that they are, for example, the ultimate "rechargeable battery" and use ion chemistry in almost the same manner as a true battery does.
Altoid: No Battery Required:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y
Tar Baby and the Capacitors from Beyond:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0
For some people, this would be enough. For Ainslie, it means it's time to move the goalposts AGAIN.
TK,
Regarding the 10K resistors in your wireless pwr osc, at first I thought they were bias dividers, but the ratio is too high to make much sense (re the 100R).
Are the 10K's only there to ensure that everything discharges when the power is removed?
PW
ADDED: Just looked at the schematic again, and the 10K's don't even appear to be there for the above purpose. They will pull the gates down to a degree once pwr is removed and also assist in discharging the cap at the drains to a degree.
What do you think they are there for?
TK,
Re the 10K resistors, about all I can see that they do is ensure discharge of C9 when the pwr is removed so that when powered up, the gates are at zero volts to begin with.
PW
Well, they are gate pulldowns, of course, but I thought that they also function during oscillations. I have not tried varying these resistors from the recommended values. As gate voltage dividers along with the 100R they aren't doing much, that's for sure. And the circuit does work with no C9; it's there for power supply filtering and.... the mouth.
I really haven't explored variations on this circuit as much as I'd like to, other stuff has intervened. In the next couple of days, I'll be making a proper testbed, so that I can try different mosfets and different capacitors more easily, and I'll put in 10k or 50K trimpots for the 10K gate-to-source resistors as part of the testbed.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2012, 07:02:14 PM
I really haven't explored variations on this circuit as much as I'd like to, other stuff has intervened. In the next couple of days, I'll be making a proper testbed, so that I can try different mosfets and different capacitors more easily, and I'll put in 10k or 50K trimpots for the 10K gate-to-source resistors as part of the testbed.
TK,
I suspect the circuit would operate just fine without the 10K's. Possibly in some other version they were used as bias dividers, but I'd be very careful with decreasing their value. You don't want to increase the Q's dissipation.
Again, about all I can see they do is ensure C9 is discharged when the Batt+ is disconnected.
PW
I think most mosfets circuits will have a similar resistor here, and the reason is probably just as you say: to make sure the mosfet starts up in a predictable state.
I swear.... it's better than watching old episodes of "Lost".
But it appears there is trouble in Paradise. A Secret Skeptic is amongst the denizens of the island, and is questioning one of the holy Creation Legends of one of the leaders.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
She tried to measure the voltage drop across the load, one time and one time only. She did it with the other scope leads connected up as normally. She also chastised me severely for "claiming" to have measured across the load, since she had such a hard time when she tried it. Of course, when I measure the voltage drop across the load, as I sometimes do.... I have the wit to disconnect the other scope probes, or to use an isolated differential voltage probe, or a scope with isolated signal references like a Fluke 199 (or 123) ScopeMeter.
I believe that this is how she damaged her borrowed LeCroy oscilloscope and had to purchase it and have it repaired and calibrated. The BNC scope probe ground connections likely welded themselves to the input jacks on the scope itself.
I think she did this by having one of the battery leads disconnected, making the scope probe ground lead connections, then hooking up the battery lead back to the battery.
This was one result:
Guys - as for the schedule of nonsense. There's not ONE comment that's correct. At the time that these batteries caught fire I was NOT running a test. At the time that this fire took place I was not even in discussion with TK as TK. He was posting under the name HUMBUGGER. Nice to see his OPEN ADMISSION of this fact. FINALLY.
We have taken MULTIPLE downloads of the scope DIRECTLY on the terminals from a 24 volt battery supply. And the MYSTERY LABORATORY have also measured and confirmed across ALL 6 BATTERIES TO CONFIRM THAT THEY DO INDEED OSCILLATE IN LINE WITH THE MEASURED VOLTAGE EVIDENCE.
And sparks, with respect, one loses all respect for the platitudinous mouthings of biblical quotes - when the attempt is to enjoy the rather sparse pickings of moral superiority. The simple truth is that you are promoting and endorsing the single most disgusting effort ever made - and that made publicly - to wrest authority of comment - from the authors of a discovery that properly belongs to the world. It does not belong to TK and does not deserve the systematic abuse of TK and his 'gang of thugs' and BULLIES
Regards
Rosemary
ADDED to emphasise the 'bleeding obvious' as referenced by Basil Fawlty'.
And guys,
May I caution you YET AGAIN. TK's manifold 'postings' of our forum work is his attempt to keep you 'misinformed' as to what we're saying. I would earnestly advise you that IF indeed you want an 'unbiased' account of what is happening there then his references are NOT THE WHOLE STORY. He is simply hoping to stop the traffic there. Give up TK. Our hit rate is already more than 800 a day. And we're not even 6 weeks old - as a forum.
Again,
Rosemary
Hydrogen and Oxygen are not covalently bonded. Monatomic hydrogen doesn't covalently bond to anything. It forms hydrogen bonds like in hydrocarbons. These are ionic bonds. Anybody who tells you that hydrogen is covalently bonded in a water molecule is an idiot. The two hydrogen atoms in a water molecule do not share electrons they remain fully ionized with a net electrical charge of one. The oxygen atom remains with a net charge of minus 2 therefore two minus 2 allows the water molecule to remain electrically neutral forming an ionic substance. The only reason water is liquid at room temperature is due to the electrical polarization of the molecule forming rings of water. Due to this each water molecule is a capacitor. Two unlike charges creating an electric field between them is pretty much a capacitor. When the capacitor is caused to discharge the binding energy becomes ours to use. When the water molecule is subjected to a dense electric field this ring is destabilized and the water boils. Myers was not repeat not using the vic to produce hoh gas or any of that. He was forming water vapor with very low energy input using Tesla highly efficient high voltage tech to generate intense electric fields in his "fuel cell" :P . He was using alot of high tech shit like lazer induced coolumb explosions. The water vapor was then subjected to ionizing radiation again in a dense elecrtric field which created ionized monatomic hydrogen which is better known as a proton, The proton's were then mixed with 04 which created rocket fuel better known as hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide is a rocket propellant and torpedo propellant. Which then propelled the vehicle down the road. The copious amounts of gas you see boiling off his fuel cell is water vapor. You will notice he makes no attempt at seperating the gasses. They just go up to the top of the cylinder and everybody assumes it's hoh gas. I tell you something weird is going on in a highly electrostatic field where emradiation gets red shifted to very low frequency waves that begin to look like the rays coming out of protons.
Howdy everyone,
I thought I'd copy over a few postings that Rosemary refuses to acknowledge other professional opinions on her
COP>INFINITY device claim.
Quote from: Joseph Fine June 1st, 2012 at 8:40 AM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645&cpage=1#comment-244556
In the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem [1], Wikipedia describes the maximum power transfer ratio (Power delivered to the Load/Power available from source).
In their new paper, authors ‘D. R. E. A. M. & R.’ convert battery power into a burst oscillatory waveform that delivers power to load impedance RL1. The Max. Pwr. Transfer theorem states that at a condition of maximum power transfer there is 50% efficiency. That is, the power delivered to a load is usually less than or, at best, equal to the power lost (e.g. heat dissipation) in the source.
Increased efficiency can be realized by reducing source resistance (or impedance) to near zero and/or increasing load resistance (or impedance) to near infinite. Of course, that drops the power transferred to the load.
If more than 100% of source power can be delivered to a load, the authors should be congratulated for more than doubling the maximum power previously available.
References
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem
Joseph Fine
QUOTE - authors ‘
D. R. E. A. M. &
R.’ .... "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" [ ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ] ???
Donovan Martin
Rosemary Ainslie
Evan Robinson
Alan Macey
Mario Human
Riaan Theron
REFERENCES - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem
In electrical engineering, the maximum power transfer theorem states that, to obtain maximum external power from a source with a finite internal resistance, the resistance of the load must equal the resistance of the source as viewed from its output terminals. Moritz von Jacobi published the maximum power (transfer) theorem around 1840; it is also referred to as "Jacobi's law".[1]
The theorem results in maximum power transfer, and not maximum efficiency. If the resistance of the load is made larger than the resistance of the source, then efficiency is higher, since a higher percentage of the source power is transferred to the load, but the magnitude of the load power is lower since the total circuit resistance goes up.
If the load resistance is smaller than the source resistance, then most of the power ends up being dissipated in the source, and although the total power dissipated is higher, due to a lower total resistance, it turns out that the amount dissipated in the load is reduced.
The theorem states how to choose (so as to maximize power transfer) the load resistance, once the source resistance is given, not the opposite. It does not say how to choose the source resistance, once the load resistance is given. In fact, the source resistance that maximizes power transfer is always zero, regardless of the value of the load resistance.
::)
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2012, 12:39:34 AM
Guys - as for the schedule of nonsense. There's not ONE comment that's correct. At the time that these batteries caught fire I was NOT running a test. At the time that this fire took place I was not even in discussion with TK as TK. He was posting under the name HUMBUGGER. Nice to see his OPEN ADMISSION of this fact. FINALLY.
What open admission? YOU ARE LYING again, deluded hallucinator Ainslie. I am not and never have been HUMBUGGER, you bloviating mendacious idiot. And you most certainly were ATTEMPTING a test when you made your stupid miswiring attempt.
Quote
We have taken MULTIPLE downloads of the scope DIRECTLY on the terminals from a 24 volt battery supply. And the MYSTERY LABORATORY have also measured and confirmed across ALL 6 BATTERIES TO CONFIRM THAT THEY DO INDEED OSCILLATE IN LINE WITH THE MEASURED VOLTAGE EVIDENCE.
SO? Big deal, nobody is contesting YOUR MEASUREMENTS, idiot lying Ainslie. I confirmed the same thing, months ago, remember?
This is a very different thing from measuring ACROSS THE LOAD, doing it incorrectly and damaging your equipment, which is what we have been talking about and is what you attempted. But you don't even know enough about your own circuit to realize the difference or the significance. And the amazing thing is that you don't even have sense enough to realize that with every inane comment like the above, you dig yourself in deeper and deeper, proving to everyone that you have no clue about your own circuit's operation.
Quote
And sparks, with respect, one loses all respect for the platitudinous mouthings of biblical quotes - when the attempt is to enjoy the rather sparse pickings of moral superiority. The simple truth is that you are promoting and endorsing the single most disgusting effort ever made - and that made publicly - to wrest authority of comment - from the authors of a discovery that properly belongs to the world. It does not belong to TK and does not deserve the systematic abuse of TK and his 'gang of thugs' and BULLIES
Regards
Rosemary
ADDED to emphasise the 'bleeding obvious' as referenced by Basil Fawlty'.
Got that, Sparks? You are treading perilously close to being placed on Ainslie's Black List. Soon she will be threatening YOU with letters from imaginary lawyers.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 03:12:18 AM
This is a very different thing from measuring ACROSS THE LOAD, doing it incorrectly and damaging your equipment, which is what we have been talking about and is what you attempted. But you don't even know enough about your own circuit to realize the difference or the significance. And the amazing thing is that you don't even have sense enough to realize that with every inane comment like the above, you dig yourself in deeper and deeper, proving to everyone that you have no clue about your own circuit's operation.
The only one of the two of us who has no CLUE how to determine the wattage dissipated at the load is you. We're all still waiting for some measurements. Clearly you're trying very hard to avoid reference. I can't help but wonder why?
And TK. I'm looking forward to implementing those imaginary procedures from my imaginary lawyers. I'll do that when I've completed those imaginary tests of mine. And then you can comment on all those imaginings to your heart's content.
And while you're at it - we're also all waiting that learned discourse of yours or picowatt's where you EXPLAIN how the battery is fully connected during that oscillation.
What a prize idiot you are. All you can do is assemble circuitry of greater and greater complexities to confuse the hell out of its actual function and intention. And then pretend that you know what you're talking about. The comfort is that you've stopped that laughable exposition on the mysterious electron current flow. There are always some small mercies on offer. We're spared those ridiculous analogies that impress the Seans and Mags of this world ... and the PhiChasers. LOL. What a load of blockheads - to a man. A bunch of electrical engineers and / or technicians trying to pass themselves off as EXPERTS in particle physics. There's no such animal. Two entirely different mindsets. Two entirely different skill sets. And yet there's YOU - the shining 'truth' as you present yourself. What a JOKE.
Rosie Pose
added
And may I add. Had I damaged any equipment then I would have CLAIMED for that damage from an insurance taken out for precisely that purpose. NO SUCH DAMAGE WAS EVIDENT. ALSO. I would have to be as stupid as you to BUY damaged equipment. That's a skill set that is ONLY entertained by yourself. God knows your only access to decent equipment is after or before repair. That's a little puzzle in itself. LOL
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2012, 12:48:47 AM
And guys,
May I caution you YET AGAIN. TK's manifold 'postings' of our forum work is his attempt to keep you 'misinformed' as to what we're saying. I would earnestly advise you that IF indeed you want an 'unbiased' account of what is happening there then his references are NOT THE WHOLE STORY. He is simply hoping to stop the traffic there. Give up TK. Our hit rate is already more than 800 a day. And we're not even 6 weeks old - as a forum.
Again,
Rosemary
Sure, Ainslie. You've put up a forum where you posted two daft manuscripts full of errors and lies, that aren't even consistent with your "official" versions on Rossi's JNP. You lie about every aspect of your story, from the Quantum magazine article on. You lie about having discovered something of significance, you lie about me, and you lie about your former collaborators and their findings. Anyone can put up a web forum full of lies and get lots of hits. How many hits will you get when you come clean and have to tell the truth for a change?
It's interesting to watch a psychotic person like yourself melt down in public. I imagine that a lot of those lurking readers are psychology students, watching a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect confirming, in front of everybody with a little knowledge of the subject, that she -- AINSLIE -- is not only an ignoramus but also a willfull idiot, spitting in the eye of those who are trying to help her understand her embarrassing suite of errors.
And I wonder if I could impose on you TK - to show us the documented PROOF which you claim you have that I was hospitalised from some psychotic incident which you need as PROOF of my being entirely MAD AND DELUDED. We're all waiting. Without it I, for one, am rather inclined to think that you're FABRICATING THE TRUTH. Not all that gleam and glitter that you claim when you reference yourself as THE TRUTH that SHINES OUT all over the place. LOL
Then. While you're at it - EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE I MADE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THOSE ZIPPED FILES THAT SEAN AND YOU MADE PUBLIC - AND...
Then show me EXACTLY - with the required LINKS - the DETAILS OF THOSE GENTLEMEN WHOSE NAMES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS YOU PUBLISHED.
My CLAIM is that both PROVE that you have both RIFLED MY COMPUTER. And we all know that that's a felony.
Rosie Pose
Highlighted - for emphasis
AND ADDED
Then we will all know that the support that you get from FTC and PICOWATT and the rest is the SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL ABUSE OF OPEN SOURCE AND CRIMINAL PRACTICES GENERALLY. What's new? Just a whole bunch of criminals abusing the facility of open source to misdirect the public
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2012, 03:37:57 AM
The only one of the two of us who has no CLUE how to determine the wattage dissipated at the load is you. We're all still waiting for some measurements. Clearly you're trying very hard to avoid reference. I can't help but wonder why?
Lie and insult all you like, bloviating Ainslie liar. I know a lot better than you do exactly how to determine power at the load. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT POWER IS. One watt is one Joule, remember? Idiot. And I can do it electrically and calorimetrically. You think calorimetry is for someone on a diet.
Quote
And TK. I'm looking forward to implementing those imaginary procedures from my imaginary lawyers. I'll do that when I've completed those imaginary tests of mine. And then you can comment on all those imaginings to your heart's content.
You had better be careful about what you wish for. I have FACTS and SCIENCE on my side, as well as a large compendium of RECORDS that will prove to anyone that I am right, you are wrong, and in fact, your threats and insults are actually CRIMINAL.
Quote
And while you're at it - we're also all waiting that learned discourse of yours or picowatt's where you EXPLAIN how the battery is fully connected during that oscillation.
You won't watch my videos, which show how a capacitance equal to your mosfet's will indeed pass AC current in spite of NOT PASSING DC at the same time. In short...you still don't know how a mosfet works and you are incapable of learning. We will let .99 explain things to you.... although you are doing a great job of confusing yourself again because you won't even learn the tiny little increments that he is trying to show you.
Quote
What a prize idiot you are. All you can do is assemble circuitry of greater and greater complexities to confuse the hell out of its actual function and intention. And then pretend that you know what you're talking about.
Ainslie, I am transmitting REAL POWER THROUGH SPACE, with great efficiency, using MY KNOWLEDGE of how things work. I've researched the issue, found example circuits, modified them, made advances, and garnered great interest. YOU, on the other hand, can't even hook your oscilloscope up properly, nor report the schematic you use. You are a PRIZE IDIOT indeed, jealous of your betters, so you have to insult them in any way you can. What you NEVER DO, and CANNOT DO, is to refute me or PW or any one else who corrects you. YOU CANNOT, because you are wrong, laughably and incurably WRONG.
QuoteThe comfort is that you've stopped that laughable exposition on the mysterious electron current flow. There are always some small mercies on offer. We're spared those ridiculous analogies that impress the Seans and Mags of this world ... and the PhiChasers. LOL.
Have I stopped? My how naive you are. Unlike YOU, pitiful Ainslie, I have other, much more important things to do than spend ALL my time addressing the many issues of your bogus set of claims.
QuoteWhat a load of blockheads - to a man. A bunch of electrical engineers and / or technicians trying to pass themselves off as EXPERTS in particle physics. There's no such animal. Two entirely different mindsets. Two entirely different skill sets. And yet there's YOU - the shining 'truth' as you present yourself. What a JOKE.
You are the blockhead JOKE, Ainslie. Look at what YOU have written about particle physics, and electronics. Thousands and thousands of words of logorrhea and schizophrenic word salad, that makes not a single quantitative prediction and is directly contradicted by hundreds of years of experimentation and research... not to mention the very existence of the computer you typed those words on.
Quote
Rosie Pose
added
And may I add. Had I damaged any equipment then I would have CLAIMED for that damage from an insurance taken out for precisely that purpose. NO SUCH DAMAGE WAS EVIDENT. ALSO. I would have to be as stupid as you to BUY damaged equipment. That's a skill set that is ONLY entertained by yourself. God knows your only access to decent equipment is after or before repair. That's a little puzzle in itself. LOL
You can add whatever lies you like, apparently, without any regard for truth or logic. You are such a liar. There is NO CONCEIVABLE REASON ON EARTH that you would have sent "your" LeCroy off for "calibration" unless it needed repair. All digital oscilloscopes perform an internal calibration and self-checking routine whenever they are started up. If it fails this internal calibration check... IT IS IN NEED OF REPAIR. If it does not fail.... it does not need calibration. IDIOT.
And I am supposed to be very well funded, am I not? With access to all kinds of special digital equipment. You have no clue whatsoever and you can't even keep your own deluded story straight.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2012, 03:49:58 AM
And I wonder if I could impose on you TK - to show us the documented PROOF which you claim you have that I was hospitalised from some psychotic incident which you need as PROOF of my being entirely MAD AND DELUDED. We're all waiting. Without it I, for one, am rather inclined to think that you're FABRICATING THE TRUTH. Not all that gleam and glitter that you claim when you reference yourself as THE TRUTH that SHINES OUT all over the place. LOL
Then. While you're at it - EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE I MADE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THOSE ZIPPED FILES THAT SEAN AND YOU MADE PUBLIC - AND...
Then show me EXACTLY - with the required LINKS - the DETAILS OF THOSE GENTLEMEN WHOSE NAMES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS YOU PUBLISHED.
My CLAIM is that both PROVE that you have both RIFLED MY COMPUTER. And we all know that that's a felony.
Rosie Pose
Highlighted - for emphasis
AND ADDED
Then we will all know that the support that you get from FTC and PICOWATT and the rest is the SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL ABUSE OF OPEN SOURCE AND CRIMINAL PRACTICES GENERALLY. What's new? Just a whole bunch of criminals abusing the facility of open source to misdirect the public
No.
Every bit of information in those zipped files was publicly made available BY YOU, Ainslie, on your blogs and on this forum. If you have the wit to do so, you or anyone can look at the filenames and the information in the images and see just exactly where they came from. The accusation that anyone, especially ME, "rifled" your computer is not only a criminal slander, it is stupidly ridiculous.
The names are also in the public record, posted BY YOU, as FTC has already illustrated, and their phone numbers and emails have been given by you WITH EXPRESS PERMISSION TO HAVE THEM CONTACTED, and are easily found as well. Like here:
www.repmet.co.za/services.htm (http://www.repmet.co.za/services.htm)
We've already reproduced the post where you tell Omnibus to "start with these", giving some of the names, and then showing you FREAKING OUT when he actually DOES try to contact some of them. YOU posted every one of the names I REPOSTED, as people who could be contacted to confirm your story. Unfortunately for you... NONE of them has done so.
And you prove your own madness adequately, every day, as in the current post, where you blatantly scream out your sick paranoid AND IMPOSSIBLE delusions.
And you dare talk about "OPEN SOURCE".... when you refuse to provide your spreadsheet data for inspection and you deliberately LIED about your schematic for almost a MONTH and would have continued longer but for .99's careful work... you are the worst hypocrite I have ever encountered, bar none.
Just to review:
Ainslie, in that last lying post of yours, you accused me of committing, as you say, the FELONY CRIME of unauthorised computer access. You have no evidence whatsoever for that accusation, but FURTHER, you announced in your forum the deliberate intention to sully, or "tar" as you put it, my good name and to do whatever you can to damage me and my reputation.
I want to hear from these lawyers of yours. I have the name of the law firm, from your earlier letter to Stefan. I WILL be contacting them at the opening of business on Monday, with a letter of my own, explaining that accusing someone of a FELONY without any evidence, and THREATENING physical harm and to destroy reputations..... is a no no and will get your hand slapped.
You omitted the LINK - YET AGAIN. Here's the little ditty with its addendum that you were so careful to EXCLUDE.
Quote from: Rosie on July 21, 2012, 05:47:18 PM
This riddle's for our little TK.
By rights your age needs must be told
Take heart and be a little bold
I know the place where you reside
And who you live with by your side
I know your school I know your major
I know your phone but not your pager
So rest assured my little pickle
Your name will not be worth a nickle.
When I am done then all that tar
Will rub on you and who you are.
And here's a point that makes me laugh
I even have your photograph
8) :o
And while I'm at it may I add - it's not you sits on that chair
You've photographed your friend TK - I know this from the hair.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 04:26:30 AM
Just to review:
Ainslie, in that last lying post of yours, you accused me of committing, as you say, the FELONY CRIME of unauthorised computer access. You have no evidence whatsoever for that accusation, but FURTHER, you announced in your forum the deliberate intention to sully, or "tar" as you put it, my good name and to do whatever you can to damage me and my reputation.
NOT ACTUALLY little TK. I simply wrote a little doggerel for a non-entity called Tinsel Koala. He MOST CERTAINLY has committed a felony crime - far worse than the mere efforts to usurp ownership and authority on a technology that does not belong to him. He's EXPOSED the names and telephone numbers of people that he rifled EXCLUSIVELY from files in my computer. And he also exposed data in my own zipped files. And this WITHOUT LEGAL ACCESS.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 04:26:30 AMI want to hear from these lawyers of yours. I have the name of the law firm, from your earlier letter to Stefan. I WILL be contacting them at the opening of business on Monday, with a letter of my own, explaining that accusing someone of a FELONY without any evidence, and THREATENING physical harm and to destroy reputations..... is a no no and will get your hand slapped.
WHAT a PRIZE IDIOT. Feel free to write to whoever you want. Just make sure you write under your own name. They're not likely to answer a communication from someone who signs himself 'tinsel koala'. In the real world that kind of signature is simply HUGELY amusing.
And I will NOT be writing to sundry colleagues of yours YET. I'll wait until my tests are completed. And then I'll be able to PROVE the extent of the damage that you have been attempting. And my complaint will NOT only be to your colleagues. It will be considerably more comprehensive. You know what they say about the 'fat lady' that sings at the end of the show? We're getting there. AT LAST.
LOL.
Rosie Pose
added
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 04:08:56 AM
You can add whatever lies you like, apparently, without any regard for truth or logic. You are such a liar. There is NO CONCEIVABLE REASON ON EARTH that you would have sent "your" LeCroy off for "calibration" unless it needed repair. All digital oscilloscopes perform an internal calibration and self-checking routine whenever they are started up. If it fails this internal calibration check... IT IS IN NEED OF REPAIR. If it does not fail.... it does not need calibration. IDIOT.
NOT ACTUALLY. I never did send that LeCroy off for calibration. The agents did that - ALWAYS required on second hand equipment - in order to extend the guarantee. You clearly KNOW NOTHING. But then again - you've never bought a decent oscilloscope.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 04:08:56 AMAnd I am supposed to be very well funded, am I not? With access to all kinds of special digital equipment. You have no clue whatsoever and you can't even keep your own deluded story straight.
NOT ACTUALLY. I know nothing about your lifestyle other than on the face of it - it seems somewhat austerely compromised. I'd say that's a general reflection of your mediocrity. Clearly your earning abilities are equally so. Both mediocre and compromised. LOL Strange. With all that brilliant 'truth' that 'shines' one would expect you to be more gainfully employed. Very odd.
Kindest regards little TK, all 72 inches of you. LOL
Rosie Posie
added
I know a lot more than you think, Ainslie. Details of that little incident, for example. And I've already established communication with the Law Firm of Manson Tobin. You have finally crossed a line with your threats and lies.
Manson Tobin Law Firm
P.O.Box 3584
Durbanville 7551
South Africa
Email: alex@mansontobin.co.za
Tel: +27 (0) 21 975 5766
Fax: +27 (0) 21 975 5822
Dear Mr. Alexander Manson and Mr. Lee Jonathan Tobin
I wish to bring to your attention some severely abusive and threatening internet posts that have been made by Ms. Rosemary Ainslie, who alleges that she is a client of yours. Please refer to the attached .zip file for copies of many of the abusive and mendacious postings that Ainslie has made. Not only is she threatening and abusive, but she has also made many false statements concerning a research project that she has been engaged in for over a decade. I have documented these false statements and have attached documentary proof of her lies and distortions. Note especially the evidence provided in her own words where she admits to concealing material information for nearly a month, between March 22, 2011 and April 18 2011, causing over 400 forum discussion posts to be made in discussion of her claim that one particular schematic was used, when in fact a different one was actually used by her. And also note her statement that she fully intended to continue with the deception, which was finally revealed by a sharp-eyed correspondent.
You will note especially that lately she has been making accusations that I and others have "rifled" her computer. This is ridiculous on the face of it, especially since ALL information in the files I have sent you has been gathered from her own forum posts and blogs. As you can see from looking at the files, the locations where I obtained them are all listed and are all public. Yet Ainslie has seen fit to call me a CRIMINAL, a FELON, and a lot of other things too, as you can see from perusing the statements in the compendium.
I realize that you are not in a position to evaluate the mendacious technical claims made by Ainslie. I can assure you that the majority of scientific opinion agrees with me, re her claims and "thesis" . This latter "thesis" by the way, exists in multiple conflicting copies on the internet, with many errors and mistakes in each version, with claims made in some versions that do not appear in others, with data that is clearly altered by editing in some copies but not others... and so on. In short, Ainslie is not only threatening and insulting me and others, but she is also engaged in very clear and egregious scientific misconduct.
I am hereby suggesting that IF this Rosemary Ainslie is actually a client of yours, that you give her some badly needed legal advice. She has promised, as you can see, to attempt to damage my good name, my reputation, and even has threatened me with physical harm ("Kill two birds with one stone, one of them TK", an internet post made by her that some have interpreted as a death threat against me.)
Sincerely,
(real name and law firm contact data attached, IN CONFIDENCE)
Attachments:
RAForumPostsA.zip
RAForumPostsB.zip
RAForumPostsC.zip
RANewForum.zip
SCRN3.zip
And, of course:
And guys, while I'm at it - may I remind you all.
This technology that we've open sourced is intended for applications that will enhance energy efficiencies - NOTHING ELSE. TK is trying his damnedest to avoid reference to that efficiency and is taking you all on a goose path related to complex applications that have NOTHING to do with efficient energy transfer.
I do not care what applications come out of this technology. But unless they address those efficiencies then he is wasting your time with irrelevancies. And his real intention is to usurp SOLE authority to comment on this technology when his agenda is precisely to DENY those efficiencies. Therein lies the danger.
Please be aware of this objective. It's shared with picowatt and Sean and 'The Boss' and FTC and the rest. Some heavily vested interest in denials here. And none of it reasonable - all of it unsubstantiated - and certainly - AT BEST - a gross abuse of open source objectives. I might add that not only is their standard of posting an ABUSE of forum guidelines, the most of their references to our work and my part in it is criminal - abusive - and it includes their criminality in making facts known that they've rifled from my computer. What's particularly ominous is that far from caring about this flaunted disrespect Stefan Hartman is actually encouraging it. That's certainly cause for concern.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2012, 08:54:13 AM
You omitted the LINK - YET AGAIN. Here's the little ditty with its addendum that you were so careful to EXCLUDE.
And while I'm at it may I add - it's not you sits on that chair
You've photographed your friend TK - I know this from the hair.
You make me laugh. I thought for a moment that you might actually have had my name and address. Now I know that you are still hallucinating and responding to your delusions and fantasies and that your threats are just as the barkings of a little yapping ratdog. Oh, you'll bite all right, if someone is stupid enough to try to help you, that's clear enough.
You really need to step back and take a look at yourself and what is happening, Ainslie. You are melting down, you've crossed a very definite line, and you will be experiencing consequences.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 10:52:15 AM
You make me laugh. I thought for a moment that you might actually have had my name and address. Now I know that you are still hallucinating and responding to your delusions and fantasies and that your threats are just as the barkings of a little yapping ratdog. Oh, you'll bite all right, if someone is stupid enough to try to help you, that's clear enough.
You really need to step back and take a look at yourself and what is happening, Ainslie. You are melting down, you've crossed a very definite line, and you will be experiencing consequences.
Not actually little TK. I'm ALREADY experiencing consequences. Your prolonged attack has had serious consequences on my health. I put on record that this disgusting thread and all those other flamed threads are the single cause of my condition which is certainly life threatening. You and MileHigh and the rest are attempting to destroy my work and my name along with it. And IN FACT you have CERTAINLY been instrumental in destroying my health. And you really think that you can avoid accountability? Trust me on this. You're even in my will. You all are.
Rosie Pose
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2012, 10:51:05 AM
And guys, while I'm at it - may I remind you all.
This technology that we've open sourced is intended for applications that will enhance energy efficiencies - NOTHING ELSE. TK is trying his damnedest to avoid reference to that efficiency and is taking you all on a goose path related to complex applications that have NOTHING to do with efficient energy transfer.
YOU LIE. Open source means that your information is HONESTLY, CORRECTLY, and FULLY available. None of this applies to YOU, you lying bloviator. You have lied about and concealed schematics, you have made error after error that have still not been corrected in the multiple conflicting versions of your daft manuscripts, and you are still to this day refusing to provide data that you claim exists... but probably actually does not. OPEN SOURCE? You are a hypocrite and a liar of the first water.
Quote
I do not care what applications come out of this technology. But unless they address those efficiencies then he is wasting your time with irrelevancies. And his real intention is to usurp SOLE authority to comment on this technology when his agenda is precisely to DENY those efficiencies. Therein lies the danger.
My real intention is to make you tell the truth, Ainslie. But you continue to lie and make false claims. YOU cannot support any of your claims, and I can refute them, at any time, in any venue whatsoever.
Quote
Please be aware of this objective. It's shared with picowatt and Sean and 'The Boss' and FTC and the rest. Some heavily vested interest in denials here. And none of it reasonable - all of it unsubstantiated - and certainly - AT BEST - a gross abuse of open source objectives.
Lies yet again. There is FAR more substantiation for the REFUTATION of Ainslie's various mendacious claims than she has ever provided in support of them. All this is provable on demand, and NONE of what Ainslie claims, other than the numbers in her boxes, can be substantiated by her at all. The numbers in boxes have been shown to be incorrectly obtained and improperly analyzed and the claims based on them shown to be bogus... all documented by several independent researchers, all repeatable on demand, UNLIKE Ainslie's claimed "work".
QuoteI might add that not only is their standard of posting an ABUSE of forum guidelines, the most of their references to our work and my part in it is criminal - abusive - and it includes their criminality in making facts known that they've rifled from my computer.
You repeat that slanderous lie as much as you like. Every time you do you are committing yet another CRIME that you will eventually pay for, so go ahead, dig yourself in deeper and deeper.
QuoteWhat's particularly ominous is that far from caring about this flaunted disrespect Stefan Hartman is actually encouraging it. That's certainly cause for concern.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Nobody, but nobody, has EVER shown the degree of disrespect for our host, and the violation of forum guidelines that YOU YOURSELF have shown. Several of us have in fact ASKED STEFAN NOT TO BAN YOU, because we feel that you need to face your medicine here. This is the only place left where you are exposed to the truth about yourself and your claims, Ainslie. What is cause for concern is that you open your own forums and blogs where contrary voices are censored and information is tightly controlled by YOU. You think you can lie and insult and threaten with impunity.... but you cannot. Your actions will have consequences, Ainslie, and you will soon be finding out what some of those are.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
Not actually little TK. I'm ALREADY experiencing consequences. Your prolonged attack has had serious consequences on my health. I put on record that this disgusting thread and all those other flamed threads are the single cause of my condition which is certainly life threatening. You and MileHigh and the rest are attempting to destroy my work and my name along with it. And IN FACT you have CERTAINLY been instrumental in destroying my health. And you really think that you can avoid accountability? Trust me on this. You're even in my will. You all are.
Rosie Pose
(sound of tiny violins playing sad music)
You are the lowest of the low. You want to blame ME for your "illness"? For destroying your health? You are a ridiculous, old, SICK, woman indeed.
You really should take up this health issue with the person that forces you to spend so much time on the internet, insulting and threatening all and sundry. Maybe you can convince your keepers to let you go outside and get some sun occasionally.
A challenge for picowatt
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2762.html#msg2762
Two challenges for Ainslie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo)
Quoting Ainslie:
QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
(sic)
Well, child.... are your lessons done?
-- Leonard Cohen
The quote:
"It seems that picowatt is rather anxious to challenge our claim that the battery is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each switched cycle. Effectively he is relying on the assumption that the energy is either FROM the battery or FROM the function generator - OR BOTH. And that it NEVER adds to the general efficiency of the system.
He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION. And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion.
Regards,
Rosie"
Frankly, you have a very crappy attitude. If you want to learn what is happening during the oscillation phase and understand the AC current path, then get off your "know it all" pedestal and just ask.
I particularly like this part:
"He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION. And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion."
This is not an allegation. Its called "electronics". Is this how you ask someone to teach you? Such attitude. If this were the rules, so to speak, your opinions would have been ENTIRELY discounted a long time ago. I, for one, am still waiting for you to address the Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 issue. But you don't, so should we just dismiss in entirety all of your opinions? Possibly that would indeed make the most sense.
After seeing you struggle with the simplest of concepts regarding your circuit's DC conditions, I will not waste my time trying to teach you "why" the circuit oscillates.
However, if you are only asking about how the AC currents pass thru Q2 while the circuit is oscillating and as Q2's on state is modulated, the AC current path is, for the most part, thru Coss, Ciss, and Crss, the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances. This has already been discussed. The three main MOSFET capacitances, Coss, Css, and Crss represent significant AC paths from the drain to the source of Q2. These are very significant and very real capacitances, well documented in the IRFPG50 data sheet. It is thru these capacitances that the bulk of the AC current flows during oscillation.
Next time you want to know something, drop the snotty attitude and just ask...
ADDED:
As I caught up on reading the thread this morning, all in all it was pretty ugly, with all that non-stop battling and threatening. But, there was one good chuckle to be had. That was the reference made to a bunch of EE's and tech's pretending to be particle physicists. The only person pretending to be a "particle physicist" around here is definitely no EE or tech!
By the way... Ainslie, ignoramus.... have you been able to figure out the month, yet?
It is JULY.... a month during which neither an EQUINOX, nor a SOLSTICE, occurs. Not even in South Africa.
And, evidently, it is a month during which NO TESTING OF A NERD CLAIM occurs, as well.
I like Tesla believe that the discovery of the electrical capacitor was the greatest discovery ever made by man. He proceeded very logically to improve capacitors from glorified leyden jars and plate capacitors to the electro-dynamic capacitors which became known as his Tesla transformers. By using electical parametric oscillators he could basically store time. It would take hours to discharge a battery into a Tesla transformer. The Tesla transformer could then be discharged within microseconds. Converting hours of input into milliseconds of output. If one is incapable of realizing the ramifications of power amplification please go back to making linear devices. Tesla's parametric oscillators were the first variable frequency drives. In his patent of electrical distribution that I posted previously in this thread his motor loads were amplitude modulated driven. The signal from the generator or circuit biasing plant riding on the highfrequency carrier generated in the spark gap. The whole entire system is a parametric oscillator fed from input ORIGINATING in the frigging spark gap where the real deal is happening. I thought that TK and possibly others would have noticed the signal from the generating plant riding the carrier frequency generated in the sparkgap.
I would also like to post that in the pn junction of any solid state device that gain from ambient radiation is achievable. Unfortunately when this occurs the device resitive elements can not handle the power and very expensive components designed to distribute energy not collect it go pop.
Just in case there are some technically capable lawyers reading here, I will review just one of Ainslie's many deceptions, a most egregious one.
The public Demonstration video, posted by Ainslie on her "doozydont" YouTube account, contains several clear photographs of the apparatus being demonstrated: the same one used to generate the data reported in Ainslie's manuscripts that were submitted to various peer-reviewed scientific journals. In these photographs the BLACK output lead from the Function Generator can clearly be seen to be connected on the BATTERY side of the current monitoring shunt resistor.
As has been amply demonstrated and acknowledged by many different people, this location allows one of the current pathways of the device to bypass the current monitoring shunt resistor entirely. This current path, which contains substantial, non-negligible power circulating in the device, is therefore NOT COUNTED by Ainslie and her team in the accounting of energy and power flows in the device.
Clearly, this invalidates the data from the current monitoring resistor and thus invalidates any power or energy calculations based on them. And of course it invalidates any claims or conclusions based on those calculations and data for the trials shown in the demonstration video.
There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the correct location of the BLACK function generator lead was used in the trials reported in the posted manuscripts. Since the public demo was expressly designed to illustrate the performance of the trials detailed in the papers..... it is very likely, in fact almost CERTAIN, that the data in the papers were also obtained with the FG's BLACK lead connected in such a manner as to bypass the current monitoring shunt resistor. This of course invalidates those data, the calculations based on them, and the conclusions drawn from the calculations.
EVEN IF THE CURRENT BYPASSING THE CVR IS TINY..... the very fact that the FG lead was positioned where it is in the Demo video nevertheless invalidates the data, and if it was also so placed in the trials reported in the manuscripts, these data are also invalid.
Yet there is no mention of this difficulty at all in any of the posted versions of the manuscripts. Only several different schematics are posted, depending on how old the versions of the manuscripts are: There is a single mosfet version with the location of the black FG wire omitted entirely. There is another similar version claiming 5 mosfets in parallel, but still only showing one symbol and omitting the FG black wire. There is yet another version showing the Q2 mosfets on the RIGHT side and the FG's black lead correctly positioned, and yet another showing the Q2 mosfets on the LEFT side.
It is this latter schematic that we are now assured was the one used for the trials in the manuscripts. But.... as an analysis of the scopetraces in Figures 3, 6 and 7 show, either this schematic was NOT used in some of the trials or one or more of the mosfets was inoperative or disconnected somehow... invalidating the data, the calculations, and the conclusions based upon them.
All of this, dear lawyers, is fully documented and can be checked, by simply having your EE consultants look at the gate drive signal and the current trace response in the Figures 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the latest edit of the first manuscript. In Figure 5 the mosfet is behaving as it should if wired according to the schematic and is functional. In the other figures, it is not, and considering the history of the trials, likely has blown from overheating... OR a different schematic than claimed is being used. Either way, the data and claims are invalid.
@Sparks: when you scope the secondary output of a spark-gap TC that is properly operating, you _only_ see the pure RLC ringdown. It is one of the most beautiful sights that nature produces. There is nothing of the "generator" in the signal at all. It is purely the injected power, sloshing back and forth between the coil's distributed capacitance, the main cap bank, and the coil's distributed inductance, with a little bit (as little as possible!) being dissipated in the distributed resistances with each "slosh".
If you are seeing anything but this pure, sinusoidal but exponentially decaying signal in the secondary.... your TC isn't working right, probably because your spark gap is not quenching properly and is still conducting when it shouldn't be.
Tesla made many significant improvements in spark gap technology, sadly neglected in today's low voltage electronics. He knew that the cleaner the cutoff and the more complete, the better and purer ringing he would get from "striking" his resonant secondaries (and tertiaries). You can see the progression, from simple adjustable or fixed multiple gaps, through blown gaps, magnetic gaps, even high-speed rotary mercury-wetted gaps. The entire point was to get clean cutoffs, to allow the tank circuit to ring unimpeded by noise from the primary.
(EDIT: When the spark is out, the primary tank and secondary resonator tank really is _disconnected_ from the generator or other power supply.)
I see she likes to get on people for not providing links or full quotes, as she herself provides no links and snips out only a portion of a post to add to her threads. Such hypocrisy...
I see from your last question to .99 that you have grasped nothing .99 said about Q2's DC conditions. Can't wait 'till he tells you that he most certainly does mean that drawing.
So, exactly, what do you find lacking in my response?
As you have thus far been unable to understand the simple DC conditions .99 has been discussing with you, do you think I, or any other reader, find it surprising that you do not understand my response? You do believe "capacitance" is real don't you?
And by the way, I do not think I am anxious about anything. You are the one having problems grappling with the how and why of your circuit. This is more obvious with each of your posts. If you had actually listened and learned to all those you have flamed and argued with in the past, you might actually have a better idea about what's going on in your circuit. But, instead of learning, you chose to leave a trail of disgruntled people whose knowledge and skills you insult as if YOU are the true expert. And in the end, with no one left standing beside you, you demonstrate to all just how limited your skills with basic electrical circuits, let alone electronics, truly are..
If you would step down from your self-appointed throne, you might actually learn something.
Here is a repeat of the posts:
Quote from: picowatt on July 23, 2012, 12:25:49 PM
The quote:
"It seems that picowatt is rather anxious to challenge our claim that the battery is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each switched cycle. Effectively he is relying on the assumption that the energy is either FROM the battery or FROM the function generator - OR BOTH. And that it NEVER adds to the general efficiency of the system.
He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION. And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion.
Regards,
Rosie"
Frankly, you have a very crappy attitude. If you want to learn what is happening during the oscillation phase and understand the AC current path, then get off your "know it all" pedestal and just ask.
I particularly like this part:
"He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION. And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion."
This is not an allegation. Its called "electronics". Is this how you ask someone to teach you? Such attitude. If this were the rules, so to speak, your opinions would have been ENTIRELY discounted a long time ago. I, for one, am still waiting for you to address the Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 issue. But you don't, so should we just dismiss in entirety all of your opinions? Possibly that would indeed make the most sense.
After seeing you struggle with the simplest of concepts regarding your circuit's DC conditions, I will not waste my time trying to teach you "why" the circuit oscillates.
However, if you are only asking about how the AC currents pass thru Q2 while the circuit is oscillating and as Q2's on state is modulated, the AC current path is, for the most part, thru Coss, Ciss, and Crss, the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances. This has already been discussed. The three main MOSFET capacitances, Coss, Css, and Crss represent significant AC paths from the drain to the source of Q2. These are very significant and very real capacitances, well documented in the IRFPG50 data sheet. It is thru these capacitances that the bulk of the AC current flows during oscillation.
Next time you want to know something, drop the snotty attitude and just ask...
ADDED:
As I caught up on reading the thread this morning, all in all it was pretty ugly, with all that non-stop battling and threatening. But, there was one good chuckle to be had. That was the reference made to a bunch of EE's and tech's pretending to be particle physicists. The only person pretending to be a "particle physicist" around here is definitely no EE or tech!
You would think that someone who has been working with MOSFET's for ten years or more would by now at least be familiar with the standard abbreviations, acronyms, and nomenclature used to describe MOSFET parameters and performance...
Look 'em up!
It is astounding how she lies, isn't it?
Yes, what use is a simple technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power easily and cheaply to moving assemblies without wires, commutators or physical contact at all?
What use is a technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power through barriers like vacuum and fluid seals, container walls, across space... with no wires, no windows, no physical contact? What possible use could something like that be?
And the ridiculous canard that I can't explain the oscillation that I am using... it is as though she is projecting her own absurd inadequacies on me! What insanity she spouts in her delusions.
I produce, control and utilize the oscillations that I understand and explain, perfectly well enough to create absolute wonders with them. Wonders that are so far beyond Ainslie's feeble and incorrect comprehension that she is afraid even to witness them.... much less attempt to explain them using her silly, childish delusion of a "thesis".
She also lies when she refers to my calculations of efficiency, power and energy. She knows nothing of how these parameters are actually determined: witness her ridiculous silly claim of a COP > INFINITY in a device that requires batteries to operate and will NOT RUN without them at all. Nor does she acknowledge my hard work performing manual power and energy computations on Tar Baby's performance... nor even the FAR STRONGER EVIDENCE than she has ever produced of a negative mean power measurement: the actual DECREASING ENERGY INTEGRAL that I showed from Tar Baby using a sophisticated Tektronix DSO that makes her Etch-a-Sketch LeCroy look like a Barbie playtoy.
In short, Ainslie is in full character, misrepresenting and lying about the work of others, insulting and bloviating, all in one short post.
Short, I am quite sure, because she has not yet imbibed her daily beverages which inevitably loosen her tongue in the early afternoon. There will be much longer rants and screeds later today, I'm sure, as she begins to feel her cups.
What is all the more astounding is that Ainslie has apparently not perceived a critical fact: I am in everyone's crosshairs. I've been a skeptical curmudgeon here for some time, and not just with Ainslie's crude kludge. EVERYONE who looks at my posts and my work is watching very carefully for me to make a mistake, to err, to stick my foot in my mouth with some ridiculous claim or unsupported "debunk" of something that actually isn't bunk.
Whenever I so much as make a typo or number transposition, I get numerous PMs, hostile and friendly, telling me about my error. If I should make an error in theory, or practice, those that know better than I do in these matters will always let me know about it instantly, with references and proper refutations. And if they are correct I always acknowledge it, and learn from my errors.
Ainslie is the only person who continually _claims_ to find fault with my work, my statements, my analogies, my posts in general. Yet she NEVER refutes me with actual facts, checkable references or demonstrations of her own. NEVER, not once has she ever been able to refute a single thing I've said about Tar Baby, about her apparatus, or about electronics or physics in general.
Ainslie has no support whatever for her constant criticisms and insults against me personally and my work here. She is the ONLY person who criticises me on these substantive issues. Even her pet troll Wilby cannot refute any of my facts, no matter how much he complains about the logical errors he is projecting onto me, and ignoring in himself and especially in Ainslie. Yet, I have references, documents, outside links, demonstrations and REPEATABLE experiments that illustrate amply everything I have said about her and her bogus claims.
Quote from: picowatt on July 23, 2012, 12:25:49 PM
The quote:
"It seems that picowatt is rather anxious to challenge our claim that the battery is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each switched cycle. Effectively he is relying on the assumption that the energy is either FROM the battery or FROM the function generator - OR BOTH. And that it NEVER adds to the general efficiency of the system.
He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION. And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion.
Regards,
Rosie"
Frankly, you have a very crappy attitude. If you want to learn what is happening during the oscillation phase and understand the AC current path, then get off your "know it all" pedestal and just ask.
I particularly like this part:
"He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION. And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion."
This is not an allegation. Its called "electronics". Is this how you ask someone to teach you? Such attitude. If this were the rules, so to speak, your opinions would have been ENTIRELY discounted a long time ago. I, for one, am still waiting for you to address the Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 issue. But you don't, so should we just dismiss in entirety all of your opinions? Possibly that would indeed make the most sense.
After seeing you struggle with the simplest of concepts regarding your circuit's DC conditions, I will not waste my time trying to teach you "why" the circuit oscillates.
However, if you are only asking about how the AC currents path thru Q2 while the circuit is oscillating and as Q2's on state is modulated, the AC current path is, for the most part, thru Coss, Ciss, and Crss, the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances. This has already been discussed. The three main MOSFET capacitances, Coss, Css, and Crss represent significant AC paths from the drain to the source of Q2. These are very significant and very real capacitances, well documented in the IRFPG50 data sheet. It is thru these capacitances that the bulk of the AC current flows during oscillation.
Next time you want to know something, drop the snotty attitude and just ask...
ADDED:
As I caught up on reading the thread this morning, all in all it was pretty ugly, with all that non-stop battling and threatening. But, there was one good chuckle to be had. That was the reference made to a bunch of EE's and tech's pretending to be particle physicists. The only person pretending to be a "particle physicist" around here is definitely no EE or tech!
This stupid claim of hers that the battery is "disconnected during the oscillation phase" is ridiculously easy to put down, like the sick puppy that it is.
And here is how to do it.
Set the function generator to its longest period, the two minutes plus period, with the 20 seconds of Q1 ON, no oscillation, time. This mode has been shown by Ainslie, and has been claimed to be the desired, long oscillation, mode of operation. And... this gives you well over a minute, maybe two, to perform the test I am suggesting, DURING THE OSCILLATIONS.
If the battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit during the oscillations as Ainslie claims (and claims to believe) .... then it should make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER if ... you reach over and actually DO ENTIRELY disconnect the battery by pulling off the alligator cliplead connecting it physically to the circuit.
Right?
Now watch those goalposts start moving again..........
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
Yes, what use is a simple technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power easily and cheaply to moving assemblies without wires, commutators or physical contact at all?
What use is a technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power through barriers like vacuum and fluid seals, container walls, across space... with no wires, no windows, no physical contact? What possible use could something like that be?
Yes, what possible use could something like that be ?
A self enclosed pressure housing, with on demand fuel generation powered wirelessly, chamber detonation spark powered wirelessly, and fluid shaping creating supersonic thrust through a blow forward ECV nozzle valve, gravity return. No holes means no seals, no seals means no leaks. The added bonus being a controllable electrical oscillation, for experimentation with resonance effects on electrolytic phase change during fuel generation, for those interested.
A question, is a single coil and a cylinder compatible for wireless power transmission ? How about two cylinders axial sleeved ? What importance does relative angle make to efficiency of power transmission ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ODW-ntPHSU
Well apparently Rosemary is being dismissive of an attempt to discuss the MOSFET and related capacitance effects and calling the discussion "absurd" on her new blog. So she is putting up a blocking obstacle for herself.
She is very much a technical Luddite when you venture past a very basic (and I mean _very_ basic) discussion of what's going on. Part of it is that capacitance is a stumbling block for her, she doesn't understand it. (Inductance too for that matter.)
There was an exchange with a new member on the blog today, I assume most of you read it. It's very very discouraging, and reading between the lines you could sense the steam rising off the top of of her head. (Just like that robot in that original Star Trek episode.)
Abandon hope all ye who enter into the the world of Rosemary and the Zipons.
@EA: I think that two nested coaxial cylinders, properly sized and driven ( and with little longitudinal "splits" to make them Cs instead of Os), would allow nearly full and uninterrupted power transfer and free rotation around the axis.
With loops, it seems that in the near field "SNM" the transfer is not too sensitive to relative orientation of the loop antennae, but at larger distances there are quite definite (and useful) null positions where no power is coupled, and slight changes or shifts or rotations produce much larger or full couplings.
I understand that the monorail system at DisneyWorld in Florida uses a similar power transfer/levitation system, and the train is throttled by mechanically moving the pickup coil closer or farther away from the transmitter coils embedded in the concrete rail structure. Elegant, simple, reliable, and safe.
Marko's video that you linked is the one that inspired me to begin this project.
TK,
That is all good news.
Distance would be no more than 1" necessary.
Ring and cylinder mounted at 90, two nested cylinders, or two rings in parallel are all viable options. I guess the tricky part with nested cylinders will be in calibration because the cylinders separation distance is not variable like the ring sections. Once the sweet spots are identified through trial and error the optimal dimensions will become known, and easily manufactured.
Interesting...
ETA: I've been referring to the Tx and Rx loops as "antennae" but I don't think that they really are best viewed that way. The wavelength of the oscillations is on the order of 300-400 meters !! So a quarter wave loop antenna for that frequency would be rather unwieldy.
I think this means that the system will be relatively unaffected by exact size and shape of the loops. My "black box" version uses a nearly rectangular loop for the receiver, mounted in the same plane, around all the Rx circuitry, and the Tx loop is a bent oblong shape, to fit in the box, also parallel to the Tx circuitry and essentially wrapped around it.
TK,
Sorry to trouble you, but could you repost that capture of hers that shows the drain voltage if you have it handy?
I wanted to take a quick look at something and will have to dig for it.
Thanks,
PW
Quote from: picowatt on July 23, 2012, 07:37:17 PM
TK,
Sorry to trouble you, but could you repost that capture of hers that shows the drain voltage if you have it handy?
I wanted to take a quick look at something and will have to dig for it.
Thanks,
PW
No bother at all, I have everything at my fingertips. The only problem is that there is so much of it.
I think you are referring to this one?
Most of the captures are also readily available here: http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/
TK,
A ring and tube system would work well, A Tx ring and an Rx inner tube.The Tx ring should only see the ring section of the Rx tube and calibrate easily. The outer tube is connected to housing ground earth, forming a nested tubular series cell capable of AC heating for steam, or DC electrolysis for HHO, inside a seamless pressure housing, with a valve at the outlet.
A co-axial chamber arrangement will allow simple piloting via a piston valve for a steam dump injector.
Alternatively a high pressure pulse can be generated by detonating the hho, shaping the flow, and can be either a blowforward or blowback type of valve, initiated by user defined timing of the spark prime mover.
A very simple assembly all made possible by wireless transmission of power. Happy days.
TK,
Yep, that's the one. Thanks!
She seems to think it would take a huge capacitance to pass the indicated AC current at the oscillation frequency.
Looking at that capture, it looks like there is about 150Vpk to pk at the drain. There also appears to be about 2.6 amps pk to pk of AC current at the CSR trace.
To make the numbers easy, let's call the AC current 3 amps. That would mean that an equivalent resistance of about 50 ohms at 1.5MHz is needed from drain to source to cause 3 amps to be indicated.
The reactance of 2100pF is approx. 50 ohms at 1.5MHz. So, assuming a pure sine wave, a 2100pF capacitance would be plenty to pass the observed current.
However, none of the oscillation waveforms presented in any capture represent a pure sinusoid. There appears to be a very sigificant amount of at least second and third harmonic present. For AC currents at the second and third harmonic of the fundamental, the required capacitance to pass a similar amount of current with levels similar to above would be one-half and one-third the 2100pF figure.
An FFT of the drain voltage and CSR voltage would allow one to quantify how much of the observed current is from harmonics of the fundamental, but visually, I would guess about 20% second and as much as 50% third (looking at FIG4 in first paper). Using these numbers, 1,500pF would likely be more than sufficient to pass the observed current.
Also note that the drain waveform during oscillation swings to almost zero VDS. At any VDS < 20 volts, the MOSFET capacitances increase rapidly. The four Q2 Coss in parallel are only about 700pF at a VDS well over 20 volts, but below 20 volts, total Coss rapidly rises to greater than 4,000pF and approaches 20,000pF as VDS approaches zero.
Ciss also increases as VDS is decreased. Even at VDS >>20 volts, total parallel Ciss for Q2 is around 11,000pF. As VDS approaches zero volts, total Q2 Ciss approaches 30,000pF.
1,500pF doesn't sound like a very big capacitance to me, particularly given the large intrinsic capacitances of the IRFPG50.
The way she talks, she would have us believe a huge double layer supercap or similar would be required to to pass her AC current.
PW
ADDED: 3 amps pk to pk of AC current was used in the above example. In some captures, as much as 4amps is indicated. However, just as the reactances of the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances are harmonic dependent, so is the reactance of the CSR inductance.
The inductive reactance of the CSR has been determined to be approximately 1 ohm at the fundamental. However, as noted above, the waveforms are not a pure sinusoids and contain signficant amounts of harmonic content. For the second and third harmonic, the CSR reactance would be 2 and 3 ohms respectively. In order to accurately determine the correct amount of current observed by the CSR, an FFT analysis of the harmonic content would be required and all harmonics calculated individually. However, as signficant amounts of second and third harmonic are readily observed in the captures, it is not unrealistic to expect that the actual current flow may only be a fraction of what is indicated and calculated using only the 1 ohm reactance of the CSR at the fundamental.
Ainslie knows nothing of capacitance or capacitors. She doesn't understand them from a practical nor a theoretical standpoint. They are not accommodated by her "thesis" at all. She perhaps grasps that they are some sort of energy storage device.
I used 10 nF (10000 pF) and 1.5 MHz for my capacitance demonstration video. She thinks I faked what I show in it. I am seriously considering using an IRFPG50 as the capacitor in the next video. But what's the use, she is impervious to instruction, even of the very most basic kind.
Like near.... far.
You just gotta' love the hypocrisy...
She gets on TK for not posting links to her thread or posting complete quotes, as in this from a recent post of hers over here:
"You omitted the LINK - YET AGAIN. Here's the little ditty with its addendum that you were so careful to EXCLUDE."
While she on the other hand, snips one paragraph out of a half dozen or so from my recent post and also provides no links to my original comment as she posted that small portion of my comment on her thread.
Guess she wanted to carefully exclude that "Q1 not turnng on in FIG3, 6, and 7" comment from my post.
Talk about "cherry picking"...
Well, as her very perceptive member volter has said...
QuoteOh. I think the problems here are not of a technical nature.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 01:09:52 PM
@Sparks: when you scope the secondary output of a spark-gap TC that is properly operating, you _only_ see the pure RLC ringdown. It is one of the most beautiful sights that nature produces. There is nothing of the "generator" in the signal at all....
Sorry for the confusion tk I was talking about the patent where he was using megahertz oscillations and inrush currents and driving high impedance motors that wouldnt even budge on a 400hz input never mind megahertz. I was just crediting Tesla with the first amplitude modulated electric motor drive. Which of course could also be an am radio antennae if the translational device is a tuned antennae or device of high selfinductance and distributed capacitance whereas the highest amount of voltage is caused to reside on the big mushroom in the sky top load capacitor. Another very important thing to not is that Tesla completely extinguished any electron motion through his spark gaps as they were used to capacitavely couple the primary oscillations with the secondary oscillations. This pretty much prooves that electricity is not the flow of electrons. Electricity flows outside of the conductor. How does the electricity know where the conductor is? Cause a conductor is in the way so it goes around it.
Howdy members and guests,
Please note the statements highlighted in
"RED" .......
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 08:59:01 PM
Ainslie knows nothing of capacitance or capacitors. She doesn't understand them from a practical nor a theoretical standpoint. They are not accommodated by her "thesis" at all. She perhaps grasps that they are some sort of energy storage device.
.............
Your 100% correct that Rosemary ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont ) has no clue on how a capacitor works, is made or used ..... by her own admission in this "LINK" below in her own words ..... ???
Nothing has changed in Rosemary's understanding or education of anything in over a year ..... "NOTHING" shes still selling the same claimed fantasy devices with imaginary collaborators and hidden testing and evaluation or proof of operation that can be reproduced as advertised. ::)
It's all about the
"THESIS" noting more and nothing less .....
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 20, 2011, 10:28:33 PM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291932/#msg291932 Reply #1534
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 05:59:59 PM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291900/#msg291900 Reply #1528
@MrMag: You politely asked about Rosemary's background, and for some reason she bristled at you.
But over the years, she has revealed quite a lot. IIRC (and please correct me if I am wrong, Rosie) she has no post-secondary education, no mathematics education beyond simple algebra, certainly no calculus. Her "high school" was what we might call "alternative" here in the good old USA.
Golly. I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'. I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest. I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15. I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY. That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18. And 1 year before my finals. And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading. Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant. And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron. But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2011, 05:59:59 PM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291900/#msg291900 Reply #1528
She is self-taught wrt physics in general and electronics in particular, and until she started posting here and on Energetic Forum, she had no idea what, for example, a capacitor was or what it was for.
This is also a lot of baloney. I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here. AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS. SO. I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS. And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS. I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis. I STILL do not know how a capacitor works. AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself. I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues. That's the downside in being me.
..... snip .....
Yes, it's astounding. She reads three popular books on physics... The Dancing Wu Li Masters is her primary text.... and she thinks that is being directly taught by Masters.
She was an immature child the last time she sat in a classroom and was evaluated on her performance. And she couldn't handle it then, and she can't handle it now. She has absolutely no clue what is required to earn a real University degree in a hard science. And she has the utter temerity, the unmitigated gall, the overweening arrogance to presume to lecture her nonsense at people who actually HAVE been taught by real Masters, been evaluated by them directly, and found to be competent by them.
She's read a couple of popular books and thinks that's an education! Yet she cannot solve the simplest problem, the most basic exercise, given in a freshman _real_ textbook in her chosen field. Nor can she communicate effectively or use commonly understood language, or even, apparently, read and interpret a component data sheet.
And when her errors and idiocy are incontrovertibly pointed out... like the howler "equinox"... or no.... "solstice".... announcement on July 21st .... she just ignores it and sweeps it away with a flood of insult and bloviation and recycles some ancient, discredited claim as if it were suddenly true.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 12:15:39 AM
people who actually HAVE been taught by real Masters, been evaluated by them directly, and found to be competent by them.
::) to whom are you referring? certainly not yourself... ::)
Even you would probably recognise the names of some of my teachers and evaluators, Wilby.... that is, if you only could read.
What are the names of Ainslie's TEACHERS, Wilby? Do I get to count all the popular science books that I have read, as my TEACHERS, Wilby?
Just what are the rules, here, WILBY? What does count as TEACHING, as LEARNING?
Can Ainslie DEMONSTRATE LEARNING anything from her TEACHERS?
I can.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:19:38 PM
Even you would probably recognise the names of some of my teachers and evaluators, Wilby.... that is, if you only could read.
your alleged teachers... you would have to stop hiding behind your keyboard to validate any of your bullshit claims about being taught masters... ;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:19:38 PM
What are the names of Ainslie's TEACHERS, Wilby? Do I get to count all the popular science books that I have read, as my TEACHERS, Wilby?
how is that relevant to your claim of being taught by masters? it's not. it's another of your logical fallacious
not cogent replies. try again.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:19:38 PM
Just what are the rules, here, WILBY? What does count as TEACHING, as LEARNING?
Can Ainslie DEMONSTRATE LEARNING anything from her TEACHERS?
I can.
how does this address the question i asked you? it doesn't. again more red herring bullshit from the dancing bear. try a cogent reply... idiot.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 24, 2012, 01:04:08 PM
::) to whom are you referring? certainly not yourself... ::)
Yes, actually. Do you have a problem with that? Would you like to dispute it? Fine, support your disputation.
I have indeed been taught by REAL MASTERS, working with them daily in classrooms, even assisting them in their duties. Even... WILBY, TROLL, getting paid a stipend for it. Have you ever attended Graduate School at a major research university? Apparently not, because you seem to be quite ignorant of the higher education process.... where students like ME, but not like Ainslie, actually do attend lectures and seminars with these ascended MASTERS, actually sit exams, actually have to PASS COURSES in order to advance, actually have the privilege of working as Teaching Assistants to some of these MASTERS. I'll just mention the name of just one of my true MASTER TEACHERS: Alan Kawamoto, who was a member of the original PDP team under McClelland and Rumelhart.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 24, 2012, 01:36:28 PM
your alleged teachers... you would have to stop hiding behind your keyboard to validate any of your bullshit claims about being taught masters... ;)
how is that relevant to your claim of being taught by masters? it's not. it's another of your logical fallacious not cogent replies. try again.
how does this address the question i asked you? it doesn't. again more red herring bullshit from the dancing bear. try a cogent reply... idiot.
WILBY, you troll, why don't you take your specious and fallacious arguments over to Ainslie's forum.... where you might be able to do some good for a change. Here, you are just making people's IGNORE lists swell up. Shame on me for allowing you to fill up your JIB, guy.
I'll put my education and my teachers up against AINSLIE's for comparison, any day of the week including SUNDAY.
YOU YOURSELF know that you cannot sustain any argument that compares Ainslie's education and "teachers" with a real education and REAL TEACHERS.
Why, I can tell from the way you often spell words correctly that even YOU have had a better education than she has had.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:38:36 PM
Yes, actually. Do you have a problem with that? Would you like to dispute it? Fine, support your disputation.
i do. i would. i don't have to... as you've already done it for me. like you always do... ;) you're an anonymous windbag on the internet... if you claim to be taught by masters then prove it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:38:36 PM
I have indeed been taught by REAL MASTERS, working with them daily in classrooms, even assisting them in their duties. Even... WILBY, TROLL, getting paid a stipend for it. Have you ever attended Graduate School at a major research university? Apparently not, because you seem to be quite ignorant of the higher education process.... where students like ME, but not like Ainslie, actually do attend lectures and seminars with these ascended MASTERS, actually sit exams, actually have to PASS COURSES in order to advance, actually have the privilege of working as Teaching Assistants to some of these MASTERS. I'll just mention the name of just one of my true MASTER TEACHERS: Alan Kawamoto, who was a member of the original PDP team under McClelland and Rumelhart.
oh wow... name dropping. big deal, that proves nothing... and it certainly doesn't prove you studied under him. idiot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:42:30 PM
WILBY, you troll, why don't you take your specious and fallacious arguments over to Ainslie's forum.... where you might be able to do some good for a change. Here, you are just making people's IGNORE lists swell up. Shame on me for allowing you to fill up your JIB, guy.
I'll put my education and my teachers up against AINSLIE's for comparison, any day of the week including SUNDAY.
YOU YOURSELF know that you cannot sustain any argument that compares Ainslie's education and "teachers" with a real education and REAL TEACHERS.
Why, I can tell from the way you often spell words correctly that even YOU have had a better education than she has had.
more red herrings? what does any of this tripe you posted have to do with
YOUR claim of being taught by masters? idiot.
too bad your 'education' didn't include a course on logic... or did you fail out of that 5 times too?
What it proves, you silly sailor, is that you must be sitting there with a window open constantly looking and waiting for ME to make some comment that you think you can use to attack me. In other words, it proves that you are a useless TROLL and stalker, the very textbook example of the same.
You cannot make a substantive contribution to this discussion. And you cannot REFUTE anything I've said. You certainly cannot claim with any legitimacy that I have NOT had a good education and that my teachers were NOT true masters. Where is your EVIDENCE to the contrary? YOU HAVE NONE.
It gives me great pleasure to imagine you sitting there, lurking, waiting, hoping, that somebody somewhere on one of the threads you troll will give you an opening. I wonder how many people have you in their IGNORE lists. Every second I spend writing these words.... is a minute you spend deciphering them and trying to figure out how to respond in complete sentences. Do you have all this time to waste? How does it feel to be a VICTIM of your own trolling, there, sailor?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:50:01 PM
What it proves, you silly sailor, is that you must be sitting there with a window open constantly looking and waiting for ME to make some comment that you think you can use to attack me. In other words, it proves that you are a useless TROLL and stalker, the very textbook example of the same.
You cannot make a substantive contribution to this discussion. And you cannot REFUTE anything I've said. You certainly cannot claim with any legitimacy that I have NOT had a good education and that my teachers were NOT true masters. Where is your EVIDENCE to the contrary? YOU HAVE NONE.
LMFAO! LOL! ROTF! STFU idiot... i just did refute it... ::)
i don't need to present "evidence to the contrary" of an unsubstantiated claim... ::)
and yet this is just more of your repeated logical fallacies... why are you avoiding validating your claim?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 24, 2012, 01:53:35 PM
LMFAO! LOL! ROTF! STFU idiot... i just did refute it... ::)
i don't need to present "evidence to the contrary" of an unsubstantiated claim... ::)
Thank you for proving my point, troll.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 01:55:07 PM
Thank you for proving my point, troll.
five? logical fallacies in a row from you... proves nothing other than you either don't comprehend logic or don't use it.
what is your name? so it can be verified that you studied under alan. without such verification you have no evidence that you have studied under anyone... much less "masters". ::)
8)
fact: tinselkoala/alsetalokin has no extant material evidence available to support his claim of being taught by masters. when asked to provide said evidence, tinselkoala/alsetalokin refuses and changes the subject.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 02:03:56 PM
8)
imagine that! it's like deja vu...
this is just like the last time i asked you to be accountable for your asinine claims. you cussed me out and ran off home to mommie... looks like you've matured a little since then. but... you're still running away after you've talked yourself into a hole. ::) that's something for you to work on, like not saying ummm or ahh once every 10 seconds in your 'videos'... ;)
still waiting on some sort of verification that you studied under "masters"... it's gonna be like that mea culpa you owe me isn't? ;)
Quote from over there:
"I've elaborated on this in the follow up post. Can you comment on that? I'm not sure that I want you to outline anything related to current flow until we've tested that first protocol test number. Unless you're up for it. I was referring to the argument per you and picowatt - that explains the oscillation as energy delivered by the battery as a consequence of the gate switch at Q2 being on - or even partially 'on' during the 'off' period at Q1. My take is that the battery is disconnected during the oscillation period. Your take is that it is 'on' and is responsible for that oscillation. Something like that? Not quite sure.
Regards
Rosie'
I do not believe you have fully grasped the DC conditions regarding Q2. If you did, you would now be able to understand the negative feedback that regulates the bias current thru Q2 under DC conditions. Once you understand negative feedback, positive feedback is a bit easier to understand.
In any case, and very briefly:
If you look at your FIG4 in the first paper, you can see Q2 being modulated on and off.
Channel 3 is the voltage at the source of Q2. You will observe a series of negative peaks that resemble "V"s. During the descending portion of the "V", Q2 is being turned on. During the ascending portion of the "V", Q2 is being turned off.
During oscillation, the MOSFET capacitances are either being charged (VDS increasing) or discharged (VDS decreasing) with their charge/discharge current passing thru the CSR (and, to a lesser degree, thru the FG).
Cgd, Cgs, Cds, the CSR, and gate lead inductance are the primary components that form a feedback network that modulates Q2's on state.
If the battery is disconnected during the oscillation period as Ainslie claims and believes, then it should make no difference whatsoever to the oscillations if you REALLY disconnect the battery by removing one of the wires.
It's a funny sort of "disconnection" that requires a CONDUCTIVE WIRE CARRYING CURRENT connecting the "disconnected" components, for the system to continue to work.
Let's see the explanation for that howler of a claim. How come, if the battery is DISCONNECTED, it still needs to be CONNECTED for the system to operate?
Of course, this is the Red Queen's world, where the Winter Equinox comes on July 21 (or was that the solstice?) and words mean whatever Ainslie wants them to mean, at the moment.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
How come, if the battery is DISCONNECTED, it still needs to be CONNECTED for the system to operate?
Zipons? :-\
I studied logic a long time ago so give me a little leeway here if I err. Upon employing logic to predict solutions to a problem many times logic prooved to be a valuable tool for problem solving. Just about as many times it was useless because reality does not always conform to logical thought processes. I can make a prediction using logic that an apple I am buying in a store will taste like an apple . It is a prediction based on logic. I bought something that looks like smells like and is marketed as an apple so by employing logical thought processing I deduce that it will taste like an apple. If I get home and it tastes like an orange logic has failed me. Stuff like that happens all the time. I will say however that I believe intuitave thought processing relies heavily on subconscious application of logic to databases that on a conscious level we are not aware of. The brain can rapidly remember similar problems and situations and even respond to minute chemical traces or body posturing etc. This is why any successful businessman will not make an important deal unless whoever he is dealing with is in person.
Ahh...limits.
At last. I don't consider a research project completely interesting until I find out where some limits are.
I believe this limit is attained when one of the cheap Radio Shack RF chokes (rated at 2 amps) overheats from high current, shorts through its insulation and suddenly drops from 100 uH to 0 uH. This allows all that power circulating in the loop to bang through to the mosfets.
I still haven't found all the pieces. It sounded like a pair of firecrackers.
Hey T
Maybe the fuse is a bit high. Im working on a project at the moment and will be building me a loop device soon.
The IRF1010e are close in power to larger devices, bout 200w.
From fiddling with car amps, I can see its better to use a clamp to mount the transistors to the heat sinks, forcing the whole tab side evenly against the sink. When pushing the transistors hard, the top of the tab bolted to the sink, the tab itself can distort/bend the tab, and the part of the tab right where the chip inside is mounted might not be against the sink, even with heat paste, enough to get rid of the heat fast enough.
Not saying it would have made a difference here. But I noticed the screw impressions on your tabs. ;]
Was thinking of trying the larger disk caps from RS. 10nf 500v x 6.
Mags
This wasn't fused.... so yes, a bit high!
No, I don't think better heat transfer would have helped in this case. But these are cheap, three of these for the cost of one PG50.
I agree that clamping is better than screwing, all things considered. But these heatsinks, thermal paste, and screws are perfectly adequate under normal circumstances. What goes on in this lab is anything but normal circumstance, though. If I'm not blowing mosfets, I'm not finding where the limits are.
So what are the limits? ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on July 25, 2012, 12:17:18 AM
So what are the limits? ;]
Mags
Well, it does work with 60 uH chokes of good core material and heavy wire, like in the prototype, and it does work with the cheapo 100 uH RatShack chokes as long as they don't short out. It doesn't work with a shorted choke, for more than a few seconds.
So I'd say wind your own chokes, using heavy magnet wire and a good RF ferrite, on a toroid or spool bobbin.
Or if you use the RS chokes, at full power (7 amps or so input) just watch the temps so the insulation doesn't break down. Or rewind them with heavier, double-insulated magnet wire, same number of turns.
Other than that.... I think these mosfets are actually rated for some crazy current like 49 amps. It will be fun to push the limits with them on good heatsinks and active cooling. I've had it to 18 volts input OK, but one needs to watch the gate-source voltage, I think this mosfet is rated only 20 volts on the gate so until I scope out what's happening at the gate I don't want to go higher on the input voltage. It may need gate voltage limiting zeners and these might kill it, I dunno. That's what the soldering iron is for, I guess.
Somehow..... I doubt it.
:P
On another note: I just dissected the RF choke that failed in the SN002 transmitter along with the two blown mosfeet. The ferrite is actually fractured right in two at the place where the insulation failure happened! This is a very localised spot on the choke. It is as if all the reflected power bounced back into the mosfets and the chokes and was released at these three points. The choke core was only held together by the wire wrapping it. Since all the enamel insulation was blown off the wire, the choke windings were shorted through the overlapping layers at this point.
"For some reason.....?"
I am not getting the sense that the student is actually _understanding_ the teacher's poynts.
Could Polly Parrot describe, in her own words, the current paths that .99 is trying to illustrate? It seems that every time she tries.... EVERY time.... she gets it wrong. Her "OK" is no indication at all that she has "gotten it".... because the next time she tries to describe for herself what she's "gotten" she gets it wrong yet again.
But the suspense mounts, along with a mystery. How did TK's evil agents of suppression, coordinated from the DeepBunker in South Texas, manage to arrange with their well-paid operatives in South Africa to steal Polly's new camera on the very eve of her new live video demonstration? With all that beefed up security she's been warning about? Vicious canines, terrifying ninja gardeners, well-armed upstairs maids? An operation of international scale, mounted on short notice and pulled off without a hitch. Fortunately for the world, webcams actually can be purchased off the shelf in South Africa, if you've got the money, so we are assured that someone will be coming over on Saturday to plug a new one in for her.
Do they have Wal-Marts in Cape Town, I wonder?
Oh, this burns me up. I had thought that Ainslie's imaginary lawyers had actually convinced her to stop lying and making false paranoid accusations. But I see that, as usual, Ainslie cannot take the good advice that's given her.
Quote
And guys, to be specific - here's the thing.
TK and Sean published both my own personal file downloads and the names and addresses of people whom I've been in correspondence with - but whose names I have NEVER put on the internet. This was done after they CROWED over their breach of my computer - and then INSISTED that I had put the information out there.
It is a LIE that she did not put all of the information that she is talking about IN PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET. Every scopeshot, every name, every phone number, and I have the links to prove it. Of course she has gone back and edited some of those posts...but perhaps she does not know about the WayBackMachine.
Furthermore, never has anyone CROWED about the non-existent "breach" of her silly toy computer(s).
To accuse me of "breaching" her computer is insane, a paranoid delusion, a total fantasy. Consider: Had I done such a thing-- were it even POSSIBLE -- with her projected "agenda" that she believes that I have.... would she be capable of accessing the internet at all today?
Quote
I still don't know how that managed that breach. I have an Apple - which is on record as being pretty well 'breach proof'. But. However it was done the simple fact is this. UNLESS TK publishes the link to those files which disclose either the downloads OR those names - then we have all the proof required that there's been this computer breach. I've challenged him to do this. He's declined to produce those links.
Again, wrong. The filenames of most of the scopeshots indicate their PUBLIC SOURCES, and the posts wherein she listed all of the names I posted have also been listed by me and by FTC and by others. Many of them appear IN THIS VERY FORUM, in the locked threads that she thinks are invisible. Again, she lies and makes accusations without proof. And I am not required by any laws of man or logic to reaffirm those sources in order to "prove my innocence" of the absurd accusation.
Quote
Then. NOTA BENE. TK, Glen Lettenmaier or FTC, Sean, The Boss, Evolving Ape, PhiChaser, MileHigh and picowatt - have all led a concerted attack against my name. I am 63 years old. I am a mother and a grandmother. I am an upright member of our community. I have NEVER defrauded the public in my efforts to promote a new science. We have all of us modestly pointed to the evidence of measured anomalies as requiring investigation.
Lies again. Ainslie has attempted to gain public recognition, fame, and MONETARY PRIZES using her mendacious and erroneous claims, which are NOT EVEN SUPPORTED BY HER OWN DATA, as anyone and EVERYONE who has examined the claims and the data can attest. NOBODY who has attempted her trials has supported her claims, NOT EVEN THE MOST RECENT LABORATORY TESTING. The "modest pointing" included trumpeting to all and sundry the "modest claim" of batteries that did not discharge (disproven) and COP > INFINITY ( ridiculous and also disproven).
QuoteNotwithstanding which - all nine of them have chosen to refer to me in terms that would embarrass your average criminal low life - but they have also been on a MISSION to entirely discredit our work. They have 'crowed' at the fact that I've got a life threatening illness - and TK has expressed delight at the death of a close family member.
You are indeed a liar. Please support your claim that I expressed delight with a link or a direct quote, you liar. What I expressed was my continuing contempt that you use the death of a relative, and your own illness, to gain sympathy or special treatment. Ainslie, we are ALL sick, we have ALL lost close loved ones, and it is ALL IRRELEVANT to the simple fact that you are wrong and overweeningly arrogant and willfully ignorant. Your own insulting language towards those who have tried to help you is amply documented in my database, including your disgusting cartoon insults from years ago. In short, you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to complain about how people refer to you or address you, because YOU YOURSELF, Ainslie, are perhaps the most insulting and arrogant poster this forum in particular has ever seen.
QuoteThey have unrelentingly referenced my stupidity and lack of training as reason enough to mount this attack. And they have charged through every thread where I've posted - in order to both publicly disgrace me and to silence me.
In order to demonstrate that you are wrong, that you lie and misrepresent, and that if you reported honestly and analysed correctly you would have NOTHING to talk about. Yes, I hope that "attack" continues unrelenting, because you are a liar, Ainslie, and indeed ignorant and yes... stupid, because you do not know how to reason correctly, nor to humble yourself before those who could teach you. Ignorance is (barely) forgivable and correctable.... your stupidity is a lifetime burden, for you and for your interlocutors. Even today, in your attempts to follow .99's explanation, you are continuing to muddle and frustrate and cling to the misconceptions that prevent your understanding your own circuit... on the eve of your alleged continued testing. Pitiful indeed.... and indeed STUPID.
Quote
Not only this but Stefan Hartman - the owner of that forum has actively encouraged this attack. He's on record as refusing to do anything at all about the problem and went further to assure them that they were under no obligations whatsoever to conform to forum guidelines. He even invited MileHigh and Glen Lettenmaier back into the fold when TK started his thread - to ensure that they managed to complement and add to the general disaster. Which shows that Stefan is very much a party to that agenda.
Contrariwise, your statement here, Ainslie, again illustrates your paranoid delusions. In every sentence you say that which is untrue, a product of your own hallucinations and delusions. You could have been banned months ago, Ainslie, or you could have simply stopped posting your lies here. But we argued against banning you, and you continued to post your lies, just like this post here on your "own" honeytrap forum, a post full of lies.
Quote
So. I put it to you that the owner of OverUnity.com is actually actively pursuing all claims of unity breach - duping us poor sods to post of this in his forum - PRECISELY to get ample opportunity to discredit such claims in any way possible - and regardless of the legal or illegal methodologies employed. By rights any earnest seeker of this new energy would be somewhat heavily compromised to keep posting there. And I caution you all accordingly.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Yeah, Ainslie.... we will be sure to give your caution all the serious consideration it deserves. The rantings of the insane Ainslie, spouting her delusions and lies, are always amusing when they can be clearly seen for what they are.
I finally now banned Rosemary Ainslie from this forum.
She did again send me threats via email.
I have enough of it now.
Now if somebody wants to have further look at her work
he can go to her own forum or blog, but I will not give her anymore access
to over here.
Regards, Stefan.
And.... bada bing !
Ainslie accomplishes a major goal. Now there is no pressure at all for her to do any kind of testing, any corrections, any consolidation of all the various versions of her daft manuscripts, any retractions of the personal insults, lies and misrepresentations of the work of others, no Dim Bulb tests, no reproductions of the questionable scope shots, no FG current measurements, no capacitor tests, no boiling of water, no 5.9 megaJoules in 96 minutes.... nothing. The pressure is off!
And it's been a _long_ time since anyone has commented on her "publications" on Rossi's JNP. And it's been quite some time since we've heard from her builder, who is using mosfet gate driver chips and his own 555 timer circuit in an attempt to boil water with a 3.7 percent ON mosfet, as an attempt to reproduce the COP>17 claim.... having already rejected the current claim as nonsensical.
And... of course, lest we forget.... the USA laboratory to which Ainslie sent her actual apparatus and her function generator... but perhaps not the magic batteries .... also found the same things that I did MONTHS AGO: the negative mean power calculation is easy to get, and the batteries do discharge at a normal rate nevertheless. So, in what I believe is an attempt to get Ainslie herself to realize the truth, they have asked for her to perform some suggested tests for herself, using their "special resistors", no doubt non-inductive shunts and/or more predictable loads.
Sigh. Now, with no pressure from here, and her various difficulties.... 3 cameras stolen, my my, maybe she needs a bigger dog.... I will be very surprised to see any testing. But of course as always, I am willing to be proven wrong... however unlikely that might be in this case.
@.99..........
Are we having fun yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xweiQukBM_k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xweiQukBM_k)
Heh... the comedy continues. We've posted the actual International Rectifier data sheet for the IRFPG50 mosfet _many_ times, including application notes and test circuits, even to the point of posting individual images and charts to focus finely on a point.
And now, suddenly.... the student discovers the "specifications" of the transistor and waves them at her instructor. But like a parrot who doesn't understand the words she squawks... she still gets it all wrong.
Well, for whatever it's worth, I took the trouble to shoot another video, since it's pretty clear that the student STILL does not grasp linear operation of a mosfet, nor does she understand voltage and current at the mosfet gate.... nor, in fact, the difference between oscillating DC and true AC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lLu7tvCZE
Is it true that Ainslie has been blocked from even _reading_ this forum? That's really too bad. It means that she's been expelled, not just suspended, from yet another school where she could have learned much, if she only had the proper attitude.
On the one hand she claims that she's preparing for testing. Of course the "live streaming" isn't going to happen-- we all knew that was just an idle boast. But on the other hand.... it's clear from her rather glacial discussion with .99 on "FG Anatomy" that she still has no clue at all about how her circuit actually works. How is she even going to be able to put it all back together, I wonder, since she evidently cannot even read the simple diagrams .99 is using to try to explain to her what is happening.
And since she is completely ignoring my simple, clear videos that explain-- or at least illustrate-- the points where she is having difficulty, how is she going to have a conceptual framework within which to construct proper experimentation? She is not.
A main difficulty continues to be her misconception of the operation of transistors. She seems to think that there must be some CURRENT flowing in the gate for the mosfet to operate, like is true for bipolar transistors. And she seems to think that a mosfet is either OFF or ON, neglecting to realize that it has a linear operation region where it acts like a normal amplifier, quite linearly. And she still doesn't realize that it is the CHARGE on the mosfet's gate, regulated sensitively by small voltage changes, that controls the mosfet's drain-source channel and regulates the resistance of it. Nor does she understand that voltages just over THREE VOLTS are sufficient to turn the mosfet partially on in this linear response range.
She is hopelessly unequipped to understand how and why oscillations are happening in her circuit. She demands that .99 explain something that she is deliberately again misunderstanding, and she demands that he somehow stuff his explanation into her faulty conceptions, rather than the other way around as is proper. And if she is actually blocked from even _reading_ here... which would be a first, as far as I can tell.... that is just too bad, a major loss for her, because she now has no where AT ALL where she will see a contrary opinion and a correct rendering of the action of her circuit.
TK,
Glad your'e still making videos! Anything going on these days with your wireless power devices? How scaled down do you think they could go (i.e. a 9v Altoids box Tx unit)? Could regular transistors be used instead of the FETs?
I also wonder what two transmitters facing each other with a receiver in middle would behave like. Would there be cancellations or amplifications (or both) as the distances between them changed? Would there be a 'super-duper-nova' mode?
I've got so many questions I should just build some myself, but I'm just too ill-equipped right now (I own a soldering iron--that's about it). Someday, though... and soon!
Anyway, Cheers!
That's all I'll throw at you for now,
polln8r
@polln8r
I think the thing is as small as is practical already. It might be possible to make a really low power one, smaller.
The mosfets are carrying a lot of current. If you look up the IRFZ44N you will see that it has a tiny Rdss and can handle nearly 50 amps if properly heatsunk. Yet I managed to blow up a couple of them, literally. There is a lot of power circulating in the drain-source-cap-loop circuit, like a flywheel, and even though the input power is steady 2-5 amps there may be instantaneous currents much higher than that in the mosfets themselves during the 500 kHz oscillations of +/- 60 V or so. I think these mosfets are operating within, but close to the edge of, their operating envelope. I suppose you might be able to get it working with a similar circuit using UJTs or IGBTs or Darlingtons, but I doubt that simple bipolars would work, they have too much resistance to use when the other types are so readily available and cheap.
The capacitors are also a big factor. You just cannot get the required characteristics in a tiny capacitor, so the transmitting caps that I am using are probably about the smallest that will actually stand up to the stresses.
I think the issue of the interaction of several transmitters is fascinating. I don't want to risk the transmitters I have operating right now, though. I need to build a proper test bed with sockets for the transistors and capacitors, and building two won't be much more of a task. So the multiple transmitter experiments will come, but not for some days yet.
Thanks for watching ! And stay tuned....
--TK
Here's another "little" video in the Mosfets: How do they work? series.
I use a NTC thermistor to provide a variable resistance path to ground for the IRFPG50's gate charge. Then I allow the heat from the mosfet's load bulb to heat up the NTC. The resistance drops, the gate charge bleeds away and the bulb dims and cools. The NTC cools, its resistance rises, and the gate charge is replenished by the control potentiometer's wiper voltage setting. The bulb brightens as the gate charge builds and the mosfet travels through its linear conductance region. As the bulb brightens it warms the NTC which decreases its resistance... and the system immediately settles into a regulated brightness/temperature, depending on the distance of the NTC to the warm bulb.
This illustrates a basic feedback loop. With the addition of a phase delay of 180 degrees between input and output, it is easy to understand how this system would oscillate. At least I hope it is understandable, by now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3u801ZUtXk
Using the linear conductance behaviour of the IRFPG50 six dollar high voltage mosfet to perform a task more appropriate to a ten cent bipolar transistor, illustrating the use of a feedback loop to monitor airflow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUJ9PIlAOAs
I wish I had a bit of Nitinol wire.... heh.
Hey 'Guys',
Sorry I haven't been participating in the discussion, RL has been extra busy for me and I have been exhausted after long days and more long days. Throw in some happy circumstance and my time is spent (kinda like me at the end of those long days...)! You 'Guys' know brain sweat is still sweat... College seems so far away sometimes...
I DO plan on ordering parts and building a TK headlight, and generally boning up on resonant circuits. You will be hearing from me about that (eventually, time/money permitting...)! You guys are awesome and I wish I had more free time to devote to learning new stuff (and participating in the discussion of course!). I won't fade away into obscurity, I just try and think of it as more of a 'vacation' from the internet for a bit. Suffice it to say that my choice of 'lifestyle' is either 'feast or famine' and feast means I don't have much free time (famine means I have too much free time heh heh...). Sad to hear RA isn't joining in the discussion any longer, I had a feeling she would eventually wear out her welcome with her hyperlinks without any additional correspondance.
Good luck and happy experimenting everyone, I hope to have more free time in the future where I can play 'catch up' with your experiments. I will also try to 'catch' the new tube vids when I get a chance...
And WHY can I never have time AND money both at the same time?!?
Thanks again 'Guys',
PC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDl3bdE3YQA
Tk maybe you could build one of these. Plasma was mistaken for the voice of God by various slaves watching how electricity was being produced by their masters and power extracted from thin air. Thin heated air but never the less thin air. The masonic temples exalt how great mankind is. One step out of the jungle if at all and here are these people thinking mankand is the end all be all of lifeforms. In this electrical flowchart you will see the position of the arc of the convenant which is just a spark gap radio. Various mechanical vibrations or chants would activate the box and the box would start talking to the idiots adoring it. It's a fucking machine. The mechanical vibrations would send the box into selfoscillation mode up to the resonant frequency established between the capacitors which formed a dipole antennae spaced a !/4 wavelength apart from the emradiation to be gathered. This particular device appears to have 1/4 wavelength spacing in the microwave bands. Then the spark gap starts talking just like the guys playing the guitar using karcher transformers. Low frequency waves hetrodyned with high frequency waves like by god exactly what a cellphone does. Ringggg-Ringgggggg call from heaven subjects get your ass back to busy collecting gold and transmuting into monatomic gold so our lazy thieving asses can get the fuck out of here and onto the next slave planet. Conduit closing .
@.99:
After reading the latest posts in the "FG Anatomy" thread, how would you rate your progress, so far, in getting Ainslie to understand what you have been telling her?
Today we see you telling her, once again, exactly what is wrong with her measurements, why it's happening, and how to fix them.
And she comes back with the demand that, if she is erring, you tell her exactly what is wrong and how she is erring and how to fix it, since she is using "standard measurement protocols" -- so if she is wrong then the "standard protocols" must be wrong, is what she is trying in her arrogance to get you to conclude.
Her cup is so full that she can't even grasp that you are telling her exactly what she is demanding that you tell her, and that her "standard measurement protocol"... using no filtering for the voltage measurement and using an inductive CVR, for starters.... is actually no such thing; in fact it is part of the continuing huge LIE that she tells herself and everybody else.
You can tell her and tell her and tell her, but as long as you are telling her something that she doesn't want to hear... she actually CANNOT hear it, she is that well defended.
How many times over the years have people been telling her that her "standard measurement protocol" isn't standard at all? She is applying essentially DC or VLF methodology to a circuit oscillating at 1.5 MHz due to its stray inductances.
But so what. For us who understand these things, there is neither anomalous heat in the load, nor anything strange about the oscillations. And of course the batteries DO DISCHARGE, as confirmed by her recent laboratory tests and as will be confirmed again, by anyone who actually manages to test the claim.
The only anomaly that really needs to be explained is how the data in those questionable scopeshots in the first daft manuscript were obtained. Oh, I can obtain them exactly, easily enough .... simply by pulling the Q1 mosfet out of its socket on Tar Baby.
Mosfet capacitance passes significant AC power from Gate to Source, and from Gate to Drain, at 1.5 MHz. Also, the function generator once again is shown to be a power source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 29, 2012, 09:36:57 PM
Using the linear conductance behaviour of the IRFPG50 six dollar high voltage mosfet to perform a task more appropriate to a ten cent bipolar transistor, illustrating the use of a feedback loop to monitor airflow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUJ9PIlAOAs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUJ9PIlAOAs)
I wish I had a bit of Nitinol wire.... heh.
I like your big thermocouple. Now you can sense all sorts of cooling effects. The load bulb could even be cooled enough until it becomes a negative resistance element and shine real bright or would it go out? I mean everyone knows light is only radiated when things are hot. Light can't come from things that are cold.
The bulb is warming the thermistor. I was hoping there would be enough thermal lag that the system would oscillate slowly just on its own, but instead the response is fast enough that it "regulates", that is, for a given potentiometer setting, the thermistor/mosfet tries to keep the sensed temperature stable. So if something blows the rising hot air from the bulb, away from the thermistor, then the thermistor cools and the feedback loop reduces the mosfet's resistance to compensate for the cooling by brightening the bulb.
So... what has happened to the NERD circuit and the claims of Rosemary Ainslie?
Her recent laboratory test, where she sent the actual circuit itself, even including the white pegboard and the function generator, confirmed that the batteries DO discharge while operating and the circuit is oscillating.
This has also been confirmed by everyone who has built the circuit (or her earlier COP>17 claimed circuit).
Thus it is evident that the oscillations and the calculated negative mean power product do NOT produce battery recharging, nor PREVENT battery discharging, nor do they even compensate in any way for the high DC power levels shown during the non-oscillation portion of the period.
So the major claim, that a load can be powered usefully with no discharge of the batteries, is soundly refuted. There is no support for this claim anywhere, not even in Ainslie's own original draft manuscripts or data. The ridiculous COP > INFINITY or COP INFINITY claim is put to rest as the illconsidered verbal garbage that it is.
The claim that the oscillations are something special, something unusual not accounted for by "standard protocols" is also ridiculous and ignorant on its face, but nevertheless has also been empirically disproven, by simulations and by actually constructing circuits that exhibit the identical oscillations --- designed using standard electronic theory and constructed from cheap off-the-shelf components. In addition, many reference materials have been found, collected and displayed from electrical engineering texts, mosfet application notes and data sheets, and other sources that explain the nature, cause, and treatment of parasitic oscillations in mosfet circuits and feedback oscillations in amplifiers in general.
The secondary minor claim that the oscillations in the NERD circuit are extraordinary and result in unusual circuit behavior is therefore soundly refuted. No support exists for this claim anywhere. Ainslie's daft manuscripts are riddled with errors in her attempted analysis of the oscillations in her own circuit.
It appears that there is only one possible claim left that has not yet been thoroughly discredited, and that is the presumed advantage in heat effect at the load... a vague claim as to the higher efficiency in heating, using the output of the NERD circuit as opposed to simple DC.
In the first part of Ainslie's reports, the NERDs describe a kind of "calibration" procedure, where they determine the "temperature over the resistor" and correlate that with the DC power levels applied to the resistor. Then they use this "nomograph" data to estimate the power levels that their apparatus delivers to the resistor. In other words, if the DC control produced "heat over the resistor" of, say, 200 degrees at a DC input of 10 Watts, then, subsequently, when 200 degrees is measured "over" the load resistor while running on the NERD circuit.... the claim is made that the circuit is dissipating 10 Watts in the load.
Later, then, the claim is made that the load heat measurement... the temperature over the resistor, translated to Watts, as read off this nomograph.... indicates some higher efficiency than could be obtained with DC alone. However no actual electrical power measurements at the load were reported by the NERDs.
Clearly... or at least I hope it is clear... there are one or two "minor" problems with this methodology. Hopefully the remaining NERDs will address some of these problems when performing the only tests that are left that could possibly show any benefit to the NERD circuit: real tests of the efficiency of load (and circuitry) heating.
Ainslie is reputedly preparing for some kind of testing of her apparatus. But what apparatus?
Considering the history of the schematic.... the addition of 4 mosfets, the mistaken hookup, the concealment, the misplaced FG black clip, and so on, even including the questionable scopeshots ..... it is IMPERATIVE that everyone evaluating any tests reported by Ainslie know the actual schematic in use. And we know what a mess Ainslie makes when attempting to draw or interpret a schematic, even a simple one like her own.
Therefore I consider it absolutely necessary for the NERD device, as tested, to be shown in clear photographs at sufficient detail so that the actual apparatus wiring can be confirmed to agree with whatever schematic diagram is claimed to be used in the testing.
THIS IS IMPERATIVE. The NERDS have definitely proven one thing, with all their demonstrations, papers and discussions: they do not know how to draw or interpret schematic diagrams, and they see nothing wrong with concealing material information about them. The test apparatus AS TESTED must be fully documented with detailed photographs that allow the actual wiring arrangement to be seen clearly and unambiguously.
There is of course one other test that the observers here would really like to see. That is the duplication of the conditions that resulted in the scopeshot below.
Personally I think this should be the very first test Ainslie demonstrates. Let's see the circuit make a comparable set of oscilloscope traces, using the schematic that is claimed correct and official as of 31 July 2012 (today), with all components functioning properly.
If this cannot be demonstrated...... then all else is completely moot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 31, 2012, 03:05:40 PM
The bulb is warming the thermistor. I was hoping there would be enough thermal lag that the system would oscillate slowly just on its own, but instead the response is fast enough that it "regulates", that is, for a given potentiometer setting, the thermistor/mosfet tries to keep the sensed temperature stable. So if something blows the rising hot air from the bulb, away from the thermistor, then the thermistor cools and the feedback loop reduces the mosfet's resistance to compensate for the cooling by brightening the bulb.
Sorry t I thought you were using the bulb as the r in a tuned tank and changing the parameters of the r in the secondary to match the primary tanks input.
Quote from: sparks on July 31, 2012, 04:06:40 PM
Sorry t I thought you were using the bulb as the r in a tuned tank and changing the parameters of the r in the secondary to match the primary tanks input.
Well, you could think of the bulb-mosfet-thermistor loop as a tuned circuit of a kind, even though it doesn't slosh the same energy back and forth like a real tank circuit does.
Really, though, in this circuit the thermistor is just acting as a variable gate pulldown or gate voltage regulator in concert with the potentiometer setting, and the gate voltage-bulb current-air temperature-thermistor temperature feedback loop isn't really sloshing its energy back and forth, just moving its concentrations around from one dissipative area to another. A very lossy tank !
Ahhh..... I am greatly amused by the thought of a NERD taking a fully charged 12 volt high capacity lead acid battery and hooking a 100 uF electrolytic capacitor directly across the terminals. Let's hope that the polarity is right, at least.
Considering the various competencies already exhibited by the principal NERD, there is no telling what could happen. Perhaps experts should be consulted.
Still, I wonder what such a test could prove that is not already evident by other means. Presumably the intent is to convince the NERD that the battery is not discharging and recharging completely a million and a half times per second, as she is apparently mistakenly concluding from her scopeshots. But this is already evident by the fact that the batteries have not BLOWN UP, and are sitting there at a perfectly normal operating temperature.
Or perhaps it's an attempt to get her to understand that the battery voltage measurements she has been using in her calculations are invalid.
That will only result in the goalposts moving. So it's not the batteries that are making the huge extra energy; they do discharge, after all. But the measurements ! The oscilloscope does not lie ! (it only answers the questions asked of it) This must mean that the magic is happening in the inductances! And the filtering on any battery just prevents that battery from participating... but the magic is still happening, because you can still see it on the "battery voltage" measurements obtained at the board, or "directly across" the battery pack itself at the end of long probeleads and interbattery wiring.
A small quiz. (Sorry, no extra credit, just a gold star next to your name in the Great Engineer's roll book.)
Question 1: Given a capacitor of 10 nF (10000 pF) and an inductance of 100 microHenry, what is the resonant frequency of the LC tank?
If the capacitor is initially charged to 100 volts and then "suddenly" connected to the inductor by a nice fast switch, we know the form the ringdown will take. Right? Assume a high Q so the ringdown continues for some few cycles before dampening out.
The ringdown of course represents the capacitor's total charge leaving, building the magnetic field of the inductor, then leaving that to recharge the capacitor at (nearly) the same voltage BUT OPPOSITE POLARITY, back and forth again and again .... with each and every cycle of that ringdown waveform. The Q describes the value of "nearly" in that last sentence. The oscilloscope shows that the polarity of the voltage on the capacitor reverses totally, and back again, with every cycle.
RIGHT?
Question 2: What is the value of the peak current during the first few cycles of the capacitative-inductive ringdown, when a 10 nF cap charged to 100 V is connected to an inductor of 100 microHenry, assuming low circuit resistance?
TK:
It feels like we are in the winding down stage of the Ainslie drama. She will be frustrated in trying to understand what Poynt is teaching her, and then she will do some testing and it will become a mess before too long.
I think that she is quite taken aback that the mystery American lab told her that the batteries are discharging.
Hey, she can console herself by getting in the queue to buy an Ismael Aviso 11-kilowatt dune buggy special.
MileHigh
4.967 MHz--if I used the right number of zeros and the right equation from Wikipedia.
353 mA--if the 'equivalent' circuit and 'scope' readings in the simulator from http://www.falstad.com/circuit/ are being read correctly.
Probably way off, but nobody else was giving any answers, so why not give it the old 'college' try?
polln8r
Hmmm... well, I put the values into the Fastead sim and got different numbers from you. The current is close but the resonant frequency is way off.
Meanwhile I took a break and got outside for a little while this evening. Here's tonight's nearly full Luna.
1/500 sec at ISO200, Canon Xti, Megrez90 apo refractor and Baader Hyperion zoom EP at 20 mm, processed in PixInsightLE and gimp.
Well, at least I don't have a 'reputation' to worry about... I was an art major! So what is the freq? I used the equation: (square root of 1/LC)/2pi. I probably didn't put enough zeros between my dots and my ones. For that matter, I probably used the wrong equation.
Nice Moonar photo!
polln8r
Quote from: polln8r on August 01, 2012, 02:09:37 PM
Well, at least I don't have a 'reputation' to worry about... I was an art major! So what is the freq? I used the equation: (square root of 1/LC)/2pi. I probably didn't put enough zeros between my dots and my ones. For that matter, I probably used the wrong equation.
Nice Moonar photo!
polln8r
Thanks!
The equation for the resonant frequency is
f = 1 / (2pi * (sqrt(L*C))
and I get 159,154.9 Hz, or about 160 kHz, for the freq doing it by hand, and two different sims give me 160 kHz and 0.159 MHz.
So I think your algebraic restatement of the formula got grouped wrong.
The current values I'm seeing are in agreement with your value (since I used the same sim!) of about 370 mA peak, during the first few cycles.
That Falstead sim is pretty neat, if extra simple.
@.99: Are you still around?
Do you think that putting a couple of big fat Schottky diodes right at the battery terminals would change the overall circuit behaviour?
I'm still checking in, yep.
In what configuration are you thinking of TK? Series I suspect?
Yes, I think this would pretty much kill the oscillation during what used to be the oscillation phase.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 01, 2012, 11:36:44 PM
I'm still checking in, yep.
In what configuration are you thinking of TK? Series I suspect?
Yes, I think this would pretty much kill the oscillation during what used to be the oscillation phase.
Yes, I meant in series, one at each battery terminal.
This would kill the oscillations throughout the system?
And also... if the NERD circuit is in "resonance".... what are the L and C values that are resonating at 1.3 MHz, and why isn't the resulting oscillation a pure sine wave?
Sigh.
Sure. To measure the internal resistance of a battery, you just set your DMM to "ohms" and hook it across the battery terminals. Right?
It's a good thing that Fluke makes their meters to be smarter than their users.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2012, 12:29:23 AM
Yes, I meant in series, one at each battery terminal.
This would kill the oscillations throughout the system?
I just tried a single MUR160 forward-biased on the BAT+ terminal in the simulation, and it kills the oscillation.
Quote
And also... if the NERD circuit is in "resonance".... what are the L and C values that are resonating at 1.3 MHz, and why isn't the resulting oscillation a pure sine wave?
If we knew the exact L, we could find C. The total estimation of L is as per my diagram in the detailed analysis document.
The oscillation is not sinusoidal because of the body diode in Q1. Pull Q1 and Fo will increase, and the wave form should become more sinusoidal.
TK:
It would be amazing if people got to "know" their batteries and measured the internal resistance themselves. I think somewhere on this thread we spoke about doing spot checks of the internal resistance.
You mentioned that Rosemary's multimeter will not blow up if she puts the probes across the battery terminals. I hope so for her.
It feels to me like we are really in the wind-down phase. Even with Poynt's help, there is only so much he can do and he can only offer up a certain amount of his precious time.
I love the smell of burning wire insulation in the morning. lol
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on August 02, 2012, 11:24:33 AM
I just tried a single MUR160 forward-biased on the BAT+ terminal in the simulation, and it kills the oscillation.
And presumably this would also be true if you put the diode between cells in the battery, like between #3 and #4 of the stack of 6, 12 V batts.
So...does this then indicate, as RA believes, that the oscillations and the current associated with them must pass "through" the batteries? Why, then, if the current is more negative than positive, and is flowing through the batteries along with the oscillations.... why do the batteries still discharge?
Why does putting caps _across_ the batteries filter the oscillations from the measurement, but still allows them to continue... but putting a diode in _series_ kills the oscs completely?
Quote
If we knew the exact L, we could find C. The total estimation of L is as per my diagram in the detailed analysis document.
OK, so I just read all the way through, again, your detailed analysis 06 .pdf. Using the last schematic in the paper and adding up the inductances by hand, since I can't find a statement of the total inductance you used, I get 11.23 microHenry. For this circuit to be in resonance at 1.3 MHz it will need a capacitance of 1335 picoFarad, or about 1 and a third nanoFarad, and will have total characteristic impedance of around 92 Ohms. The input capacitance of a single IRFPG50 is more than twice that at 2800 pF.
Quote
The oscillation is not sinusoidal because of the body diode in Q1. Pull Q1 and Fo will increase, and the wave form should become more sinusoidal.
Well, it's certainly true that if you pull Q1 the f0 increases and the waveform becomes cleaner, a bit. But does this really indicate that the circuit as a whole is in true resonance?
Now, isn't the internal resistance of a battery measured by the current it will deliver to a known, low resistance load?
Surely this could be done with an ordinary DMM and a bunch of power resistors. You take your 1 Ohm, 1000W resistance, hook it across the battery terminals with some heavy wire, and use the DMM to measure the voltage drop across the load. This will give you the current, from which the internal resistance can be found by Ohm's Law.
Vbatt, Rload given.
I = V/R
Iload = Vdrop/Rload
R = V/I
Rint+Rload =Vbatt/Iload
Rint=(Vbatt/Iload)-Rload
TK:
Let me take a crack at it.
I have to use my own variable names: V_no_load and V_load, R_load, and unknown R_int
So, R = V/I
Thus R_int = (V_no_load - V_load)/(V_load/R_load)
Note that R_load can be any resistance value, you don't have to fry the battery with a 1-ohm resistor. Note that it is a trivial thing to do in a spreadsheet = real time R_int calculations - all that you have to do is attach your load resistor for a second and make a single voltage measurement and punch it into the spreadsheet cell.
The interesting question is does R_int remain constant for different values of R_load? I would guess it does but as R_load starts to get really low it starts to change. Of course R_int is most useful as an indication of if you are approaching a discharged battery condition because it will start to creep up.
The key thing is for different battery sizes and different battery technologies you will have typical R_int values. So by spot checking your R_int you should get to "know" your battery. When you start to observe R_int starting to creep up quite soon even though you have freshly charged the battery you can assume that the battery is reaching the end of its life cycle. It would suggest a good Bedini charge test also only when you finally observe that the battery is approaching the end of its life cycle. When you Bedini charge your battery, do you go back to a lower R_int?
Finally, there is the "big unknown," almost forbidden fruit. The big unknown is how many good recharges do you get after you Bedini charge your battery just once to "bring it back to life?" 100 cycles? 50 cycles? 10 cycles? Whatever it is, one can suspect that eventually even the Bedini rejuvenation charging stops working and the battery is totally spent. It has simply deteriorated, entropy is always increasing.
MileHigh
Yes, but for a real test the load resistance should be on the order of the battery's Rint itself. This will minimize measurement error, even if it does require putting a big drain on the battery.
But no matter at all; it's plain from the last few discussions that the entire concept of the equivalent series resistance or internal resistance of a battery is a foreign concept to RA. How does it fit in with the whole zipon "thesis"? It does not and cannot... therefore it is wrong.
.99 has just illustrated, and hopefully has also gotten an acknowledgement, that the voltages shown in Ainslie's OWN DATA in the scopeshots show batteries that are SIGNIFICANTLY DISCHARGED. This of course shows that once again, the claims made in the papers are not supported and are in fact lies. The lie of "no measureable discharge of the batteries" is easy to see: in most of her scopeshots the batteries are at just over 12 volts each, nowhere near the 12.7 or greater that should be indicated by fully charged batteries. And a 60 A-H battery isn't going to sag much under the load of the Ainslie circuit -- 6 or 7 amps max-- if it is fully charged. So those displayed voltages in all her scopeshots are indicating batteries that are nowhere near fully charged, in most cases.
"When is a material conductive, and when is it inductive?"
Yes.... I'd like to hear the answer to that myself... or rather, I'd like to hear Ainslie's _response_ to the answer to that.
And..... finally....... "Is that fair?"
Yes, it's fair to say..... it's facepalm time again.
I just cannot resist putting this in, in the interests of full documentation.
I see that Ainslie is crowing about having "published" her "second paper" on Rossi's JNP.
Here is the schematic diagram included in that publication, taken by me about three minutes ago.
Here is Figure 2 from that JNP "publication".
Note several things.
First, the battery voltage mean is 73.8 volts, steady.
This means that each of the batteries is at 12.3 volts.... and according to the data tables that .99 has posted in Ainslie's honeytrap, this means that the batteries are 40-50 percent DISCHARGED.... yet in the paper Ainslie claims that they are all of them still fully charged.
Second, the gate drive voltage is in excess of 12 volts positive during the non-oscillating portions, yet no current is indicated on the CVR trace.
And, for another joke, here is Figure 7 from the current "publication" on Rossi's JNP.
Note the transistor Q1 and Q2 designations, and the G, D, S leg designations. This diagram and several others which purport to explain the flows in the circuit....
DO NOT EVEN CORRESPOND TO ANY OF THE ACTUAL SCHEMATICS GIVEN.
Can these problems be fixed by simple edits, changing the names of things, the leg letters? I'd like to see it happen... ALONG WITH A PROPER ERRATA SHEET EXPLAINING THE DISCREPANCIES.
But I might as well pray for rain, I guess.
Now... .what kind of "peer review" fails to notice that two papers, describing the SAME EXPERIMENTS, give two significantly different schematics? What reviewer, a peer and therefore qualified to evaluate electrical information, fails to notice a mosfet getting 12 volts to the gate but not turning on? What peer fails to notice that the cartoon explanations don't correspond to ANY of the schematics supposedly used?
With every new chapter this story keeps getting better and better. Here we have an extremely clear case of pseudoscientific misconduct: the submission and "publication" of a paper that is KNOWN to contain many errors and false statements, and has been known to do so for at least a YEAR.
What kind of function generator does that paper say was used?
I am bemused because she has the MOSFETs arranged backwards again on the Rossi blog post. :P
How many seas must a white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 02, 2012, 11:45:04 PM
I am bemused because she has the MOSFETs arranged backwards again on the Rossi blog post. :P
The extreme irony being that THIS, with the multiple parallel transistors on the right, is actually the better way to do things, so that the Gang of Four can carry the large DC current during the FG RED lead HIGH portions of the duty cycle.
Why should you be bemused, though? I immediately checked the paper EXPECTING TO FIND these "errors".... and sure enough, there they are. It's not bemusing at all. It is par for the Ainslie course.
What is bemusing to me is how someone can continue to be so very overweeningly arrogant and ignorant as to NOT correct the obvious errors before submission. She thinks 1) the difference isn't significant; 2) nobody is likely to notice; 3) even if they do, they are too stupid to understand the implications; 4) and if anyone questions or complains, they are incompetent.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2012, 11:33:59 PM
First, the battery voltage mean is 73.8 volts, steady.
This means that each of the batteries is at 12.3 volts.... and according to the data tables that .99 has posted in Ainslie's honeytrap, this means that the batteries are 40-50 percent DISCHARGED.... yet in the paper Ainslie claims that they are all of them still fully charged.
Keep in mind that the voltages listed in the table were taken under no-load conditions.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 03, 2012, 12:04:20 AM
Keep in mind that the voltages listed in the table were taken under no-load conditions.
Even my 5 A-H batteries don't sag that much on the normal draw during oscillations, and a fully charged 60 A-H battery is not going to sag nearly that much with the full DC current possible in the circuit of 6 amps or less. Is it? At 12.7 volts the Fig. 2 mean battery voltage should have been 76.2 volts. Do you think a 6 amp draw on a 60 A-H battery... a stack of automotive or marine batteries.... that is fully charged and has a noload voltage of 76.2 volts is going to make it sag to 73.8 volts? I don't.
Ainslie's data have always indicated that her batteries are discharging. There is one series of scopeshots taken over a single day involving several trials, and when these are placed in chronological order and the mean battery voltage is examined.... guess what. A steady decrease of several tenths of a volt can be clearly seen over the day. Her continuing claim that they have not measured any discharge, or however she terms it, can only be the result of her "not actually" checking the battery voltages and considering what they mean. And after all... she has twice admitted this very thing over the last several days.
ETA: Oh, and what about sticking that diode in the middle of the stack, between #3 and #4 of the sixpack? What happens, and what are the implications for the explanation of the oscillations?
On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series.
On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.
On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, kess than 10 minutes later.
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts.
The next shots I can find are SCRN0361 and SCRN0362, both on May 8, both at 25.1 volts, and I think those might be the latest I have.
I am quoting the scope's computed means, always the highest of the three it gives (mean mean, high mean, low mean, fortune cookie extra).
So.
We have confirmation from the USA laboratory, trusted and acknowledged by Ainslie, that the batteries DO discharge, using her own apparatus, function generator, and precise instructions.
We have the result from Tar Baby, the only known independent replication of the NERD circuit in all its permutations... producing the identical oscillations and other behaviours of the NERD circuit, including negative mean power computations.... and according to several DIM BULB tests, Tar
Baby's batteries do discharge.
Simulation results indicate that the battery recharging is a mistaken interpretation of artefactual measurements made by naive oscilloscope users and is not actually happening.
And a close examination of the scopeshots published by Ainslie herself show a steadily decreasing battery voltage over several days of trials spread over several weeks.
The claims made by Ainslie concerning battery non-discharge or recharge are therefore quite soundly refuted. The NERD batteries DO discharge and from all appearances do so normally, without interference from any "recharging" reverse current flow.
This of course means that, whatever else happens, the COP INFINITY or COP>INFINITY claim is also refuted, as the nonsense that it is.
How is it possible that she can still make the claims that she does, and still manage to get her error-riddled daft manuscript posted? That bemuses me, for sure.
And-- as we have been saying for some time--- the presence of Ainslie's claims, in the face of all these refutations and proofs of error and mendacity..... is an affront to the entire nontraditional research community.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 03, 2012, 12:34:57 AM
ETA: Oh, and what about sticking that diode in the middle of the stack, between #3 and #4 of the sixpack? What happens, and what are the implications for the explanation of the oscillations?
The oscillation still dies in the simulation. Were you expecting something different?
Quote from: poynt99 on August 03, 2012, 10:56:52 AM
The oscillation still dies in the simulation. Were you expecting something different?
Not at all.
Are you expecting to be able to explain to RA how capacitors in parallel to the batteries prevent the oscilloscope from seeing the battery oscillations but still allow the circuit as a whole to oscillate, but a series diode kills everything?
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 03, 2012, 12:51:05 PM
Not at all.
Are you expecting to be able to explain to RA how capacitors in parallel to the batteries prevent the oscilloscope from seeing the battery oscillations but still allow the circuit as a whole to oscillate, but a series diode kills everything?
I expect to, yes. Although the diode idea is not likely to come into the discussion.
I'd really like to know how Ainslie continues to get away with making all her claims, since it's very clear from EVERY TEST THAT HAS BEEN DONE that her batteries do indeed discharge.
Simulations show discharge
The USA Laboratory confirmed discharge using her own apparatus.
Tar Baby's batteries discharge.
And HER OWN DATA shows discharge, even over trials where she has claimed -- without any empirical support -- that they don't.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 03, 2012, 12:55:16 PM
I expect to, yes. Although the diode idea is not likely to come into the discussion.
Strange... since the diode confirms that the oscillations must go through the battery and that the battery must somehow participate in the oscillations even if you are filtering them out from the scope reading. Yes.... if this comes into the discussion it will only confuse RA more.
I note that your explanations to this point have not exactly been stunningly successful in altering her point of view.
Does it not bother you at all that she's now published, "officially", yet another set of mistaken schematics? Or rather, a manuscript containing the _same old_ schematic that she has vehemently denied using, and the cartoon "explanations" that don't correspond to ANY schematic used? And she has done this _at the same time_ that you are engaging in your attempt to explain how the ideas and explanations in that paper are wrong?
Or that she garbles your explanations whenever she attempts to repeat back to you what you've explained?
You are being played like a fish. She is not accepting or believing anything you say, with kindest regards.
I am trying my best with the time I have.
I feel that some progress is being made, and as long as that continues, I will too, providing I have the time and inclination.
Where are the original batteries, the six that were actually used for all the data? Lately she has been talking about all new batteries and the old ones aren't being mentioned. Since all other batteries that have been used DO DISCHARGE.... where are these special ones that she used for, what was it, 18 months, every working day for 5 hours a day..... where are these batteries now?
Quote from: poynt99 on August 03, 2012, 01:09:47 PM
I am trying my best with the time I have.
I feel that some progress is being made, and as long as that continues, I will too, providing I have the time and inclination.
Would you care to summarize here the actual progress you've made so far... if you have time, that is?
(From my perspective, had any actual progress been made, at the very least a CORRECTED version of this second manuscript might have been submitted for publication, with an errata sheet explaining her new insights gleaned from your progress. But the same old error filled version is up. To me this indicates that she still cannot even read or interpret a simple schematic. So where is the progress?)
Sure... we have lots of progress, when you have to edit away half or more of her "restatement" of your position.
Have you noticed that whenever she brushes up against the truth, she tries to "wrap up" the discussion? How she tries to move on to some other topic? Her present "summary" is another attempt to do this thing.
A Lunar mosaic.
This is a mosaic of 5 frames of pieces of Luna, stitched together with VIPS/nips and further processed with PixInsightLE and gimp.
The 5 individual frames were taken last night, with the Celestron EdgeHD 9.25 aplanatic Schmidt-Cassegrain reflector, with the Canon Xti at prime focus, ISO200, 1/500 sec exposures.
This is a large image, over 2300 pixels wide, with fair detail.
Ah, progress is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
"If you're right, your right."
So we are down to lines in the sand now. Too bad they are so fuzzy, and look different, depending on which side of the line you are.
More paranoid fantasies, lies, unfounded accusations and slanders from the Queen of Disinformation.
She has a lot of time to criticise, but somehow.... she has no time to correct her errors and lies.
The "publication" of her second daft manuscript on Rossi's JNP blog still contains WRONG DIAGRAMS..... or does it?
At any rate, it contains a DIFFERENT SCHEMATIC than the first paper, yet both pretend to describe the same set of trials. It also contains, as an EXPLANATION of the circuit's behaviour, a set of cartoons that don't correspond to ANY of the circuit arrangements that were actually used. It also contains scope traces that are impossible to obtain with functioning parts wired as claimed.
IN SHORT, what has been "published" on Rossi's blog "journal" is a mishmash of errors, mendacity, and ignorance, and illustrates not only Ainslie's own incompetence and arrogance, but also the profound defects in a process that pretends to be "peer review" at Rossi's blog.
Now, Ainslie can hallucinate and respond to her delusions of me being some kind of super hacker all she likes; each time she does she demonstrates unequivocally, once again, that she is both amazingly ignorant and mentally ill--- for one who is mentally healthy does not have those kinds of paranoid delusions.
One day, there will be an accounting, and that is why I am saving all of this information, both in my own records, and here in public.
And meanwhile... there continue to be NO TESTS PERFORMED by Ainslie, and we still don't know WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINAL BATTERIES, which.... according to her.... should still be fully charged and ready to go.
And, by the way.... the links to EVERY BIT of the "information" in question have indeed been provided, by me, by FTC, and by Ainslie herself. EVERYTHING that I have posted anywhere, I gathered from her OWN BLOG AND FORUM POSTS, and the location is usually given explicitly in the filename or within the image itself. Simply searching google for the "SCRN" filenames or a segment of quoted text will give the original sources if they aren't included in the file.
The names... EVERY ONE OF THEM, and a few more that I haven't yet posted.... are also in publicly released information from Ainslie herself, going back to 2007 and before .... and in forum and blog posts, some of which she has returned to, long after the original posting, and edited for meaning and content.
And, as we have recently shown in references to threads in this forum, she actively encourages people to contact those names.... until they actually try to DO SO.... at which point two things happen: she freaks out, and the people turn out to be uncontactable, unfindable, or never to have heard of her-- or unwilling to admit they have.
In short, she lies quite grandly when she accuses me or anyone else of "stealing" or revealing information. SHE POSTED IT ALL HERSELF.
I wonder how Ainslie explains to her friends how TK rifled her computer, but somehow managed to leave it still operational......
All I can say at this point is that I'm so mad that it's a good thing for her that she's wrong.
Actually.... maybe she's not wrong.
Maybe "somebody" planted a sleeper program in her computer, that is just waiting for her to enter a bunch of spreadsheet data before it wipes the hard drive (after posting all her personal information to a web page of course). Master hackers can do that, you know, even to Apple computers that are on another continent. Access sufficient to "rifle files" and extract names and phone numbers is totally sufficient to leave behind hidden programs like keyloggers, password trappers, and delayed destruction instructions.
Maybe Ainslie needs to take her computers to an antivirus firm and have them examined for malware. You never can tell what that evil monster psycopath TinselKoala is going to do next, to suppress the greatest invention humanity has ever known.
You know, the one described in those two papers on Rossi's blog--- the ones that can't even agree between themselves about the circuit or the apparatus used, and that lie about things like batteries not discharging, 5.9 megaJoules in 96 minutes, mosfets "working" even though the scopeshots show they aren't....... that invention.
Well. .99...... are we making progress yet? Or... still?
Take a look at this Ainslie-pile.
"the voltage across Q1"..... No, Ainslie. The voltage applied to the GATE of Q1.
But we are going to need ABSOLUTE CONFIRMATION of the circuit you are using.... since you have just "published" a different one from what you have been claiming to use for the past six months.
The coupling had not been set to AC.
You pollyparrot idiot. You betray here ONCE AGAIN that you do not understand AC/DC coupling... and besides that IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in what we are here discussing. Your scopeshots show a DC voltage of +12 volts applied to a mosfet gate without the mosfet turning on. Do this again...... we are all waiting to see it. AC vs DC coupling does NOT affect this issue at all, you bloviating idiot ignoramus.
Voltage further compromised by the offset setting of the FG.
Nonsense again. Are you here claiming that the SCOPE is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH? The scope is reading what the FG is sending, you ignorant arrogant idiot.
And you NEVER ONCE explained it at all... because you don't understand it yourself, for one thing. You have NEVER explained this...all you have ever done is denied OUR questions and interpretations. Go ahead... give a link to your ACTUAL explanation... you cannot, because there isn't one.
And Stefan finally "indulged" because YOU THREATENED HIM AGAIN. You are indeed a vile mendacious liar, Ainslie, and the record proves it, over and over again.
And your utter obsession with your hallucinated "GER" whatever that means, and the SIZE OF MY PICKLE.... we all know you wake up at night, your only thought the size and shape and bumpiness of my huge PICKLE... but do you really need to mention your weird sexual fantasies in public?
And yes, the "publication" of two different schematics purporting to describe the same experiment, and trying to get some kind of prize or recognition for it, is indeed extreme misconduct and FRAUD, you bloviating liar Ainslie.
Yes, we all want you to repeat that test PROPERLY and CLEARLY. Will there be a referee? Will you do it properly?
I really want to see you explain the difference between the AC and DC settings on your Function Generator. And I'm wondering how you are going to prove that your mosfets are indeed intact... since you have no clue about how they are supposed to function.
Oh, yes, Ainslie. There are a lot of people waiting to see your tests. Just like last year.... when you LIED FOR A MONTH afterward about the circuit itself and what was actually measured and where.
I would suggest that "someone" who has demonstrated over and over that she knows almost nothing about electronics and the use of test equipment, tread lighlty with regard to calling those with a good deal of experience in electronics and familiar with the use of test equipment, "liars".
In the end, you will only discredit and embarass yourself further.
It seems you are now trying to make the case that the 'scope does not even show the voltage at the gate of Q1. What, exactly, does the vertical scale on a 'scope represent?
For clarity I will restate again:
In FIG3 of the first paper, during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approximately +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. All will surely agree that +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on. However, during the same portion of the FG cycle, no significant current is observed via the CSR trace as one would expect if Q1 were turned fully on.
As well, in FIG 6 and FIG 7, sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 on is also indicated, and again, no sigifcant current flow is observed at the CSR.
This can only mean that Q1 was either disconnected, not connected as per the schematic, or that Q1 was not functional, during the tests depicted by FIG3, FIG6, and FIG7. There can be no other explanation, it must be one of the above three.
In FIG5, a test made the month prior, approximately +6 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1 and as one would expect, significant current flow is indicated.
The above statements are true. If you do not believe them, you have had plenty of time to confirm this with an EE or similar, as I have suggested many times.
As you have recently been having discussions with .99, I suggest that you ask him to weigh in on the above.
Rosie is going to steamroll over all detractors - scorched earth! The new Stalin!
But who will ultimately end up being a burnt crisp?
Well, take a look at this. The idiot doesn't even understand what she is measuring.
Well....we can also note that in RA's definition.... a person who does NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HER ERRORS is DESPICABLE.
I can certainly agree with that, Ainslie, you despicable Queen of Error.
Why are there two different schematics describing the same experiment, AINSLIE? Just what schematic are you really using, the one in Paper 1 on JNP and your forum, or the one in Paper 2 that you just "published" on JNP?
This latest from Ainslie is just incredible. If it had come from any other source I would not be able to believe that anyone could be so very stupid about schematics and scopes and signals. But there it is.... She says she has NEVER taken a measure of the voltage applied to the Gate of Q1.... even though there are nearly a hundred scopeshots showing exactly that and photos showing scope voltage probes hooked up there.
Unless of course she has also been LYING ALL THIS TIME about the actual schematic in use. Who can really say, unless they actually see photos? And even then..... it might take another month to get the truth from her, just like it did the last time she did any demonstrations or testing.
How can anyone actually be so stupid?
The photographs of the apparatus in the Demo Video from last year, AINSLIE, clearly show scope probes hooked directly to the GATE of transistor Q1, with their reference leads to the common ground point. "Across" a mosfet refers to the DRAIN-SOURCE. The gate voltage is INDEED what you have been monitoring on your blue traces, and this is NOT taken "across" the transistor. It is taken with reference to the negative supply rail. YOUR OWN APPARATUS AND EVERY SCHEMATIC YOU HAVE PUBLISHED SHOW THIS SIMPLE FACT.
Your entire post attacking me on this point is just a stupid delusion, and shows that you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE FIRST THING about your circuit and what you are measuring.
And again.... your idiotic reference to a "pickle" and your hallucinated "GER" whatever that is, betray your vile lack of character and your overweening arrogance. Dig, Ainslie, dig...you have nearly reached the Hell that awaits you in the final end.
Here's a quick pop quiz:
What does an oscilloscope measure?
Stripped of all trappings and numbers in boxes, just what physical entity is that little wiggly line actually representing, on the vertical axis of the screen?
And likewise, what is represented on the horizontal axis of the screen?
Take a look at those...
Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
It's the freakiest show
Take a look at the "Lawman"
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if she'll ever know
She's in the best selling show...
Is there life on Mars?
Time to ponder the real really big questions, no zipons allowed.
Now is that apropos or what? ;D
Yesterday morning, she posted this:
QuoteWe'll be doing our first video this afternoon - God willing. That's in about 12 hours from now. So, hopefully by supper time - in America - you'll have our first test on line. Our very first test is to challenge those repeated claims by picowatt at OU.com that sullied my own thread and then meandered through TK's disgusting thread. The claim was that the voltage measured across Q1 had sufficient voltage to ensure that the switch was 'on' and therefore the battery should have delivered current flow. The evidence therefore should have been some voltage value across the shunt that was greater than zero. I answered this - REPEATEDLY. I mentioned that, in the first instance the coupling had not been set to AC. And I explained that the voltage was further compromised by the justification of the 'off set' switch on the function generator.
Perhaps God was not willing. Where is the video showing these things? I think everybody knows by now, that if
I promise a video, you get a video.
If I was doing this demonstration, I would show, in less than 10 minutes:
1) that the mosfets I use are actually working properly, by putting them into my Linear Operation Fixture and show them lighting and dimming a light bulb in response to varying gate voltage
2) that the experiment circuit I use is ACTUALLY the one represented by the schematic I claim to use
3) the application of the appropriate voltage to the GATE of Q1: +12 volts as shown on the scopeshots referred to by PW above
4) the resultant Drain trace and the CVR trace in the FULLY CONNECTED CIRCUIT, here demonstrating the truth of my claim
5) repeat 1 to show that the mosfets are still functioning
6) since I always repeat whatever I show in my videos..... I would REPEAT THE WHOLE THING from 2-5
7) explain briefly what was done, why, and what was observed and what it meant.
I could do this in less than ten minutes, with one hand working the camera!
Of course, the claims I make are true claims and so are easy to demonstrate, by anyone with the parts and the test equipment _and the skill and knowledge to use them_.
But apparently it's more important to Ainslie to get drunk and start typing insults:
Tk and All,
A wag once commented, "On the internet, Trolls may come and go but a sociopath is forever ..." There has never been any credible evidence that RA's circuit does anything unusual. All of her "experiments" and understanding are flawed. Simply and as one might expect in such a case, faulty testing and measurements give misleading and incorrect results.
Tk, picowatt and others here have only told and carefully explained the truth. What a crime ... I have followed this thread from its start. I've checked "the math" and watched all the videos which are highly informative and entertaining. It all checks out. There is now a mountain of credible evidence that explains the operation of the NERD circuit. It doesn't do anything even slightly remarkable.
RA does have a secret weapon and that is a public, however tiny and ill informed who maintain a powerful "need to believe". Don't discount this little wrinkle in the social fabric of humanity. I have followed this thread not because I believed in the magical operation of NERD circuit, but because I could not understand how the many extravagant claims for the device could have possibly been maintained or grown legs longer than a Texas pickle. Now I know ...
As a scientific argument, there never was one and the NERD circuit was apparently DOA. Hmm.. How many years has it been? I don't see the endgame here as the "debate" isn't really a scientific one but rather a sociological spectacle and assertion of fantasy. I think this thread may contain sufficient material to be used as case study for a doctoral thesis in the fields of psychiatry or related disciplines. Fascinating, if you have the stomach for the cognitive dissonance. Just a thought from the peanut gallery and fond supporter of TK and other here.
ReFried
Thanks for watching the videos, ReFried.
It's nice to know that someone watches them and gets something out of them. They usually get 20 or 30 views immediately when they are posted; I have a few subscribers that seem to enjoy what I do, pitched at whatever level. Over the next few days the view count goes up to 60-100 or so. Not many people comment, though... perhaps I am pitching at such a low level that there are absolutely no questions and I am being absolutely clear in what I'm showing (not that I believe this, :P .) Of course I get the occasional drive-by thumbs down, without comment, from that Jib guy or NewsBoy or another of my personal trolls.
But of course we understand, I hope, that many of the videos in the Electric OU series are specifically addressing certain relevant points of contention and misunderstanding on the part of Ainslie, with regard to her circuit and measurements made on it. The basic examinations of mosfet behaviour could be especially enlightening to someone who thinks that a mosfet is just a "switch" and that gate current normally passes through the mosfet. and of course the various scoposcopy videos illustrate just what an oscilloscope actually is, and how it is used to good advantage to make reliable quantitative measurements.
Further, I hope this thread has been an example of how actually to conduct a scientific dialog. (I insult only when I am insulted, but being an Eastsider, I give as good as I get, or more so, and all my insults to Ainslie are based in solid fact: she proves her ignorance, arrogance, and obnoxious disgusting querulousness multiple times daily. Had she respected me from the beginning... had she actually corrected her math and conclusions, had she not begun insulting me and my education and my competence as an experimenter (which both far exceed hers) there would never have been any need for me to emphasise that she is a scrawny, overweening, intolerable, lying old biddy who is ignorant, unteachable, and stupid to boot, and who mindlessly parrots words and concepts that she doesn't understand at all.)
Those factors notwithstanding, I've demonstrated many things, answered many questions, shared all my data, mistakes, blown transistors, posted photos and videos of everything I've done along the way, I've shown my work when making statements involving mathematics, provided links and externally checkable independent references for everything I've "claimed" and I've encouraged anyone and everyone to perform their own building and testing _properly_ to see for themselves that the things I "claim" about Ainslie and her circuit's behaviour are true.
Ainslie, on the other hand, has continually avoided properly educating herself about her own computers, her own test equipment, her own circuitry and her own "math". She continually distorts and changes the meanings of things others say to her, and responds with logorrhea and word salads to her own delusional interpretations, rather than responding rationally and appropriately to the actual comments. She makes error after error in her "math" and doesn't bother to try to understand why or how they occur, nor does she acknowledge and correct them, nor retract the conclusions based on them. She "publishes" multiple different edits of her daft manuscripts that are in conflict with each other and contain wrong data, false claims and simple errors. She actively conceals and lies about data and experimental conditions: witness the month between 22 March 2011 and 18 April 2011 when she lied about the actual schematic in use and even admitted wanting to continue the deception longer. Her original data spreadsheets have never been made available, in spite of many requests from many people and many promises by her to release them. She attempts to gain monetary awards based on her bogus claims and false conclusions. She makes paranoid and impossible accusations of computer break-ins and great world-wide conspiracies that are well funded and exist for the sole purpose of suppressing her "technology". She can't even remember when and where she posted her contact information. And she would rather insult without cause or evidence, than actually ask and answer questions, perform and analyze tests, examine data, consider implications, draw careful conclusions. She arrogantly refuses to acknowledge the competence and credentials of those who are quite clearly her superiors in every way, she insults her hosts and figuratively trashes their domiciles, and she turns viciously against her former collaborators as they discover and start talking about the truth of her and her circuit.
In short.... compare and contrast.... Do The Math (tm RA).
Thanks, ReFried, for giving me this opportunity to rant a bit in summary. I quite agree with your assessment that the case would make interesting material for psychology students, and I've actually compiled enough data to write a book about the whole thing myself, as a case study. I may just do that very thing.
Now..... where is Ainslie's video?
Just to review, the scopeshots below illustrate the issue.
The first one, SCRN0150, shows the applied voltage to the Gate of Q1 to be about 6 volts or so during the non-oscillating portion of the period. And the CVR trace shows the expected behavior during these times: a strong current flow. The voltage for this trial was about 50 volts.
The second one, SCRN0265, shows the applied voltage to the Gate of Q1 to be about 12 volts during the non-oscillating portion of the period. And the CVR trace shows NO CURRENT AT ALL during these times. Even though the voltage used for this trial was about 74 volts. There should have been MORE current shown here than in SCRN0150. After all... the load resistance hasn't changed, but the battery voltage has been increased, and the 12 volts should turn the mosfet even more fully on than in SCRN0150. By Ohm's Law... well, do the math (tm RA).
But there is no current, none at all.
Therefore, as PW has said repeatedly, either the mosfet is blown, not hooked up properly, missing completely, or the circuit being measured is not the one claimed by the schematic.
And as I have postulated... the lone Q1 mosfet on that tiny inadequate heatsink cannot withstand long ON periods at 74 volts. It will fail.
SO... The challenge to Ainslie then is a simple one: Just reproduce the scopeshot in SCRN0265. Then show how you did it. We don't need to hear or see the usual garbled "explanations" from Ainslie. Just reproduce the scopeshot and SHOW how you did it.
The joule thieves and various other coil bangers operate under the basic laws of induction. Faster you turn the switch on and off the higher the voltage induced. Below is a link to a very good basic electricity course. In the particular subject I link to, we have the problem of inrush currents being studied. In this particular case an ac sinewave is the input. Connecting at time 0 when the voltage is minimal and disconnecting at time 1 when the voltage is maximal efficiency of the circuit is greatly enhanced. Way too much energy is consumed magnetizing objects such as transformer cores. RF chokes use air cores to remove the highfrequency from the lowfrequency information to be reproduced in the speakers. This is because the rf energy will be dissipated as heat setting and resetting the magnetic dipole moments of the oxygen and nitrogen in the core material. If the rf chokes don't work then the carrier shows up in the output of the radio as distortion of the amplified low frequency information. RFID chips don't waste the carrier they use it to drive the transmitter. A number of RFID chips arranged in an array becomes a microwave transformer thereby transforming the currents associated with electromagnetic radiation into voltage that can charge a battery or large capacitor.
http://www.opamp-electronics.com/tutorials/inrush_current_2_09_12.htm (http://www.opamp-electronics.com/tutorials/inrush_current_2_09_12.htm)
QuoteThis horrible diseased woman will pay for that last comment.
QuoteBRING IT ON - YOU COWARD.
Rosie Pose
My sincerest apologies for not getting back here sooner to reply.
I humbly accepted that gracious public invitation and indeed
commenced the process to "bring it on", as requested.
I happen to play by my own set of rules.
The Boss
Good for you , Boss. I'm glad you are around.
Meanwhile.... whatever happened to the assertion that the continuous oscillation mode, the strictly negative gate drive signal mode, was the preferred mode of operation?
I still want to see someone making HIGH HEAT in the load using only the negative gate drive signal mode, continuous oscillations.
It is my assertion that most or all of the HIGH HEAT effect that Ainslie has seen, has come from the straight, nonmagical, perfectly ordinary DC Current that is flowing through the circuit during the Gate HI, non-oscillating portions of the period.
And I assert that Ainslie knows this, and that the attempted diversion into the strictly oscillating, continuous bias current situation was another of her attempts at misdirection and derailing of her critics.
The oscillations neither recharge the batteries, prevent discharging, nor produce much heat in the load.
Ainslie says,
QuoteI've yet to see if the voltages and currents are out of phase. And I've yet to prove that there's energy being 'input' by the signal generator - or not. All I can say is that thus far, on our tests related to this - we have NOT seen a phase shift between battery voltage and current - and that we have NOT measured any energy at all being input by our signal generator. On the contrary. We've only measured energy being put back to that generator. But these are all tests that will be defined in our protocol thread and shown on video. That's a promise.
Current and voltage phase relationships during oscillations are shown in Ainslie data. The CVR (current) is shown as usual in golden yellow and the battery "voltage" is shown in the purple trace.
Examples I have of sufficient resolution to determine the phase relationship are
SCRN0166
SCRN0244
SCRN0255
SCRN0313
SCRN0315
SCRN0316
SCRN0324
SCRN0325
SCRN0329
SCRN0330
These all appear to me to show the same phase relationship between battery voltage and current.
A few of these are attached below. What is the phase relationship shown, between the battery voltage and the current?
Can anyone give me the link to the video Ainslie promised to post YESTERDAY, showing her duplication of the conditions resulting in the questionable scope traces?
Well.
Here it is, well after dinner time on the day _after_ Ainslie promised the video showing the replication of the problematic scope shots and the circuit parameters that produced them. But nobody is talking about this video. There is no further mention of this video or the tests that she said she was performing YESTERDAY, anywhere that I can find.
Have I missed something? Or... perhaps God wasn't so willing after all.
Or..... perhaps she found it more difficult than she thought to do what she claimed she could easily and readily do.
Regardless, it appears to be YET ANOTHER broken promise by Ainslie. She promised, God willing, a video by dinnertime in North America yesterday.
Bada-Bingg!
And...
We get a promise of ANOTHER WEEK'S DELAY, instead of yesterday's promised video.
This would be laughable if it wasn't just so damn funny.
I'm of a firm belief now that "our academics" or "academic advises" is a "fib mechanism" or defensive mechanism that Rosemary hides behind when she is confronted with information that deviates too far from her preconceived belief system. It's a pressure release/subterfuge mechanism so she doesn't have to deal with difficult issues and doesn't have to deal with the stress related to her thought patterns being challenged. Whenever there is a bone of contention "the academics" invariably pop up.
It's another form of hiding. Just like she was "hiding" behind the fact that the schematic was not the correct one for a full month. In her mind she rationalizes it and it all makes sense.
Run for the hills!
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 05, 2012, 06:56:56 PM
Can anyone give me the link to the video Ainslie promised to post YESTERDAY, showing her duplication of the conditions resulting in the questionable scope traces?
Golly ... it takes time to get participants to knowingly engage in questionable activities or even paid actors to make a fraudulent video. Just look how long the last YouTube video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc )
Rosemary aka "Dooziedont" took to be produced and the quality was so poor it only took days to figure out it was a big hoax. So this NEW video Rosemary produces must be of higher quality as to better confuse the viewers with more hand waving, misdirection and misinformation. ???
The
"LIVE" broadcast Rosemary referenced that's now somehow impossible giving her readers bogus information, incorrect specifications and requirements for her to do a
"LIVE" broadcast .... then the loss of four (4) usb web cameras that disappeared from
"inside" Rosemary's home in separate incidents :o ( what a joke she is )
So .... here's a video that can be watched closely in the interlude, that's more credible and factual than any YouTube video Rosemary can produce for our viewing pleasure of her claimed
COP>INFINITY device(s).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqO5R6lljEY ::)
FTC
;)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 06, 2012, 04:39:58 AM
So .... here's a video that can be watched closely in the interlude, that's more credible and factual than any YouTube video Rosemary can produce for our viewing pleasure of her claimed COP>INFINITY device(s).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqO5R6lljEY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqO5R6lljEY) ::)
FTC
;)
Hi fuzzy
That's a great video, and that's the noise in Rosemary's head when anyone is telling her the truth
See no truth
Hear no truth
Speak no truth
And the Ainslie comedy of error and mendacity continues this morning.... another day of NO TESTING by the NERD. But that doesn't stop the mendacity.
Hey, gmeast....
I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, and I KNOW THE ANSWER.
And the fact that you are ASKING the question.... probably means that you have once again noticed that you cannot possibly duplicate her reported heat results using an honest 3.7 percent ON duty cycle in the COP > 17 circuit... with or without the flyback diode, with or without the 555 timer, with or without fancy mosfet drivers.
And... frankly.... to avoid reference to Fuzzy's work on this issue --- because she doesn't agree with it --- is PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT of the most egregious kind. Ignore my work if you like, I don't mind, but Fuzzy has done by far the most and best work on this issue, bar none, and has placed ALL his data, procedures and results in the public domain for reference.
To attempt to keep gmeast from knowing about this information.... is one of the worst acts of mendacity that I have yet seen from Ainslie.
TK:
Makes me think of a great name for a band with bleeding-edge socio-political commentary.
You have heard of Rhymes-with-Tussie Riot?
The Mendacious Mendacity Brothers. (and there would be no brothers in the band)
Bingo. The DUTY CYCLE issue.
Hey, Gmeast:
Ainslie used an inverted duty cycle by mistake and has never acknowledged it. You have already found that the exact component values used in the Quantum publication give a gate HI signal 50-100 percent of the time and cannot produce the 3.7 percent gate HI claimed by the Quantum article -- unless of course you hook the output of the 555 up backwards, with its Pin 3 to the power circuit's ground rail and the 555's negative to the power circuit's GATE.
And you have found by now that an honest 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does give some heat but cannot possibly give the temperature profiles cited by Ainslie in the article.
Now... If you flip your applied duty cycle so that you are giving the mosfet a 96.3 percent gate HI signal... you will be able to match her heat profiles very closely. Try it !
Unfortunately, despite your voltage measurements including the flyback diode -- you know, the one NOT INCLUDED in the Quantum schematic you are replicating--, your batteries are still discharging. However, you CAN use the output of the flyback diode to charge a separate capacitor to relatively high voltages, or even to charge another battery. You are "siphoning" charge from the main battery when you do this.
Has the distinction between installing a blocking diode in series with the battery, even within the stack, and applying a capacitor across the battery, yet been absorbed?
It's clear that the oscillations must "go through" the battery: this is proved by the fact that inserting the diode within the battery pack kills the oscillation. Putting a capacitor stack across the battery pack does not kill the oscillations though, but removes them (mostly) from the scope trace monitoring the battery voltage at the battery terminals.
I think this is because the capacitors provide a lower-impedance path for the HF AC oscillations than the battery does, so the oscillations now "bypass" the battery and allow the probes to read the DC battery voltage undisturbed.
So.... put a diode within the battery stack. This kills the oscillations by preventing them from passing THROUGH the battery.
ALSO... put a cap across the battery. This re-establishes a low impedance AC path _around_ the battery and should therefore restore the oscillations even though the diode is within the battery pack.
Right? I haven't tried this in the Tar Baby hardware yet... perhaps I'll do it today if I can find a fast diode in my parts box.
The point being that, if this works as I think it might, we can have a "control" situation that even includes the oscillations, but battery recharging is made impossible by the diode.
What, exactly, are the IEC 60285 and IEC 61436 standards, I wonder.
Could these actually be real standard battery measurement protocols?
I find it simply astounding that Ainslie continues to refer to "standard measurement protocols" when she doesn't even understand that batteries have internal resistance that can be measured. How can anyone continue to be so arrogantly and willfully ignorant that she makes claims like using "standard protocols" when she doesn't even know that actual standard protocols exist and she denies the very existence of a fundamental STANDARD battery measurement?
Battery measurement standards: start here, choose whichever is applicable: http://www.mpoweruk.com/standards.htm
.99's link on battery internal resistance: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_measure_internal_resistance
But so what? We already KNOW that Ainslie's batteries do discharge. We already KNOW that her heat reports are bogus due to improper technique, circuit errors and sloppy record-keeping. We already KNOW that the oscillations are spurious and do not result in battery recharging or prevention of discharging. And we know all this from Ainslie's OWN DATA.
Just had a jet pass over my condo complex. The roar of the jet shook my windows for 30 seconds as the cavity created by the courtyard amplified the jet noise. I don't think it slowed the jet down. I think sound people would call this constructive wave interference. I don't claim this is overunity or anything but it does show how harmonic vibrations can be produced without damping the primary oscillator.
Her definition of standard probably refers. To the lowest possible standard. THANK GOD she's only one of thousands of generally unheard voices slightly below ambient noise, a zipon in an ocean of -NOTA BENE- random arrangements of letters.
(LOL)
Quote from: sparks on August 07, 2012, 07:50:29 PM
Just had a jet pass over my condo complex. The roar of the jet shook my windows for 30 seconds as the cavity created by the courtyard amplified the jet noise. I don't think it slowed the jet down. I think sound people would call this constructive wave interference. I don't claim this is overunity or anything but it does show how harmonic vibrations can be produced without damping the primary oscillator.
Can I please see your power measurement data on the primary oscillator?
Not to be obtuse or anything... I mean, largely and in the main, sometimes I agree with you. But this... is another claim without supporting evidence.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 07, 2012, 08:45:18 PM
Can I please see your power measurement data on the primary oscillator?
Not to be obtuse or anything... I mean, largely and in the main, sometimes I agree with you. But this... is another claim without supporting evidence.
The primary oscillator was a very powerful expansion of supersonic plasma flow in the throat of the jet engine. Probably in the order of thousands of horsepower. The usual passage of a jet does not rattle the windows in my apartment at all. This speaker flying by did because of the echo box created when they made this box of a backyard. Its equivalent to radio antennae reception. Does the primary oscillator feel the receivers. Or does time insulate the primary oscillator from the receiver. I really don't know. Lately there is enough sound pollution where I live to have me contemplate building a large microphone to charge a battery bank all day long. Between that and the guy snoring in the apartment next door I should be able to reduce my carbon foot print substantially. :P
Here is another SN device with some impressive distance. But then we see they are using LED lamps. Have you tried using a lower wattage bulb to see if the distance can be increased?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYqxH8lGznA
MaGs
Well, I can do just what is shown in the video: light up LEDs at 50 cm distance.
I believe the demonstrator in the video has a voltage regulator in the receiver. I just completed a receiver with a DC output section using a 4700 microFarad cap, no voltage regulator, and using SN002 transmitter (small black rectangular caps) it powers that 12 volt computer fan just like it was a real power supply or battery. If I unhook the motor and simply put a LED and a dropping resistor in there instead, a couple of things happen: I can let the receiver charge the cap (which it does in a fraction of a second) , and then the LED will run at full brightness even completely out of range for quite a while-- minutes-- before the charge on the cap decreases. Or I can let the receiver power the LED and the incandescent bulb "live", and then the LED will stay lit out to, or even past, 50 cm, while the tungsten bulb dims out at more normal distances.
I am still using a triple-twist of #12 house wiring for the Tx loop. I have a tubing loop, octagon, cut and assembled but not soldered. There are 40 or 50 amps, maybe more, circulating in the loop; it's possible that the tubing loop will be even better than the twisted wires.
SN001 transmitter with the orange drop caps, and two receivers, have gone off to their new home and will have lots of adventures. I hope they drop me a postcard now and then to let me know they are OK and having a good time.
@sparks....it's possible (I hope) that resonance allows the entrainment of energy from outside the resonant system, to increase the power in the resonator above and beyond that which is provided by the primary oscillator. I am pretty sure that the PO "feels" the load of the resonant chamber on it, but I also think that if conditions are just right, the resonant chamber might be able to allow other frequencies that might be floating around also to contribute some of their energies to the resonance at the resonant frequency. SO the energy of amplification in some resonant systems might not all be coming from the original oscillator.
Of course I have no real evidence for this belief either, other than what I know of Tesla's hopes and Helmholz resonators and etc.
Would you like to refute anything I've said, in the past 300 pages, there, Webby, with checkable references, facts, or demonstrations of your own? You are welcome to do so.
Or perhaps you'd like to ask questions and expect reasonable answers, like I do in the MrWayne thread?
QuoteFor instance, in this para alone - you reference 'inductive reactance'. What IS that? In terms of our standard protocols 'reactance' is the combination of capacitance AND impedance. Previously you referenced the resistance of the battery being responsible for the impedance in the battery - yet a battery doesn't have any 'real' resistance.
Abandon hope and abandon ship.
MH,
You beat me to it.
A bit more from over there:
"You are denying the significance of measurements based on arguments that I simply cannot follow. And I am countering with arguments that are simply not acknowledged. For instance, in this para alone - you reference 'inductive reactance'. What IS that? In terms of our standard protocols 'reactance' is the combination of capacitance AND impedance. Previously you referenced the resistance of the battery being responsible for the impedance in the battery - yet a battery doesn't have any 'real' resistance. Therefore nor can it have impedance - nor for that matter reactance."
All you can do is shake your head and say "wow".
After ten years or so, seriously, how can it be this bad?
PW
When you believe in things you don't understand..... then you suffer.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul7X5js1vE
I don't know what is more astounding... that she still garbles it after all these years, or that she actually cites Wiki in support of her garble .... garbling that reference totally as well.
Well, it won't be the first time and it won't be the last.
And if it weren't such a nice clear evening for astrophotography, I'd stay indoors and show that, even with a 36 volt battery pack, I can illustrate both what is wrong with Paper 2 Figure 2 and show how it _should_ look if everything is functioning and wired properly.
QuoteWe now have the delivery of batteries that CLEARLY state their watt hour rating and we'll be using these to evaluate their performance against controls.
That's real "science." Take the number that the stamping machine stamped on the battery on the production line as your reference watt-hour rating.
You have to measure the watt-hour rating yourself for each battery. If you see the same batch number stamped on each battery then you can get away with just one measurement but if you want to be serious you should still measure the watt-hour rating for at least three of them and then average.
And as PW stated a long time ago now - you will measure different watt-hour ratings depending on how much of a load you put across the battery terminals. A real conundrum.
A bit of kickin' and screamin' from over there:
Quote
"What's particularly contemptible about both picowatt the ponderous and MileHigh The Muddled - is that they BOTH are intellectually DISHONEST. As, indeed is our little TK the braynless - which means that it's a triumvirate of some considerable dimension. LOL.
While I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box this is how they manage to 'spin' that I'm ABJECTLY IDIOTIC. It's easy. They carefully extract isolated reference to anything at all that I write - and then comment on it out of context. (snip)"
The kettle calling the pot black again. Who, exactly, is the Queen of misquotes and not posting full quotes or links?
"Intellectually dishonest"? Are you sure you even know what that means? Seems that most of that comes from you...
That entire thread of yours does nothing but demonstrate to everyone your lacking technical knowledge. No need for "spin", you discredit yourself quite well all by yourself. It is not the fault of others that you never took the time to actually learn about that which you profess to "know". Get off your throne and learn how to learn.
I do indeed feel it is contemptible that you, with your demonstrated lack of technical knowledge, would call others a "joke" just because they can actually read a 'scope and a schematic.
When are you going to ask .99, or anyone else for that matter, for an opinion regarding Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3, 6, and 7?
There is +12 volts being indicated as applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3. If you would learn how to read your 'scope and schematic, you would also see that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.
As well, once you learn enough to realize what your 'scope is saying, you too would be asking, "well then, why is Q1 not turning on?"
The only possible answers are that during the tests depicted by FIG3, 6, and 7, Q1 was disconnected, not connected as per the schematic, or was not functional. There can be no other explanation.
From where I stand, you are the one being "intellectually dishonest"...
She is so full of herself it's ridiculous.
SHE is the one, who, for almost an entire month, misled this entire forum about the actual schematic used. More than 400 posts went by before .99 found the correct wiring and reported it... and she wanted to continue to keep it secret.
And even now, today.... in her "publications" on Rossi's JNP.... she gives two different schematics for the same experiment. And those are just for starters. She has lied, distorted, hidden data, not given credit to other workers, and even ALTERED SCOPESHOTS, by removing baseline markers. She should be drummed off of the entire internet for perpetrating this monumental hoaxpile full of lies and errors.
Let her ACTUALLY REFUTE anything we've said here, with demonstrations, checkable references, outside facts. She cannot.... so she resorts to insults and "spin"... when she is so manifestly wrong about everything it's not even funny any more.
There is no such animal as inductive reactance, according to the Red Queen Ainslie. And she doesn't think it's right for us to say she's STUPID.... but evidently she is TOO STUPID TO LOOK UP TERMS ON GOOGLE.
Yes, go ahead... dip into WIKI. And these other places too.
https://www.google.com/search?q=inductive+reactance (https://www.google.com/search?q=inductive+reactance)
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/AC-inductors.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/AC-inductors.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Inductive_reactance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Inductive_reactance)
http://www.wisc-online.com/objects/ViewObject.aspx?ID=ACE1002 (http://www.wisc-online.com/objects/ViewObject.aspx?ID=ACE1002)
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/inductivereactance/index.html (http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/inductivereactance/index.html)
http://www.electricianeducation.com/theory/inductive_reactance.htm (http://www.electricianeducation.com/theory/inductive_reactance.htm)
Funny.... all of these REFERENCES say pretty much the exact same thing: that inductive reactance XL is equal to 2 x pi x f x L, where L is the inductance and f is the frequency.
NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE says that inductive reactance doesn't exist, or that there is "no such animal".
And WIKI even has a whole entry on INDUCTIVE REACTANCE. Ainslie is too stupid even to check, I suppose.
IN OTHER WORDS, AINSLIE.... YOU ARE REFUTED YET AGAIN for one of your inane stupid ignorant claims. You parrot words that you do not understand, and so you get yourself in deeper and deeper trouble.
Now, perhaps you'd care to explain to everyone how this is taken out of context. No such animal as inductive reactance?
Ainslie, you are indeed stupid, too stupid even to do simple fact checking, much less actually UNDERSTAND what you are parroting.
YOU ARE INDEED ABJECTLY IDIOTIC, Ainslie, Polly Parrot, as shown by your reference to WIKI, which refutes your own assertion.
You're a LIAR, Ainslie, plain and simple. I always refer to exactly what of your nonsense I object to. Just like the past few days: YOU claim that there is NO SUCH ANIMAL as inductive reactance, and you refer to WIKI, which refutes you. And I give the links and the posts and the complete formula.... and you proceed to insult me and MileHigh and picowatt yet again with your lies and arrogant ignorance.
Now .99 has given you THE SAME LINK and the same formula as I have done. And you still get it wrong.
IMPEDANCE is the sum total.
It is made of RESISTANCE and REACTANCE.
REACTANCE has two components: Inductive reactance and capacitive reactance, which act in opposition: one increases with frequency and the other decreases with frequency.
And your conception of capacitors and capacitance is also gravely in error. Again... your preconceptions and your insane "thesis" are keeping you from perceiving reality.... keeping you in your insane delusions.
Credit where it's due, she now claims she understands Pi, and deems it to be case-sensitive. Only one in a million could bring that level of scrutiny to bear.
It seems that gmeast has the chops to understand the inverted duty cycle, if only it wasn't for her constant faux-ksy misdirection.
She's quite content to have someone who's attested he has access to limited resources pointlessly chasing his own tale for the sake for attention grabbing.
It's astonishing. Gmeast is replicating the Quantum magazine "experiment". But he's using a different circuit than was published (mosfet drivers, a flyback diode, etc) , a different timer (components different than listed in the Quantum article), a different duty cycle (much longer ON proportions than Ainslie claimed) and a different set of waveforms. I can only shake my head in bemusement.
And Ainslie herself cannot understand formulae.... so she blames others for using them, instead of educating herself to a commonly accepted standard of understanding.
Van De Graaff machines... how do they work? How in the world do they store up energy, from just a moving belt, until it gets to be so strong that the machine just can't contain it any more and it has to leap off the top sphere as a big honking electrical spark?
Is it possible that they store energy in.... capacitance? How can this be? Where are the plates, where is the dielectric?
The simple picture of inductors and capacitors as energy storage devices is beyond Ainslie's comprehension. Storing energy in a magnetic field, storing energy in an electric field..... whaaat???
Pi. what about e?
Eeeeeeeeee!!!
Maybe this will help:
Resistance (R) and reactance (X) are both measured in "ohms".
An ideal resistor has the same value in ohms at all frequencies. This includes DC and AC.
Reactance is associated with changing DC or AC currents. Reactance varies with the rate or frequency of the changing DC or AC current.
With "capacitive reactance", the value in ohms DECREASES as the rate of change or frequency is increased.
With "inductive reactance", the value in ohms INCREASES as the rate of change or frequency is increased.
"Impedance" (Z), also in "ohms", is the sum of both resistance and reactance, usually at a specified frequency.
Loosely stated otherwise, capacitors present a low impedance path for high frequencies while inductors present a high impedance path for high frequencies.
For example:
The "capacitances" intrinsic to the the MOSFET's are a low impedance path for AC current at the frequency of the oscillation in the NERD circuit.
The "inductances" of the wires connecting the batteries to the NERD circuit are a high impedance path for AC current at the frequency of the oscillation in the NERD curcuit.
Regarding the wiring inductance:
All conductors have an associated inductance. This is why it has been stated several times that "a wire is not always just a wire". In the March video, it looks like there is at least 200cm of wire between the positive most battery terminal and the positive connection at the NERD circuit. There is also a similar length of wire connecting the negative most battery terminal to the NERD circuit. There is a formula for determining the inductance in those lengths of wire, but using an online calculator may be wiser.
http://www.consultrsr.com/resources/eis/induct5.htm
Assuming 10-12 gauge wire, plugging 2.2mm diameter and 200cm length into the calculator gives us approximately 3uH of inductance in each of the long battery wires between the batteries and the NERD circuit.
This 3uH of inductance has an associated reactance that acts like a resistor that changes value with frequency.
At the frequencies involved in the NERD oscillation, 3uH represent a relatively large resistance between the batteries and the NERD circuit.
Another online calculator:
http://www.66pacific.com/calculators/xl_calc.aspx
At 2.5MHz, the reactance of 3uH is approximately 47 ohms. This means that for AC at the oscillation frequency, each battery lead wire is acting like a 47 ohm resistor. With the 'scope leads connected to the NERD circuit board, the battery trace is not measuring the AC voltage at the batteries, but is actually measuring the AC voltage drop across the two 47 ohm resistances in the battery lead wires due to the inductance of the lead wires.
Each of the four battery interconnect wires also have an associated inductance. Again, using 2.2mm as the diameter, the inductance of 10cm of a straight wire is approximately 90 nanohenry. The reactance of 90nHy at 2.5MHz is approximately 1.4 ohms. Therefore, at the oscillation frequency, each of the four battery interconnect cables adds an additional 1.4 ohms of resistance to the battery string. (assumes 5 batteries in series)
Additionally, each battery has an associated inductance. A quick measurement of a 12volt FLA battery from a vehicle yielded approximatey 360nHy of inductance. At the frequency of oscillation, the reactance of 360nHy is 5.7 ohms. This means that each battery will act as if an additional 5.7ohm resistor is in series with each battery at the frequency of the oscillation.
So, the inductance of the wires connecting the batteries and the inductance of the batteries themselves represent a total of 47+47+(4X1.4)+(5X5.7)= 128.1 ohms of reactance at the oscllation frequency. This is a total reactance (resistance) of 128 ohms in series with the batteries due to lead and battery inductance at the frequency of oscillation.
If anyone is wondering why I used 2.5MHz for the oscillation frequency as opposed to the 1.26MHz indicated on the 'scope, I provide the following:
Looking at the battery trace in FIG4, we see a series of positive peaks each representing one-half of a sine wave. Measuring at the FWHM (Full Widh at Half Maximum), we see that this half-sine is approximately 200nanoseconds (200ns) wide at the FWHM. Doubling this width to 400ns gives us the width of the full sine wave associated with the half-sine peaks. Inverting the 400ns value gives us a frequency of 2.5MHz as the frequency associated with the half-sine peaks visible on the battery trace. Yes, the 'scope is reading closer to 1.26MHz, but this is merely the repition rate of the indicated 2.5MHz half-sine peaks. Switching the 'scope to FFT mode will show a predominant peak at close to 2.5MHz (and 1.26MHz) on the battery trace.
@PW: Thanks for that clear explanation. You've described very clearly why my Philips counter often "doubles" the frequency when measuring this circuit. It's actually telling me real information, in conjunction with the waveforms measured on the scope itself.
I'm looking for the "FFT" switch on my HP180a...... ??? ;)
(Actually I've been trying for a long time to get hold of a 8558B Spectrum Analyser plug-in for the scope. This would be very handy for my work in many areas, but I just can't afford one at this point.)
Somehow I just don't think we are ever going to get to that point where the "scales fall from her eyes" and she sees the Light. I mean... you need _equations_ to understand "Team Classical's" interpretation of electronics. When Ainslie's thesis explains everything, with no equations and no math beyond taking some random numbers, adding and subtracting them until you get to "1836", then stopping.
Zipons are so much simpler and easier to understand.
When will the first Zipon Oscilloscope be invented, I wonder? I mean... all the scopes I know about only measure electrical tension and time.
Capacitors are physical devices that make use of electric fields to store energy. But any storage of energy in electric fields is referred to as capacitance or capacity. Physical "plates" and "dielectrics" that you can hold in your hand are not necessary except to make components with.
But the Earth itself is one big "plate" of a capacitor, and _everything_ that has a charge difference with respect to this huge plate, will have some energy stored in the electric field _potential difference_ between that something and the Earth.
And anything carrying charge will have this electrical field "potential" between it and other charge carriers.
The Voltage Room analogy taught us, or should have, that charge accumulates on the outside of conductors, is self repelling, conserved, and fundamental. So for a given spacing and applied voltage, the more area of plate the larger the capacitance. For a given area and voltage, the closer the spacing the higher the capacitance... like compressing a spring.
The _dielectric_ material is there just to allow the "plates"... the charged surfaces... to come more closely together without sparking across and neutralizing the charge _difference_ between the plates.
Larger area, closer spacing, stronger dielectric: more capacity for charge and higher possible voltage before breakdown and self-neutralisation. Hence capacitors made of long strips of aluminised polythene rolled up into tight cylinders. Hence air-variable caps with adjustable plate overlap or spacing. Hence HV transmitting caps made of solid blocks of barium titanate with embedded studs for electrodes. Hence _capacitance_ values given to _single conductive surfaces_ like the top spheres or toroids of VDG or Tesla machines. Hence Tesla's emphasis on elevated capacities, on interturn capacitance in coils, and on the Schumann cavity resonance made possible by the Earth's capacity: the plates being the ionosphere and the surface of the ground, the dielectric being the space (and some atmosphere) between them.
Still nothing for Zipons to do.... the electrons and their inseparable unit negative charges are doing all the work in a fairly well-understood manner, describable and predictable by _equations_ containing in many cases universal mathematical and physical constants like pi or e or even i ........ while all the zipons can do is run around waving their arms shouting "1836! 1836!"
Pi.
The Greek lower-case letter π.
What is pi, anyway? What does it represent as a physical constant?
Some people will tell you it's the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. C=πD or π=C/D or C=2πr where r is the half-diameter or radius.
But.... but.... pi is an _irrational_ number, that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers. And the circle thing is only exactly valid in perfectly flat, Euclidian space... which is a non-existent abstraction.
:o
Ah.... she "gets it" now. But does she, or is she still playing .99 like a fish?
Let's see.
If she really GETS IT, then she definitely owes Mile High, Picowatt, and ME some very public and abject apologies. Will these be forthcoming?
Two images below: the first from yesterday, the second from today.
Here are a couple more images for your reading pleasure. These are screenshots I made from the sources mentioned just now.
The first is from Ainslie's honeytrap forum version, posted there some weeks ago.
The second is from the same daft manuscript, but from the "official publication" on Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, which she was so proudly crowing about, posted on July 27 as a "publication".
Notice any significant differences?
What if you wanted to buy the Function Generator listed in the Official Publication?
Does the difference in the schematics make a difference in interpreting scope shots? Circuit performance in high-heat mode? Mosfet longevity? Size of inductances (mHy vs. uHy)?
WHICH SCHEMATIC WAS ACTUALLY USED for the experimental trials described in the papers? One or the other? Both? NEITHER???
Neither of these correspond to the Video Demo apparatus: that apparatus was close to the first schematic but the FG black lead (wrongly and misleadingly marked "minus" in these diagrams) is misplaced.
Here is what I believe:
Ainslie used the setup exactly as shown in the Video Demonstration. That is, the FG black lead is hooked to the battery side of the "shunt" current viewing resistor, instead of the transistor side as shown in the two different "paper" diagrams. The actual hookup used, to generate her data and conclusions, is the Video Demo hookup. And this same erroneous hookup is present in her single mosfet version as well.
As we all know, the Video Demo hookup allows a current path in the system to bypass the current viewing resistor totally. Thus, the data gathered in this manner, purporting to use the current in the CVR as part of an input power measurement.... are wrong and invalid.
This error in the actual circuit, versus the published schematics, of course invalidates both papers entirely.
All available evidence: the photographs from the demo video, combined with what we know about Ainslie's conceptions and competencies, tell us that she would have naturally hooked the FG's "minus" or "ground" connector to the other circuit common grounds, exactly as shown in the demonstration apparatus in the video.
There is no evidence whatsoever, other than her statements in these two conflicting schematics above, that the FG black lead was correctly placed to allow the CVR to include its current in the measurements.
Regarding the internal resistance of a battery, all batteries have an internal DC resistance. In fact, anything that conducts electricity, short of a superconductor, has resistance.
An example was given wherein a 12 volt battery's measured voltage dropped to 11.8 volts when a 10 ohm load was applied to the battery.
To determine the internal resistance of a battery I use the following (which is just simple math and Ohm's law):
Vopen - Vloaded = Vdrop
Vloaded / Rload = Iload
Vdrop / Iload = Rbatt
Plugging in the numbers from the given example:
12 volts-11.8 volts = .2 volts
11.8 volts/10 ohms = 1.18 amps
.2 volts/1.18 amps = .1695 ohms
So, under DC conditions, the internal resistance of the battery in this example is 169.5 milliohms.
Multiplying Vdrop by Iload will also provide the power being dissipated inside the battery as heat under these conditions. From the above, .2 volts X 1.18 amps = .236 watts. So, in the example given, 236 milliwatts is being lost as heat inside the battery (while 11.8 X 1.18, or 13.9 watts is being dissipated as heat at the 10 ohm resistor).
Again, all batteries have an internal DC resistance...
ADDED: "Hybrid" and "all electric" auto manufacturers wish batteries did not have an internal resistance. It would eliminate the need for all their required active and passive battery cooling methods, which adds bulk, weight, and cost to their battery packs.
I would suggest the following as part of her measurement protocols:
1. Arrange the batteries so that the interconnect wires between the batteries in the series string can be made as short as possible. If five batteries are used, it should be possible to get the four interconnect wires down to 6cm or so each.
2. Position the batteries immediately next to the circuit being tested so that the positive most and negative most battery terminal wire lengths to the circuit board can be made as short as possible (30cm or so). Elevate the circuit board to the same level as the battery terminals to further shorten the required battery lead lengths.
3. Consider using larger gauge wire or multiple parallel connected wires for both the battery interconnects and the battery wire leads to the circuit board. Larger gauge or multiple parallel runs will reduce the wire inductance. Using two wires in parallel for each connection will cut the inductance of a single wire in half.
4. Use a non-inductive resistor for the CSR. Metal oxide, carbon, carbon film, and metal film resistors typically have an inherently low inductance. Stay away from wire wound resistors for the CSR unless they are specifically made to be non-inductive and it is clearly stated that they are non-inductive.
If you really want to cut battery jumper inductances you should use flat copper ribbon or busbar. But of course we know that won't happen.
She will NOT do anything that could falsify her claim! Reducing the oscillations on the battery trace has already been ruled out by her as being "nonsensical".... for the very reason that her claim depends on them.
But a much more serious issue, I think, is that the papers are invalidated by the mistake in the FG black lead hookup, which was clearly different than the papers claim.
Do we seriously think she took a photo of the one-mosfet device with the black lead hooked to common ground, then assembled and tested and recorded data on the five-mosfet system with the black lead hooked up correctly, then unhooked it and moved it back to the common ground for the Video Demo?
I sure don't. She mismeasured the current the entire time, and made the false claims in the papers as to where the black FG lead was actually hooked to the circuit.
If only the battery interconnects and the wire between the negative most battery terminal and the CSR were shortened and "beefed up", it would help.
If the batteries are arranged so that the negative most and positive most battery terminal are both immediately adjacent to the circuit board, a 'scope probe may reach between the beefed up and shortened negative most battery terminal/CSR connection and the positive most terminal of the battery stack.
By probing directly between the negative most and positive most battery terminals, the positive most battery terminal's lead wire going to the circuit board can remain as long as is desired.
However, you would still have the battery inductance to deal with. The entire battery string could be decoupled/bypassed with a cap or, as .99 suggested, decouple/bypass only the negative most battery, measure across that battery and multiply by the number of batteries in the string to get an accurate battery voltage reading. The wires connecting the decoupling cap across the battery (or batteries) would also need to be as short and large as possible to reduce the lead inductance to the cap.
Rosemary tells a flat-out lie that the duty cycle for the circuit initially referred to by gmeast is on for ~3.5% of the time.
The duty cycle is exactly the reverse (close to 97% on), and as a consequence there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the heat observed (inaccurate and vague though those observations were)
Voltage drop is a very poor measure of the remaining energy capacity of the battery when meaurements are done in such an approximate way. Other posters have directed Rosemary to the sort of manufacturers table used to approximate capacity from terminal voltage - you are dealing with small changes in measured voltage representing large changes in remaining capacity (a surprise to me at least)
She's had this and may other errors gently and not-so-gently pointed out to her many, many times.
I give full credit for gmeast attempting to replicate diligently something he believes has value and don't question his motives. But he's being serially lied to and misled.
ETA: Direct links are rarely given because Rosemary has a history of changing things under your feet as the situation demands - double jeopardy on her own forum. Screenshots preserve the comment being responded to.
@YouSaidWhat
Would you be willing to state what your qualifications are? This isn't an attempt to rubbish your opinion (from me at least), but there's a colossal amount of evidence and discussion on these claims and replications. Referring to something that's to the point and at a suitable level would be a lot faster if you'd share.
I have no professional qualifications, just (largely forgotten) high school maths, physics and electronics.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 08:24:04 AM
@TK
Why do you never give direct links?
Here's a direct link for you. Start here and work your way back 12 years over 4 forums.
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.ca/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html (http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.ca/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html)
Quote
It seems that picowatt the ponderous or pretentious or pathetic - take your pick... has devolved a unique method of determining frequency.
Such a nice lady... and no, it is far from a unique method...
Quote
According to him one need only multiply any one half of any one sine wave - by two?
Yes, of course you can. Measure the time duration of one-half of a sine wave at FWHM, multiply by two, and invert the result for frequency.
Quote
We may well have 4 amps or thereby chasing through each half of each sine wave through the shunt resistor.
I thought that you understood and agreed some time ago that the current measurements calculated from the shunt trace needed to be corrected for the inductance of the CSR. When the CSR is corrected for inductance, 4 amps is not indicated on either polarity half-cycle, even when using the lower frequency indicated by the 'scope's trigger frequency. When and if you repeat these tests with a non-inductive CSR resistor, you will likely discover that the actual current indicated is closer to 1-1.5 amps for each positive and negative half-cycle.
Quote
Just way too many ACRONYMS.
I assume by acronyms you are referring to the abbreviations "FWHM" and "FFT"?
I specifically stated what FWHM was the abbreviation for, just for you. You can web search "FWHM" if you like, nothing unique, a "standard measurement protocol", as you would say.
"FFT" is "Fast Fourier Transform", another web search will tell you more. As it relates to your 'scope, look in your operator's manual for "FFT". You will see the 'scope has the capability to display the frequency content of a waveform.
All non-sinusoidal waveforms have many more frequencies contained in their waveforms than is indicated by the trigger frequency readout on a 'scope in normal display mode. By using an FFT algorithm, most digital 'scopes can display the frequency and amplitude of all the individual frequencies and harmonics contained within a measured waveform.
Quote
The fact is that we measure more energy returned to the battery supply than was EVER delivered.
No one disputes that the 'scope is displaying a negative mean power measurement. The need to consider the inductance of the lead wiring, the batteries, and CSR, regarding that measurement, is apparently under dispute.
Is their something you do not yet understand? Do you understand that a simple wire has an inductance? The basics of capacitive and inductive reactance? MOSFET capacitance? The +12 volts to the gate of Q1 in FIG3 and why Q1 is not turning on?
ADDED:
Quote
added
And here's the benefit of never posting a link. picowatt will NEVER reference this post. He dare not. He hasn't got an honest bone in him. Just pure LARD. And by the looks of it way, way too much. LOL
Again, such a nice lady. Exactly what causes you to claim I am "dishonest"? Care to back that up with a reference?
As for not posting your link, you do not post any links to my posts (or even quotes) so why should I bother?
The one who apparently "dare not" is "you", particularly with regard to Q1 not turnng on in FIG3, 6,and 7 even though sufficient gate drive is indicated in those 'scope captures to turn Q1 on.
So, indeed, who is being dishonest? Intellectually or otherwise...
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
@ picowatt
Since you wont post this I will. then maybe you could answer her contextually.
I believe I did...
Unless you mean I should to respond to her childish "but you're fat and stupid" arguments. That's her game...
Quote from: mrsean2k on August 11, 2012, 08:54:30 AM
Rosemary tells a flat-out lie that the duty cycle for the circuit initially referred to by gmeast is on for ~3.5% of the time.
The duty cycle is exactly the reverse (close to 97% on), and as a consequence there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the heat observed (inaccurate and vague though those observations were)
I was wondering when someone would post they had noticed that...
"You said what ?"
I said "I SMELL A RAT"
:o
What on earth does she mean by "inductance from HELL"?
I am not familiar with that term. Is that an industry accepted acronym or abbreviation?
I wonder which inductance she apparently disputes? Are the wire lengths connecting the batteries to the circuit not each six to eight feet long as they appear in the March video? Are the battery interconnect leads not around one foot each?
Is the formula for calculating the inductance of a straight wire under dispute?
I really do not know what is in dispute, it is all pretty straight forward and standard, with many references available online.
ADDED:
I suppose I should have also defined "FLA" battery for those that don't use search engines. FLA is a "Flooded Lead Acid" battery. I was merely distinguishing between a gel cell, AGM, VRLA or other type of lead acid battery.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
@ picowatt
Since you wont post this I will. then maybe you could answer her contextually.
You guys were right. She did come back under a fake name. Yousaidwhat=Rose A
You can see the that the wording seems different, but its her. Mostly it is what is being said and why. I see nobody over there that would come here and say what Yousaidwhat is, except for Rose.
Lol, she just could not take it any longer. She just had to come back under a fake name and the same attitude, and it shows.
And after all the talk of others hacking into her computer, here she tries to deceive Stephan and us in order to have the right to post in a forum she was banned from.
I have to say, I must apologize to some of you guys for things that I had said in the past when defending Rose, I mean Yousaidwhat, same thing. I did not understand her madness. It becomes clearer every day
Mags
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 11:19:04 AM
You guys crack me up. "The Boss". " Mr sean"!? What the hell is wrong with you.? Are you that inadequate that you need to have people to address you by a title? Hellooo. This is the internet remember. Both of you just nobodies. Floating around the ethernet trying to get folks to think that you matter. No I would not be willing to state what my qualifications are. As a professional I am not exactly proud of engaging with you bastards.
Bastards? Would you care to provide proof of that statement? Or of ANY of your current set of assertions? YOU appear to be seriously misled AND a liar to boot. Bastards? Whether or not my birth was "legitimate" has no bearing on the truth. If you can REFUTE any of the things we have said here with FACTS, checkable outside references and demonstrations of your own.... feel free to do so. Slinging your own particular brand of crap.... thinly disguised AINS-LIES..... just shows clearly who YOU are and says nothing at all about us bastards.
Quote
You dont need to tell me you have no professional qualifications. It is obvious. Until you can provide links to those files you rifled from Ainslie I get it that your work is in IT.
There's the LYING ACCUSATION again. Since you are so ineffably STUPID to believe that we bastards have the skill and ability to "RIFLE" Ainslie's computer.... yet we are too kind or incompetent to leave behind a keylogger or just have her computers format their drives....... I am going to ask you to provide EVIDENCE for your assertion that anything was "rifled" from anyone's computers. But I know that YOU CANNOT.
EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DATA THAT I HAVE POSTED FROM AINSLIE HAS COME FROM HER OWN PUBLIC FORUM POSTS, most of them from this forum, Energetic Form, Naked Scientists forum and her own several blogs. Not only that but the sources are given either in the filenames or the posts themselves. You want to accuse.... bring some proof along with you, or people are going to think that YOU are actually the deluded paranoid Ainslie, yourself. This continuing accusation is laughable... and libellous. And it also indicates the incompetence of Ainslie... and you. Why aren't MY computers being rifled, if it's so easy to do? You are indeed an idiot for continuing to make this silly accusation.
Quote
I need to be careful when and where I post.
Yes, perhaps you do, or people will realize who you really are. This post refers.
Quote
And about that bloglink. Do you really think anyone believes that rot?
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
I've given lots of links to Ainslie's blogs where she lies and gives false information or bad math and bogus conclusions... or gives a MORE ACCURATE reportage of her experiment than is given in the "papers". "THE WATER WASN'T ACTUALLY BOILING... THERE WERE SMALL BUBBLES..." The link to this statement of hers, made on her blog on the day after the trial in question, has been linked to many times.
Quote
And that dutycycle inversion -- that's crap.
CRAP? I think you ARE Ainslie now, since you lie and insult and sling your CRAP with every sentence.
The circuit is given in schematics, in black and white. EVERYONE who has constructed the circuit AS GIVEN has found the duty cycle inversion.
BUILD IT FOR YOURSELF and see. You can report your work... with proof of your assertion.... right here. We will all be eager to see it. EVEN GMEAST confirmed this fact that the duty cycle of the Quantum circuit is inverted from what is claimed .... and now he's using a circuit that was NEVER POSTED OR CLAIMED BY AINSLIE... using a DIFFERENT duty cycle than she claimed....and you think that's a replication of the Quantum circuit and claim. It's not. Additional proof is provided by my work from 2009 and the Energetic Forum threads from that time ... where it is clear, over and over, that Ainslie and many of her minions believed that when the DRAIN voltage in her circuit is HIGH, that the mosfet is ON and conducting, and when the DRAIN voltage is LOW, the mosfet is off. Hence the inverted duty cycle. Further proof is provided by the FACT that when the inverted, 96.3 percent ON duty cycle is actually used, Ainslie's reported time-temperature profiles are easily reproduced.
But of course we know that you will not be building the circuit and reporting on it here... because that would show that you are wrong, and besides.... Ainslie is incompetent in such matters and so her sock puppets are too.
GO AHEAD... PROVE ME WRONG. You cannot.
Quote
That circuit was demonstrated replicated accredited. By guys and companies that gave their real names.
Demonstrated? The only demonstration that we know about is the Demo Video of the new 5-mosfet circuit. We know of no credible provable demonstration of the COP>17 circuit. Yes, the COP > INFINITY circuit was demonstrated... that's clear and there is the video... that Ainslie claimed she did NOT post, until the proof was given that she DID post it... that gives the evidence of the demonstration. And what evidence.... mostly evidence of incompetence and mendacity. One schematic is shown in the video, a different one is asserted by the narrator, yet a different one was actually used, and two more different ones are given in the "papers", and the FG Black lead in the demo is placed so as to HIDE a current path in the system. So what was demonstrated was a bunch of mendacity and error -- with 5 DIFFERENT schematics claimed... and the "explanation" of the circuit's behavior is given in the cartoons in the second paper-- which do not correspond to ANY of them. Accredited? No. Cite references to this accreditation that you claim. You cannot. Replicated? Yes, it's been "replicated" many times. How many of the "replicators" used the actual circuit she published and explored THAT circuit fully? Only two that I know of: ME, and FTC. I am very sure that you are familiar with FTC's work, Ainslie...er, I mean "Yousaidwhat". And when those "real names" have been looked for and contacted.... they are found not to exist, or to have only confirmed the calibration of the Fluke scopemeters, or respond like Professer Khan has done with ridicule and derision. NOBODY that Ainslie has "mentioned" will confirm her claims. And whenever anyone actually offers or tries to contact those people... Ainslie freaks out and does everything she can to prevent it. And we know why too.
Quote
You want me to believe that they lied? But you tell the truth? Then I need to be more stupid than you take me for. The serial liar here is not ainlsie. You lot think you can trash her work? Then think again.
Evidence of Ainslie's lies are given throughout this thread. She lies with practically every post, every sentence she writes. As long as the two different schematics representing the same experiment are posted... SHE LIES, and the evidence is there for anyone to see. Can you PROVE that anything we have said here is incorrect, or a lie? You cannot, because we are not incorrect, nor have we lied about anything... in stark contrast to Ainslie's RECORDED LIES, of which there are many.
No, you don't have to believe ANYTHING without proof. Where is your proof of any of your assertions? It is conspicuously lacking. It is Ainslie who constantly makes assertions without proof... .and even when she does provide an outside reference.. or mentions WIKI... upon checking it is found that her assertions aren't even supported by her own references. She asserted very insultingly and arrogantly that there is "NO SUCH ANIMAL AS INDUCTIVE REACTANCE".... and told us to check the WIKI. So we did..... and what did we find, there, Yousaidwhat?
We here have given PROOFS of every assertion we've made, and support for our conjectures as well.
For example.... my recent assertion that the SCHEMATICS IN THE "PAPERS" conflict with the actual circuit used is PROVEN by the photo of the first design with the FG black lead clipped in incorrectly, and the photo from the VIDEO DEMO taken after the data in the papers... also showing it in the wrong place, different from the (two different) schematics given in the two papers. That's evidence supporting my assertion that this same hookup was used to generate the data in the daft manuscripts, invalidating them totally.
And there is also the INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT that Ainslie LIED OUTRAGEOUSLY about the circuit being used, from March 22 2011, the release date of the video, until April 18 2011 when .99 carefully checked and found that the ACTUAL circuit in the demo did NOT correspond to what Ainslie claimed it was. Over 400 forum posts discussing the WRONG, lying, schematic.... and Ainslie is on record admitting the deception and saying she wanted to CONTINUE THE DECEPTION.
Again... if you want to REFUTE anything that is said here with FACTS, outside checkable REFERENCES, or demonstrations of your own.... please feel free to do so. Meanwhile..... you sure look like an Ainslie sock-puppet to me, because you are bringing NOTHING of your own to this affray. And what you do bring is demonstrably wrong.
For example, I have a birth certificate that shows my parents were married, at the time of my birth. DO YOU?
Here are some easy questions for you, Yousaidwhat, or for ANY Ainslie supporter to answer:
On what dates do the winter and summer solstices, the spring and autumn equinoxes occur? Do you happen to know?
Does inductive reactance exist, or is there "no such animal"?
Is it possible to dissipate 5.9 megaJoules in 96 minutes WITHOUT boiling away 700 ml of water and making the broom closet quite uncomfortably warm?
Is it legitimate to publish TWO DIFFERENT schematics referring to the same experiment, and in fact to post the SAME PAPER in two different places with DIFFERENT SCHEMATICS?
Just answer these questions, Yousaidwhat...... they are all in reference to claims Ainslie has made, or "publications" on which she is the principal author bearing responsibility for all that is within. And there are many more similar questions that can be asked... and whose answers Ainslie does not want anyone to know.
But we know you will not answer them in particular, because the answers... the truth.... will YET AGAIN show that Ainslie is an ignorant, arrogant liar, and you are her sock puppet.
@you said what
1 - you aren't being asked for identification, just an indicator what level to pitch a response at. From your response I'm assuming you have no qualifications or experience. And that's OK genuine experts have explained these matters in simple terms that only Rosemary is unwilling and / or unable to understand. Anyone else will manage.
2 - my full name is Sean Inglis, my email addresses have been states here several times. I am not anonymous. You're entitled to your opinion Im a nobody, but I'm a nobody with apparently a far better grasp of the situation than you. Insults notwithstanding I don't mind trying to remedy that.
3 - MrSean2k is a hangover from working with Indian contractors who addressed everyone as Mr Dave or Mr Steve. I thought it was quite sweet so I kept it.
Educate yourself, and help gm east from wasting valuable time and effort with false and misleading hope.
I, for one, am glad you are back and posting here, Ainslie, even though by doing so you are again disrespecting our good host, violating TOS, and lying through the few teeth you have left.
Your posting here makes you that much easier to refute.... even though we know it's a continuation of your strategy to attempt to BURY every significant finding we've made here, by pages of your accusations and calumnies and our responses in defense.
The significant finding that you are CURRENTLY trying to bury is the finding that YOU LIED about the schematic used in the daft manuscripts, positioning the FG's black output lead so as to HIDE a current path, just as shown in the Single Mosfet photo and the Demo Video photo.
All the data you have given in your papers, with the FG lead hooked up NOT AS SHOWN IN THE SCHEMATICS but rather as seen clearly in the photos and video--- are invalid.
You didn't even KNOW that the FG clip location in the video was incorrect until it was pointed out to you and proven. Only then did you make schematics showing it in the right place... you never actually used this correct hookup for the trials reported in the daft manuscripts.
ETA: And I have never insisted that I be addressed by the honorific that is legitimately mine to use. And it's not "BASTARD".
Quote from: Magluvin on August 11, 2012, 01:05:40 PM
You guys were right. She did come back under a fake name. Yousaidwhat=Rose A
You can see the that the wording seems different, but its her. Mostly it is what is being said and why. I see nobody over there that would come here and say what Yousaidwhat is, except for Rose.
Lol, she just could not take it any longer. She just had to come back under a fake name and the same attitude, and it shows.
And after all the talk of others hacking into her computer, here she tries to deceive Stephan and us in order to have the right to post in a forum she was banned from.
I have to say, I must apologize to some of you guys for things that I had said in the past when defending Rose, I mean Yousaidwhat, same thing. I did not understand her madness. It becomes clearer every day
Mags
No problemo, Mags, we are cool.
Nobody is to be blamed for believing Ainslie initially. We do not normally encounter such blatant errors and lies, so forcefully presented and defended in spite of all contrary evidence. Anyone else would by now be ashamed to show up in public, with that garland of lies hanging from her like a dead albatross around her neck. But Ainslie is so overweeningly arrogant and insufferably willfully ignorant that she doesn't even accept that she's been soundly refuted on every point.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
@Tk
Yeah right. You need to think that. I never said you are a bastard. That would not nearly cover it.
@MaGs? Not sure where you fit in yet. Your posts dont make sense mostly. We all know what the rest of you are up to. Now. Deal with that stuff by Gmeast - Tk you bugger. Show us what a genius you are.
you guys are really big time losers. What a waste of time.
@Ainslie
You dont need me over there. Your doing fine.
So, should I assume you disagree with something in my recent posts?
Do you dispute my assertions regarding the battery lead inductance and the battery interconnect wire inductance? Do you dispute the inductance of the batteries? Do you dispute the fact that in FIG 3 of the first paper, the 'scope capture shows +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1, yet Q1 is not turning on?
Please do share whatever it is you disagree with...
I, personally, don't think YSW is RA. It seems more likely that he/she is somebody from the e-sp forum (gmeast, perhaps?) And I can't blame a person for thinking they're "defending the person being bullied by all those meanies." That, in and of itself, is an honorable motive indeed. However, they obviously haven't read through the previous threads and seen just how disrespectful RA was to various builders and professionals as soon as their replication results or calculations contradicted hers.
Also, what is it with that forum? Why is it they require one to register and log in to be able to see any of the visuals? Oh, it's so they can obtain your information so they can sue you if they think you've 'slandered' them (Don't believe me? Read their TOS).
I know I won't be signing up anytime soon.
polln8r.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
@Tk
Yeah right. You need to think that. I never said you are a bastard. That would not nearly cover it.
@MaGs? Not sure where you fit in yet. Your posts dont make sense mostly. We all know what the rest of you are up to. Now. Deal with that stuff by Gmeast - Tk you bugger. Show us what a genius you are.
you guys are really big time losers. What a waste of time.
@Ainslie
You dont need me over there. Your doing fine.
I detect some multiple personality disorder also. ;]
Lets 'imagine' that Yousaidwaht is not RA
Yousaidwhat, what parts, if any or all, of what Rose has shown so far do you agree with, and why?
Do you not know that a battery has an internal resistance, and it can be measured and calculated? Everything has resistance. Even capacitors have resistance. In most cases this resistance is a specification of the device. Thist is true for batteries also. Here is a Wiki moment...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance
Going backwards, "inductive reactance" Ever heard of that Yousaid? Hmmm?
Capacitive reactance? Hmmm?
Going backwards further, Bahh, no need. You are RA. Maybe you 2 can figure this all out, if only you could put your 'mind's together. ;]
Nice try Rose. I think less and less of you as you go.
MaGs
"Rifled" is a fairly uncommon word. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was Rosemary, or perhaps chessnyt. I dont see it being gmeast - I'd have thought as a builder he wouldn't waste his time.
But it doesn't matter much, treating the poster as someone who needs to be disabused if their error seems reasonable.
@pollin8r
Its a problem; Rosemary's gee-shucks-poor-little-me-battling-the-arseholes schtick is well honed and easy to buy into. It takes effort to follow the thread of how thoroughly dishonest she is.
Quote from: polln8r on August 11, 2012, 03:47:02 PM
I, personally, don't think YSW is RA. It seems more likely that he/she is somebody from the e-sp forum (gmeast, perhaps?) And I can't blame a person for thinking they're "defending the person being bullied by all those meanies." That, in and of itself, is an honorable motive indeed. However, they obviously haven't read through the previous threads and seen just how disrespectful RA was to various builders and professionals as soon as their replication results or calculations contradicted hers.
Also, what is it with that forum? Why is it they require one to register and log in to be able to see any of the visuals? Oh, it's so they can obtain your information so they can sue you if they think you've 'slandered' them (Don't believe me? Read their TOS).
I know I won't be signing up anytime soon.
polln8r.
Howdy polln8r,
Well .... it's fairly certain that "Yousaidwhat" is Rosemary's mode of operation (MO) for those that have dealt with her wording, use of phrases and there is a ongoing record of her signing up as other identities here at Over Unity, like a example "Doozy" (banned and posts removed) http://www.overunity.com/profile/doozy.24874/ (http://www.overunity.com/profile/doozy.24874/) and then a "Doozy2" (banned ?) http://www.overunity.com/profile/doozy2.24875/ (http://www.overunity.com/profile/doozy2.24875/) on and on. ??? ( YouTube video "Dooziedont )
The viewing of her forum images is a Administration rule made during set up that was "not' to show images to anyone but members. There also was a option Administration chose to be able to "EDIT" the postings at any time ..... even years from today, which makes changes to the story or cover up mistakes even delete posts real "EASY" for any member. This was something Rosemary did on a regular basis at Energetic Forum changing her postings was common place, so many of us started "screen" image prints of postings (like here) for references. :o
So now what to do with her childish actions ..... again ?? I know what I'd do ;)
FTC
:)
ADDED- There are thousands of Internet Providers in South Africa and Rosemary has used a DSL connection .... there is nothing to say that Rosemary hasn't gotten a new Internet Provider (IP) or even a "WIRELESS" connection to gain a new (IP) address for usage to sign-up here at Over Unity. There was a posting at her personal forum blog site about not having the "bandwidth" with her present internet connection for a LIVE streaming presentation and possibly did a upgrade.
After enough exposure to RA you get to know her attitude, it is unique, and even though her attempts at deception in posting under new usernames are becoming more sophisticated, it is still easy to spot. A useful idiot to the psyop agents indeed.
The "uncommon words" are no surprise, a year or more back I went to the effort of posting numerous links to the free dictionary showing she had a basic grasp of the English language at best, an example:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/calumny (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/calumny)
Shortly afterwards in all her postings you see her vocabulary explode with new words in an attempt to sound more intelligent. I should have had the foresight to realise giving her a thesaurus was a bad idea, back then I did not know shape recognition was the preferred processing technique, and who can resist new combinations of shapes.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 11:19:04 AM
-snip- As a professional I am not exactly proud of engaging with you bastards.
-snip-
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
@Tk
Yeah right. You need to think that. I never said you are a bastard. That would not nearly cover it.
-snip-
Ah... yes, you were only referring to MH and picowatt in that post. You are sorry indeed.
And after all, Ainslie's style is not that hard to imitate. Sock puppets come in all kinds.... trolls who would imitate someone else's style just to get a rise; trolls who know how to use proxy servers and sailboats and strawman arguments; trolls who cannot support their claims with facts and outside checkable references.
You may or may not be Ainslie, that matters not. You... and Ainslie... are wrong, and that matters.
The papers contain conflicting schematics. Fact, or not, Sock Puppet?
The FG black lead is hooked to the common circuit ground in ALL the photos of her apparatus. Fact, or not, Sock Puppet?
Inductive Reactance does in fact exist, contrary to Ainslie's insulting claim. Fact, or not, Sock Puppet?
July 21 is nowhere near an equinox or a solstice, not even in South Africa. Fact, or not, Sock Puppet?
And I could go on like this for pages, stating CLAIMS AND ASSERTIONS made by Ainslie that are simply and incontrovertibly not true..... they are LIES.
I took a peek on EF, and there is new RA thread. Our old friend that is trying to sell magical elixir water fires all of his guns at Poynt and claims he is clueless. lol
I still laugh thinking about his clips where he fell flat on his face and it was apparent that he was completely clueless about electronics and was barely able operate his oscilloscope - after 10 years of 'researching' on the bench - and the heaps of praise that Rosemary gave him as she called him an "expert." I always imagined steam rising from the top of his head because his brain was on overload during all of the embarrassing pregnant technical pauses. The giant rat's nest of alligator clips was too much.
A great moment was when myself and Poynt explained to him that here is a zero volts across an ideal inductor with DC current flowing through it. He was shocked and did not know how to react. lol
Those are the moments that make these soap opera dramas kind of fun!
Who would have thought that you could sell water for a buck a liter? Who would have thought that you could sell water for thirty bucks a liter?
Hi FuzzyTomCat,
Fancy that, I was just reading about you... seems you used to be "top cat" a few years back. Looking at at: http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/1890/#.UCbVRKFmRV4 and the subsequent 30 pages (or thereby) one can get a pretty good idea of how differently she treats people based on the degree to which their tests support or refute her claims. The moment of the flip-flop is usually marked by an alteration of an individual's screen-name.
I have an hour to completely rewrite this, so--you know--somebody'd better 'quote' me quick.
polln8r.
Howdy all,
The one thing that makes each individual unique is their strengths, weaknesses and ability to understand. I myself always strive to learn with the stumbling blocks most open minded people encounter throughout their voyage. The biggest thing that keeps me in balance in the "Open Source" community is the attached photograph taken in 1921, for the reason why those certain people were there at that place, at that time, each one brilliant in their fields with their strengths, weaknesses and ability to understand, not agreeing on everything they each researched ..... but all there, advancing science.
FTC
;)
Steinmetz.
Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
http://inventors.sciencedaily.com/l/336/Charles-Proteus-Steinmetz (http://inventors.sciencedaily.com/l/336/Charles-Proteus-Steinmetz)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz
Died in 1923, so not too long after that photo was taken.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
I took a peek on EF, and there is new RA thread. Our old friend that is trying to sell magical elixir water fires all of his guns at Poynt and claims he is clueless. lol
I still laugh thinking about his clips where he fell flat on his face and it was apparent that he was completely clueless about electronics and was barely able operate his oscilloscope - after 10 years of 'researching' on the bench - and the heaps of praise that Rosemary gave him as she called him an "expert." I always imagined steam rising from the top of his head because his brain was on overload during all of the embarrassing pregnant technical pauses. The giant rat's nest of alligator clips was too much.
A great moment was when myself and Poynt explained to him that here is a zero volts across an ideal inductor with DC current flowing through it. He was shocked and did not know how to react. lol
Those are the moments that make these soap opera dramas kind of fun!
Who would have thought that you could sell water for a buck a liter? Who would have thought that you could sell water for thirty bucks a liter?
That is flmping amazing. Look at this quote from Err-on:
QuoteCOP 17? Not with the Quantum circuit. As Glen said, that diagram doesn't even give the right duty cycle claimed in the article. There are many contradictions and misinformation that was provided to everyone from Rosemary.
Uh-huh.
And I got banned from his forum for insisting on this point, among others, and arguing with him, Joit, Ainslie, and just about everybody else there, and on this forum too, for WEEKS about the duty cycle inversion .... and I was the very first, as far as I know, to point out the inverted duty cycle -- on June 20, 2009 -- and give the explanation of it to Err-on himself. Yet he gives me no credit at all... because that would be extremely embarrassing for him. Or would be if he had any kind of conscience or integrity. But at least he has to admit, now, that I was and continue to be right about that circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
Here, for example, is a video that I had to make, SPECIFICALLY FOR AARON, trying to explain this duty cycle issue and the mosfet Drain voltage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA)
I also made several other videos testing HIS OWN CIRCUIT and demonstrating that he was wrong about how it behaved... due to his mistaken conception of mosfet high-side load switching behaviour.
And has anyone wondered where the precise 3.7 / 96.3 percent duty cycle split came from? It is the MINIMUM DUTY CYCLE INDICATION that the Fluke 123 and 199 ScopeMeters are capable of resolving. Rarely they might go a tenth of a percent shorter. In other words.... even these numbers are likely to be wrong. The OFF time could have been even less than 3.7 percent, as long as it was OFF for some tiny portion of the cycle, the Fluke would say 3.7 percent. How do I know this? Because I tested the circuit with BOTH the 123 and the 199 scopemeters against a fast risetime precision pulse generator, the DP-101 ... something nobody else did. And I showed the EXACT SAME oscillations on those scopemeters that Ainslie specified. And because I then showed that the "random aperiodic Hartley resonance oscillations" as she termed them at one time... were spurious artefacts of digital display of sampled signals (see the video below) .... they then claimed that I did not manage the oscillations... and then went on to use OTHER CIRCUITS to make OTHER OSCILLATIONS to produce their results... then denigrated ME for not performing a "replication". And all because I showed them their errors.
Grr. This thing keeps rising up from the grave, like the brain-eating zombie that it is. And as usual... nobody has refuted anything I found about that circuit, and yet they do not give me any credit for explaining to them FIRST:
the inverted duty cycle issue
the bad power computations
their lack of understanding scope triggering and ac/dc coupling
the aliasing Moire patterns mistaken for "random aperiodic" oscillations
the lack of _real_ battery charging as opposed to fluffy charging
the ability to charge an external cap to high voltages from the spike
the ability to genuinely charge EXTERNAL batteries with the spike
comparisons with other mosfets
and a few other firsts as well.... like ACTUALLY BOILING WATER with the circuit, which I did and published on Aug 8 2009, almost exactly three years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8)
Do they ever mention this? No. And it is very clear in this video, between 3:10 and 3:50, that I am getting the exact same oscillations that were analyzed so well by MH and others in the thread that polln8r referenced earlier, and also that the 2sk1548 makes these oscillations better and faster.
I am so disgusted by all the prevarication and mendacity associated with this Ainslie thread over there that I can hardly type.
And again.... Paul Lowrance asks a good question:
Quote
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie (http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg206772/#msg206772) « Reply #2322 on: October 31, 2009, 03:47:05 AM » To be honest it should be clear what I'm asking for. If someone has done the experiment, then why not post it. In looking through the thread I saw the temperatures produced by the Ainslie device, but I did not see the control experiment where it showed how much power was required to heat the same component to the same temperature.
Paul
And nobody mentions that... once again.... I did it, and I did it first. Just displayed the results in a different... better, more easily interpretable form:
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 12, 2012, 03:43:52 AM
...................
Grr. This thing keeps rising up from the grave, like the brain-eating zombie that it is. And as usual... nobody has refuted anything I found about that circuit, and yet they do not give me any credit for explaining to them FIRST:
the inverted duty cycle issue
the bad power computations
their lack of understanding scope triggering and ac/dc coupling
the aliasing Moire patterns mistaken for "random aperiodic" oscillations
the lack of _real_ battery charging as opposed to fluffy charging
the ability to charge an external cap to high voltages from the spike
the ability to genuinely charge EXTERNAL batteries with the spike
comparisons with other mosfets
and a few other firsts as well.... like ACTUALLY BOILING WATER with the circuit, which I did and published on Aug 8 2009, almost exactly three years ago.
..................
TK,
I'll give you credit for all your findings, because they helped better educate me on weird pulsed DC circuits, as to what Rosemary ( inventor - expert ? ) was or wasn't telling me but now knowing that she couldn't tell me.
It was always the same with Rosemary showing her my results then they became just like hers ... my question to her was always "what does yours look like show me" and I never got anything .... blah blah blah. I know that Rosemary's constant editing her postings at Energetic, the deletion of 250 posting by the administration there was a big problem, including the way she ended up treating Aaron when he stopped his work on the device. Then there was Harvey, Ash and Andrew as soon as the last IEEE paper was rejected for the fifth time those three also went on the heap with the rest of Rosemary's prey. We all wanted it to work, everyone "BUT" Rosemary helped toward that goal with their best intentions and personal abilities to be viciously turned on in the end by her.
My quest for a COP>17 ended up looking for just a COP rating, boiling water was easy but drained the batteries down quickly with no device performance improvement. Then when Tektronix agreed to loan me a better scope than the TDS 3054C with the newer much better unit a DPO 3054, I became the thief that stole her technology and called it my own somewhere the location yet to be divulged where by Rosemary and then Tektronix's was being lied to by her and then they pulled their support to the Open Source community.
It's hard for some people to say they made mistakes, I made my share, but there are those individuals also that just want some how for it ( Ainslie ) to all go away, knowing a few of them. The whole experience made me look at experimental research not fully explained differently, doing better investigations prior to starting projects, not to take things at face value and of course what Intellectual Property Rights are.
You do fine work and I've learned a lot here and so have many others.
Fuzzy
;)
I don't think it was mentioned but Poynt has given up on trying to teach Rosemary and left her to her own devices. Of course she was showing how little she actually knows during the attempted teaching. I find it disturbing how people that know next to nothing about a subject can still push forward in their abject ignorance with barely a second thought. You think about the years of arguing it out with her and the whole time she was and is nearly completely clueless.
So Rosie can go back to her zipon fantasies and her preposterous claims about the Higgs boson.
I really hope nobody helps her with her testing. I don't say that lightly but in this one case it would be poetic justice.
MileHigh
This is the last suggestion I made regarding Rose's future testing (posted at her forum):
Rose,
Here is a suggestion for your testing. Average both the battery and CSR voltage traces and see what result you get for your computed mean power. This will not kill or diminish the oscillation in the circuit, in fact it may even increase the voltage swing a little.
Add a film type capacitor (10uF should suffice) across one battery as shown, and one across your CSR array as shown. Multiply the resulting power by the number of batteries you are using. Use 0.25 Ohms for the CSR value. You may find quite a different result for the computed mean battery power this way.
The capacitors are there to minimize the skewing effect of the parasitic inductance internal to the battery, and inherent with the CSR array.
This method will produce a battery power measurement that is very very close to the actual power used.
@Fuzzy: thanks for that, I know that you worked very hard and as I've said before you've got the most comprehensive set of experiments and shared results that I know about. Ainslie's behaviour towards you especially is really outrageous, she should be grateful to you for what you did.
@MH: Who knows what will happen. As long as she doesn't change, the situation won't change; there will be new blogs, new forum threads, new gullible victims who are hopeful and who believe her statements. That is the absolute pisser about this whole affair: she has learned nothing. Learning is gauged by change in behaviour..... and she isn't going to change.
@.99: your efforts have been truly heroic. I can't imagine how you've held onto your equanimity. I've been reading the old thread that polln8r linked... all that happened when I was "on a break" and so I missed it when it first happened... but you were telling her the same things about that circuit then that you have been telling her now about this one ... and she pretended to grasp it then, too.... but as we all know now, she was just stringing you along, secretly mocking "Team Classical". She even mentions calculating inductive reactance, three years ago.... and three days ago she denies that there is any such animal as inductive reactance. I fear that you have been spinning your wheels and that she is continuing to laugh at you behind your back.
I want to thank all three of you for your efforts with Ainslie. I have learned from each of you, I know a lot more about electronics than I did three years ago.... and I know a lot more about Ainslie, and psychology, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't know if there is any "solution"... and I was shocked to read about "Popper John" in the noble gas plasma power thread... To learn that there is more than one "Ainslie" type out there, fooling people and making money at it, is very depressing to me.
Well.... carry on, then. But if .99 doesn't continue, she will proclaim "victory" over "Team Classical" which "cannot explain" her famous oscillations.... even though they have been explained over and over. The explanations she's received don't fit her "thesis"... so they are wrong, QED.
I still want to see her video, though, demonstrating how she got those scope traces.... maybe she will actually be forced to admit that she was wrong about that, at least. But... I also want her "papers"withdrawn, since they are so full of flaws and outright lies... and I know that's not going to happen. They are just being ignored on Rossi's JNP and that's good--- maybe they are getting read and rejected by the readers, if not by the "editors" and "peer reviewers", as the word-salad prevarications that they are.
As far as the last suggestion from .99 goes.... the laboratory in the USA is supposed to have sent her some "special resistors". I cannot imagine what these must be --- unless they are non-inductive shunt current viewing resistors, and/or some kind of calibrated load resistor. She has not discussed these resistors or the proposed testing that the lab has requested she do, as far as I know. I think that this lab has rejected her claims-- certainly they have rejected the main claim of non-discharging batteries-- and have sent along some kit for her to try to prove to herself how her errors arise.... but she isn't having any of that, which is why we haven't heard any discussion about their findings, their suggestions, or the parts they sent for her to try, or why.
She's still lying, and to her builder too.
Look at this... .now she's claiming that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article was downloaded and pasted into her circuit "off the internet".
What year was that article published?
And where on the internet, at that time, could anyone find this NON STANDARD representation of the 555... with the EXACT COMPONENT VALUES to give the EXACT INVERTED DUTY CYCLE......
Nowhere, that's where. And the Author of any paper or article is fully responsible for ALL information in that publication, unless there has been a misprint on the publisher's part.
The timer in the article was the timer Ainslie used. The duty cycle was inverted from what she has claimed. EVERYONE who has built that circuit knows that the cycle is inverted, by now. 100 pages indeed--- arguing with people who DENIED THE TRUTH of my finding on the first day I tested that circuit in 2009. And STILL the issue is not rested... because of Ainslie's continuing mendacity.
And I believe GMEAST has already discovered this 555 inversion for himself, which makes her current post all the more silly.
Incidentally...... is that safe?
INCIDENTALLY, it is now Sunday Evening in the USA. We have been waiting since last MONDAY for the promised video showing the solution to the scopeshot issue illustrated in the second daft manuscript's Figure 2 and other similar figures. How is it possible that a mosfet is provided with a +12 volt signal to its gate--- yet no current flows through the CVR?
Ainslie has failed, yet again, to provide something that she PROMISED TO PROVIDE by this weekend.
Oh.... I forgot.... I still have my NERD Test Preventer running.... maybe I should turn it off.
Naah......
"Danger of the capacitor getting overcharged."
Ha ha ha... Rosie Posie talks about capacitors erroneously.
TK:
Don't fret, I think it was about a year ago now that ZeroFossilFuel claimed that "within a week" he was sure that he would have his RomeroUK replication self running!
MileHigh
Someone should probably throw her a bone and tell her to use capacitors with a proper voltage rating. Also, it should be noted that .99 specified a film type cap and that short leads should be used for the caps, CSR resistor(s), and the connection between the battery negative and the CSR.
However, are we actually supposed to believe that a "team" exists and that no one on that "team" knows anything about using capacitors? Is there anyone on that team that even understands what .99 was discussing, or the effects of inductive reactance on the measurements? Not knowing how to use capacitors or specify their voltage rating does not do much to instill confidence in any data from any upcoming tests.
One would think that a "team" put together to perform tests and measurements on an electronic circuit would consist of at least one person qualified in the field of electronics. Any such person qualified in the field of electronics would also agree that there is a problem indicated in FIG 3, 6, and 7 regarding Q1. SInce the Q1 issue has not been addressed for many months, it must be assumed that there is no one qualified in electronics on any "team".
If there actually is a "team", it sounds like the blind leading the blind.
...and there are none so blind as those that will not see...
Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2012, 10:46:15 PM
"Danger of the capacitor getting overcharged."
Ha ha ha... Rosie Posie talks about capacitors erroneously.
TK:
Don't fret, I think it was about a year ago now that ZeroFossilFuel claimed that "within a week" he was sure that he would have his RomeroUK replication self running!
MileHigh
Well, to be fair, any cap can be damaged if its voltage rating is exceeded of course, but this is a "second order" effect: it's not simply charge, but the charge _pressure_ or voltage that does it.
But .99 specified a film capacitor (or stack, to get to 10 uF) and at 12 volts there should be absolutely no problem. And many film caps are "self-healing" and can tolerate a certain degree of surge damage without failing totally. And 10 uF will charge very quickly and shouldn't need to be charged slowly like, say, a 0.3 Farad bank would.
Hey, I am fretting.
Ainslie has repeatedly and very arrogantly told us that she would make fools of us all by proving that the scopetrace likes the one below are valid, in a video AS SOON AS SHE GOT HER APPARATUS AND BATTERIES BACK.
And if she DOESN'T manage to reproduce it with a functioning, properly wired mosfet.... that is YET ANOTHER fact that will totally invalidate the "papers" and require a complete re-run of the experimental trials. Actually that is already the case, but this scopeshot issue is obvious and critical.
Now... if she found a 10 uF electrolytic cap, say a 35 volt one.... and she decided to hook it across the whole battery pack... and managed to get it backwards to boot.... that would be fun to have on video.
Ever wonder why the cans of small electrolytics are generally scored on the top? It's so that they will rupture there, and eject their wrapped electrodes mostly upward, in a great spiral ribbon like a party favor.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 12:00:28 AM
Well, to be fair, any cap can be damaged if its voltage rating is exceeded of course, but this is a "second order" effect: it's not simply charge, but the charge _pressure_ or voltage that does it.
But .99 specified a film capacitor (or stack, to get to 10 uF) and at 12 volts there should be absolutely no problem. And many film caps are "self-healing" and can tolerate a certain degree of surge damage without failing totally. And 10 uF will charge very quickly and shouldn't need to be charged slowly like, say, a 0.3 Farad bank would.
Hey, I am fretting.
Ainslie has repeatedly and very arrogantly told us that she would make fools of us all by proving that the scopetrace likes the one below are valid, in a video AS SOON AS SHE GOT HER APPARATUS AND BATTERIES BACK.
And if she DOESN'T manage to reproduce it with a functioning, properly wired mosfet.... that is YET ANOTHER fact that will totally invalidate the "papers" and require a complete re-run of the experimental trials. Actually that is already the case, but this scopeshot issue is obvious and critical.
Her first response to the Q1 issue was that we don't know how to read a 'scope properly and that we must somehow factor in the "offset" numbers to get a proper reading.
Her second response was that the 'scope needed to be set to AC coupling to properly read the voltage applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle.
Her third response was that the 'scope is only showing the output frequency of the FG and that it does not at all indicate voltage, particulary regarding the gate of Q1 (I believe that is what she was trying to say...).
None of these responses are accurate, or even make any sense. Anyone familiar with the use of a 'scope would have to agree.
Even LeCroy agrees that the'scope is indicating +12 volts on the FG output trace during the positive portion of the FG cycle.
The truth is that in FIG3, 6, and 7, the 'scope is indicating that a sufficient voltage is being applied to the gate of Q1 to turn Q1 on, yet no expected current flow from Q1 being turned on is indicated by the CSR trace.
Again, this can only mean that during the tests related to those captures Q1 was either disconnected, not connected as per the schematic, or was not functional.
What is most startling is that no one on her "team" must understand 'scopes or schematics either, or they would surely agree and point this out to her as well.
There was a famous scandal, I think it was Nichicon electrolytic capacitors that were manufactured for a few years with an inferior electrolyte. They failed prematurely and puffed up and oozed. Something like "The great motherboard capacitor scandal." I think it happened in the early 2000s. I believe that it affected millions of motherboards.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 12:15:59 AM
Now... if she found a 10 uF electrolytic cap, say a 35 volt one.... and she decided to hook it across the whole battery pack... and managed to get it backwards to boot.... that would be fun to have on video.
Ever wonder why the cans of small electrolytics are generally scored on the top? It's so that they will rupture there, and eject their wrapped electrodes mostly upward, in a great spiral ribbon like a party favor.
Now we don't want anyone poking an eye out..
In my younger years, electro's were not scored. They could only vent by blowing the plug out the bottom or, if mounted on a PCB, (or in a vice) the can and inards off the top. They were a lot more fun to shoot around the basement than the newer, "safer" ones. Although you can stlill do some nice tricks with them as well...
PW:
I think a few of us suspect that "Equipe NERD" is just Rosemary and a few cats. And that's not slang for cool dudes or dudettes. lol
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 12:36:11 AM
PW:
I think a few of us suspect that "Equipe NERD" is just Rosemary and a few cats. And that's not slang for cool dudes or dudettes. lol
Really?? ...
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 12:31:40 AM
There was a famous scandal, I think it was Nichicon electrolytic capacitors that were manufactured for a few years with an inferior electrolyte. They failed prematurely and puffed up and oozed. Something like "The great motherboard capacitor scandal." I think it happened in the early 2000s. I believe that it affected millions of motherboards.
A lot of caps in the mid 90s, SM can electrolytic, would leak on the board and corrode local circuitry and traces. Multilayer boards, fugidaboudit. When you touch them with a soldering iron, it smells of putrid cat pee. Camcorders were the worst for this problem.
My boss at the time was fighting a lawsuit because an electrolytic cap on a TV board popped and the can hit him in the eye. The top of the cap didnt split.
MaGs
You want a capacitor discharge story? I have one but I am bending the definition a bit.
In the 70s Vivtar made a great electronic flash for SLR cameras. It was big and beefy and it had a fresnel lens attachment for telephoto flash. You could pivot the whole flash head up 45 degrees for "bounce flash" off the ceiling for more softly lit flash photos. The reason I mention this is because it was in "power boost" mode when you used the "bounce flash."
So myself and my best friend were hanging out and we first "got small." We sat in the dark for 20 minutes so our pupils opened up fully. We took the flash and put translucent multi-coloured plastic pieces from a Risk board game on top of the fresnel lens flash hood and put the flash in "bounce flash" mode. We covered the light meter on the flash so that it would discharge all of it's energy.
Then, staring down at the flash hood covered with all of the coloured plastic pieces in the pitch dark.....
KAAA-BOOOOOM!!!!!! lol
Talk about seeing stars!!! The afterimage must have lasted five minutes!!!!
OK, seriously...
The capacitor's voltage rating need only be equal to or greater than the voltage applied to it. Typically we specify that the cap's voltage rating be 1.5X or 2X the applied voltage as a safety factor. For a single 12 volt battery, a capacitor with a 25 volt or greater voltage rating should be used.
Don't apply 12 volts across a 6.3 volt cap, or 60 volts across a 25 volt cap!
If only one battery is to be bypassed, I'd go with a 25 volt (or greater) cap. Personally, I would consider using an electrolytic paralleled with a ceramic or two (or a film type paralleled with a ceramic or two).
For the CSR bypass, a 10 to 15 volt cap would suffice (again, a higher voltage cap is also OK). I would consider a non-polarized elecrtrolytic (or a film cap) paralleled by a ceramic or two.
If using electrolytic capacitors, observe polarity!! This is not a concern with film or non-polarized electrolytics.
Bone tossed...
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 12:49:12 AM
You want a capacitor discharge story? I have one but I am bending the definition a bit.
In the 70s Vivtar made a great electronic flash for SLR cameras. It was big and beefy and it had a fresnel lens attachment for telephoto flash. You could pivot the whole flash head up 45 degrees for "bounce flash" off the ceiling for more softly lit flash photos. The reason I mention this is because it was in "power boost" mode when you used the "bounce flash."
So myself and my best friend were hanging out and we first "got small." We sat in the dark for 20 minutes so our pupils opened up fully. We took the flash and put translucent multi-coloured plastic pieces from a Risk board game on top of the fresnel lens flash hood and put the flash in "bounce flash" mode. We covered the light meter on the flash so that it would discharge all of it's energy.
Then, staring down at the flash hood covered with all of the coloured plastic pieces in the pitch dark.....
KAAA-BOOOOOM!!!!!! lol
Talk about seeing stars!!! The afterimage must have lasted five minutes!!!!
I still have one of those flashes in working condition for my old Canon A1 film camera. Sometimes I would turn it on before I mounted it to the shoe to get it charging for a quick shot and accidentally hit the trigger button on the back while mounting it and looking straight into it.
So much for the quick shot, you don't see much but that spot in front of you for a while...
Quote from: Magluvin on August 13, 2012, 12:46:58 AM
A lot of caps in the mid 90s, SM can electrolytic, would leak on the board and corrode local circuitry and traces. Multilayer boards, fugidaboudit. When you touch them with a soldering iron, it smells of putrid cat pee. Camcorders were the worst for this problem.
My boss at the time was fighting a lawsuit because an electrolytic cap on a TV board popped and the can hit him in the eye. The top of the cap didnt split.
MaGs
That was indeed a bad time for cap leakage.
There were lots of issues with electrolytics leaking back then. Whoever the suppliers were of those capacitors, they must have supplied a lot of caps because that problem showed up in just about everything electronic for a time. A little bit of brown and some fuzzy green traces and you immediately knew what the problem was.
Hehe.... back in the day, at Building 29, Alameda NAS in the SF Bay area.... (check it out on Google earth)
I was doing some wire explosion work, using a Bonetti machine to charge up the wire explosion apparatus, where I used a big 0.3 microFarad, 60 kV Maxwell pulse cap for the storage, and an overvolting air gap for the trigger, made up of two big stainless steel bowls with the bottoms facing. When the gap was set right, it would trigger right at 60 kV and send the cap's entire 500 Joules or so through the wire target (and a few microH of inductance for pulse shaping.) It sounded like a gunshot when the wire exploded in its platen.
One day I was doing this with nobody around, and for some reason the gap didn't fire. I looked at it, got the "jesus pole" and went to trigger it with that.... and the capacitor exploded. This is a "big" cap, about 2 feet long, 8x4 inches, terminals on the long ends, oil, copper foil and paper inside. It exploded and the oil caught on fire and there were several burning spots around the lab space. I got the fires put out, and went to put a safety jumper across the remains, the half-cap shell with the terminals .... and managed to brush against the terminals with both hands somehow.
When I woke up I was across the room on my back. I later found that the air gap was misadjusted and there was likely 100 kV on the cap when I triggered it.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 12:36:11 AM
PW:
I think a few of us suspect that "Equipe NERD" is just Rosemary and a few cats. And that's not slang for cool dudes or dudettes. lol
Well... she's got Yousaidwhat.... or is it Youknowwho...... but since that person can't seem to put together a logical or even coherent argument either, they are still pretty badly off.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 01:32:41 AM
When I woke up I was across the room on my back. I later found that the air gap was misadjusted and there was likely 100 kV on the cap when I triggered it.
Holy crap, man!
Oh, this is just too hilarious. Whether or not this is Ainslie's co-author, it is still too funny for words. Here is a web page designer's home page, telling us we should be up to date with the latest designs and technology.
http://www.ejrdesign.co.za/
Quote from: polln8r on August 13, 2012, 02:08:35 AM
Holy crap, man!
I didn't mean when I triggered it with my hands!! By that time there could only have been a few Joules left on the thing, it had been on fire and was in pretty bad shape.
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. I still cannot approach an electrostatic machine or a big cap bank with both hands out front... my body just won't let me do it. I have to take one hand and stick it in my pants pocket and make a fist, before my body will let me get close.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 01:41:02 AM
Well... she's got Yousaidwhat.... or is it Youknowwho...... but since that person can't seem to put together a logical or even coherent argument either, they are still pretty badly off.
Yousaidwhat never did respond with what it was he disagreed with regarding my response to her "inductance from HELL" post and the ones I made just prior.
Regarding her concern about capacitors and safety, I hope she is as much, and hopefully moreso, concerned about safety regarding all that energy stored in her batteries...
I suggest that she find herself a suitable assistant to help perform her tests. From what I have read, I would not allow her to connect 5 batteries of that size in series in my house without supervision.
I once saw two guys accidentally drop a 2" diameter 6' long steel pipe across a large marine battery, The battery had lifting eyes molded into it at each end and was about 4 feet long, 2 feet wide and 15 inches or so tall.
The pipe managed to bridge the terminals with a loud smack. One of the guys tried to pull the pipe off the battery but it was welded fast to the terminals. Within seconds, the pipe was too hot to touch and he let go. As the pipe began to glow a very bright red, he decided it was more prudent to run. The other guy had already taken that course of action.
Moments later, gaseous electrolyte began spraying out of the top of the battery just before it went "kaboom".
That whole event took place in only 10 seconds or so.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 02:21:06 AM
I didn't mean when I triggered it with my hands!! By that time there could only have been a few Joules left on the thing, it had been on fire and was in pretty bad shape.
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. I still cannot approach an electrostatic machine or a big cap bank with both hands out front... my body just won't let me do it. I have to take one hand and stick it in my pants pocket and make a fist, before my body will let me get close.
You're lucky the shrapnel didn't get you.
Hope you washed off the PCB's...
Yep... that first guy could have been me running, I've seen it happen too with car batteries and careless wenches. Er, I mean wrenches.
Here's what a careless wench does.
Quote from: picowatt on August 13, 2012, 02:54:19 AM
You're lucky the shrapnel didn't get you.
Hope you washed off the PCB's...
Actually around that apparatus I always wore earmuffs and a full face shield. And on that event I am really glad it was my policy. Ruined a shirt...
One day I thought I'd try a very thin strip of aluminum foil instead of the #34 or #40 enamelled Cu wire I usually used. Ths target wire is clamped by the feed electrodes to a piece of fine art paper on a masonite platen, another sheet of paper placed over it, the top masonite platen is put on that and the whole thing is weighted with a heavy weight.
The foil exploded with such force it tore the platen apart and ripped the tempered masonite like it was a sheet of paper. I was really amazed by the difference in the strength of the explosion with the same input energy.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 12:36:11 AM
PW:
I think a few of us suspect that "Equipe NERD" is just Rosemary and a few cats. And that's not slang for cool dudes or dudettes. lol
Maybe this fellow could help.
I don't know about this other one, though. Music and preaching... .not really compatible with electronics theory, but you never can tell.
Now... watch ME get flamed, because these people chose to put their names out on the internet as authors of papers and on social media sites... whose expressed purpose is to make people contactable and establish an internet presence.
Quote of the morning:
QuoteCorrectly speaking therefore we need to apply a DC cap with a rating of not less than 150 volts which can also operate at a frequency of not less than 1.4mHz. Is there even such an animal? I've been asking around and getting nowhere fast.
Getting nowhere fast is right.... and it's certainly not "our" fault, Ainslie.
Responses of the morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-5UPbSrv8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-5UPbSrv8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo)
These were posted on July 4.
Now.... let us once again speak of willfull ignorance, overweening arrogance, and utter incompetence on the part of Rosemary Ainslie. It seems that her posts consist of three things only: garbled ignorant attempts at discussing electronics like this, lies and misrepresentations about her tinkering and the work of others, and insults and threats to anyone who challenges her.
Guys... Batteries in parallel... you measure half the voltage. Who knew. Surely? LOL....
(mHz, MHz.... what's a factor of a billion, among friends? Chopped liver.)
Her limited understanding of basic electricity, let alone electronics, and the amount of energy contained in a bank of lead acid batteries, combined with her poor eyesight, is a recipe for disaster.
Those images of melted battery terminal clamps should have been a wake-up call as to what all those batteries are capable of doing. Personal injury and/or burning down a house are very real possibilities.
I highly recommend that she find someone qualified in the field of electronics to assist in performing her tests.
ADDED:
She should also talk to her insurance company as well. They would likely frown on her just having lead acid batteries on the property, let alone if they saw the images of the melted terminal clamps. They would likely require a rider or policy upgrade if they are willing to underwrite at all.
Is it not possible to use smaller sealed lead acid batteries batteries for these tests?
Personally I would not allow any vented or liquid electrolyte lead acid battery anywhere near my test equipment without being in a proper enclosure with venting to the outside. Not for any length of time at least. A proper battery box would be able to contain acid, used clamped terminal connections, be fused and actively vented.
I cannot imagine why smaller 4.5-8 amp hour sealed gel-cell batteries could not be used. They would be much safer, can be placed very compactly right next to the circuit and would require less wire length to connect and interconnect.
The smaller amp hour rating would also reduce test duration times.
Smaller batteries?
You mean like Tar Baby's 12 V, 5 A-H SLAs?
The ones I keep terminal protectors on when they aren't being used?
The ones where I use a 10 A inline fuse in the Tar Baby circuit?
Of course she won't use small batteries like those. They drop in voltage too fast for her to carry on her charade. And Tar Baby has proven that these small batteries just don't have what it takes..... they do discharge, so there must be something wrong with them.
Remember: a firm operating principle of the NERDS is Never to do any kind of testing that has the potential to falsify the holy Thesis.
But her thesis and her claims have already been falsified by her own data.... you can watch her battery voltage dropping in the several series of scopeshots she posted.
I think that if she included a package of all her scopeshots along with the daft manuscripts in one place.... people would be able to inspect the data, and they would conclude, correctly, that the whole affair is a delusion, since the data don't support the claims.
Have you checked out the "publication" of the second paper on Rossi's JNP lately? Take a quick look at the Comments.
Well.... there you have it.
Ainslie won't even take the advice that .99 is giving her. Her "EXPERTS" have sold her on spending 150 ZAR (about $ 18.50 US) for a 800 microFarad, 250 V electrolytic cap.
Which of course will be even more dangerous for her than one of the batteries, when it's fully charged. AND... it will require slow charging through a current limiting resistor when it's first hooked up.
AND.... .99's recommended 10uF, poly film caps would cost about two or three or four dollars US depending on quality and voltage rating, and would be perfectly safe to charge and handle even when charged.
Here is a very high quality cap that meets everybody's spec (except YKW and her "experts") and could be in her hands by Thursday without her even needing to leave her walled compound. Sure... it's expensive.... almost 39 ZAR.
http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en?mpart=B32674D3106K&vendor=495 (http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en?mpart=B32674D3106K&vendor=495)
"Higher Farad number to handle the current flow".... what a bunch of misguided BS. Her "experts" told her that? She's talking to SALESMEN who only understand price, not performance, and who will sell her the most expensive product they can, without regard to its actual usage.
In my wireless transmitter prototype , the stack of 6, 10 nF poly film caps in parallel.... for a total of 60 nanoFarads, or 0.06 microFarads..... around 1/200 of .99's recommended 10 microFarads.... are handling upwards of 45 AMPS at 60-80 V, 500-1000 kHz. In other words, FAR FAR more POWER than Ainslie's little blocking cap will ever be called on to handle in her device.
The electrolytic cap she will be wasting her money on probably won't even work for the intended purpose... which of course is just what Ainslie wants.
I swear, this is better than "24".
What will Little Miss Mosfet come up with next? What equipment will she damage, how will she next illustrate her ignorance, what incompetencies will she next exhibit?
What drunken doggerel will she misspell next?
But even more importantly.....
WHEN WILL SHE DELIVER ON ANY OF HER PROMISES???
Where is that video that we were promised last week, showing her REFUTATION of picowatt's claim... and mine, and everyone else's who has bothered to look.... that the scope traces in question indicate a blown, miswired, missing mosfet, or even A DIFFERENT SCHEMATIC?
WHERE is that video refutation? Or.... is it perhaps.... that we will NEVER be seeing that refutation.... because she simply cannot do it?
Her FAILURE to produce the refutation that she was so confident about, and has delayed for so long... months now.... and that was promised to us last Monday, then by the Weekend, then by dinner time Saturday.... has now disappeared completely.
This demonstration of course must be done with the EXACT CIRCUIT given as used before ... either one..... so the excuse of waiting for a capacitor or special shunt is invalid and not applicable. But I have already said that I would even accept a refutation performed with 36 volts in the battery pack, all other things being the same as before.
THEREFORE..... she clearly has acknowledged, by this grave omission.... that she was wrong, that the mosfet was indeed blown or miswired, since she can't reproduce the trace with a correct and functioning mosfet.
THEREFORE THE MANUSCRIPTS MUST BE WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY--- or a very egregious scientific FRAUD..... or rather pseudoscientific FRAUD is being perpetrated on the research community. But then we knew that already.
Quote from: picowatt on August 13, 2012, 01:21:22 PM
Is it not possible to use smaller sealed lead acid batteries batteries for these tests?
Personally I would not allow any vented or liquid electrolyte lead acid battery anywhere near my test equipment without being in a proper enclosure with venting to the outside. Not for any length of time at least. A proper battery box would be able to contain acid, used clamped terminal connections, be fused and actively vented.
I cannot imagine why smaller 4.5-8 amp hour sealed gel-cell batteries could not be used. They would be much safer, can be placed very compactly right next to the circuit and would require less wire length to connect and interconnect.
The smaller amp hour rating would also reduce test duration times.
Hi PW,
There sure is smaller lead
"liquid" acid batteries ......
Exide, GT-H, Group U1, 12 aH (RC 25Amps @ 25 minutes), 7.8 x 5.2 x 7.3 inches ; 16 pounds
This is the battery type others and myself have used (lawn tractor) instead of a
"gel" type and are quite nice having lead lug positive and negative posts with a hole for "bolting" electrical connections.
FTC
;)
Just so she knows, the reason electrolytic capacitors are being discouraged is that they can often have a lot of internal inductance.
Capacitors, essentially being two flat conductors laying side by side with a dielectric in between and stacked or coiled up, can have a large amount of internal inductance by nature of their physical construction. At high frequencies this internal inductance can add reactance to the capacitor causing it to no longer act like a true capacitor.
If the capacitor she selected is in a very large package, i.e., larger than 20mm by 45mm, it is likely to be a large electrolytic that can have a lot of internal inductance and a high ESR. The reason .99 specified the film cap that he did is because the data sheet states that it has a low inductance (athough no values are given).
The newer low ESR (equivalent series resistance) electrolytic capacitors typically used for switching supplies and rail decoupling in computers are fairly low in inductance.
A 10uF 35 volt capacitor of this type would only be 10mm by 15mm or so in size. To eliminate the effects of any small inuctance that is inherent within the 10uF cap, a smaller value, very low inductance type capacitor such as a .1uF ceramic is parallel connected across the 10uF cap. This allows a capacitor with only a "low" inductance to act as a "very low" inductance capacitor.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 13, 2012, 03:26:39 PM
Hi PW,
There sure is smaller lead "liquid" acid batteries ......
Exide, GT-H, Group U1, 12 aH (RC 25Amps @ 25 minutes), 7.8 x 5.2 x 7.3 inches ; 16 pounds
This is the battery type others and myself have used (lawn tractor) instead of a "gel" type and are quite nice having lead lug positive and negative posts with a hole for "bolting" electrical connections.
FTC
;)
I would only use a sealed type battery that does not vent and can can be tipped over around any of my equipment. Battery acid fumes are highly corrosive. If liquid electrolyte batteries need to be used, a sealed battery enclosure, actively vented to the outdoors, should be used and include inline fusing.
Even if all the fumes did was cause some switches to get noisey on my equip down the road, it would not be worth it. Add to that the possibility of getting something across the batteries and again, a recipe for disaster.
How many here feel she would be qualified to bring a few tubs of sulfuric acid, some lead, and all that stored energy into their house? Look at those battery clamp images again and think about that.
I don't see whay small gel-cells aren't considered.
ADDED: Gel-cells can be had with bolt on lugs as well... The entire battery stack made from small gel-cells would also be very compact allowing the use of short interconnects and lead wiring, hence lower wiring inductance.
Quote from: picowatt on August 13, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
I would only use a sealed type battery that does not vent and can can be tipped over around any of my equipment. Battery acid fumes are highly corrosive. If liquid electrolyte batteries need to be used, a sealed battery enclosure, actively vented to the outdoors, should be used and include inline fusing.
Even if all the fumes did was cause some switches to get noisey on my equip down the road, it would not be worth it. Add to that the possibility of getting something across the batteries and again, a recipe for disaster.
How many here feel she would be qualified to bring a few tubs of sulfuric acid, some lead, and all that stored energy into their house? Look at those battery clamp images again and think about that.
I don't see whay small gel-cells aren't considered.
ADDED: Gel-cells can be had with bolt on lugs as well... The entire battery stack made from small gel-cells would also be very compact allowing the use of short interconnects and lead wiring, hence lower wiring inductance.
Hi PW,
I can agree with your comments on the "liquid" acid and if not being careful can have huge problems .... like a gallon of household bleach or ammonia if dumped inside a home.
The problem is, most of the
"alternative energy" devices we see use car batteries with "liquid" acid, having a proper scientific replication of any device
all materials used should be as close as possible to the original device having said claim(s) ..... technically speaking. The other part chemically speaking is the electron transfer from plate to plate inside the battery that some say operate differently between "gell" and "liquid" as Rosemary has argued before one being more free to do the transferring. This of course is up to speculation but the "scientific replication" part kicks in here is my only concern.
I haven't had any problems and with the COP>17 circuit even with one of my custom made 10 ohm borosilicate glass resistor inductors with a 2 3/4" OD that had some healthy pulses going to the battery bank. The only real concern to me was doing the "recharge" mode the batteries got warm like any other battery being charged by a 120VAC wall outlet 12VDC charger @ 6 amps also having the proper air ventilation during the process and some baking soda handy.
Fuzzy
:)
Perhaps PW isn't being explicit enough about the dangers of liquid electrolyte, not sealed, LA batteries.
1)They are full of sulfuric acid. Their cases are vented to avoid internal pressure buildup. This means that you will have sulfuric acid vapor, even in small quantities, whenever you have these batteries.
2) Sulfuric acid vapor, and oscilloscope controls, and other controls, like switch contacts, potentiometers, and so on do not belong in the same air. The controls WILL be corroded by the vapor even if it is in dilute concentrations. In the presence of water vapor as well... it gets even worse.
3) Liquid electrolyte LA batteries give off HYDROGEN GAS when they are being charged. Pull off a cap and look into the electrolyte when charging. See those little bubbles?
4) Hydrogen gas in air is extremely EXPLOSIVE. Hooking up capacitors to batteries creates SPARKS if you do not know how to do it properly. SPARKS and an EXPLOSIVE GAS MIXTURE.... will void your warranty.
Quote from: picowatt on August 13, 2012, 03:35:17 PM
Just so she knows, the reason electrolytic capacitors are being discouraged is that they can often have a lot of internal inductance.
Capacitors, essentially being two flat conductors laying side by side with a dielectric in between and stacked or coiled up, can have a large amount of internal inductance by nature of their physical construction. At high frequencies this internal inductance can add reactance to the capacitor causing it to no longer act like a true capacitor.
If the capacitor she selected is in a very large package, i.e., larger than 20mm by 45mm, it is likely to be a large electrolytic that can have a lot of internal inductance and a high ESR. The reason .99 specified the film cap that he did is because the data sheet states that it has a low inductance (athough no values are given).
The newer low ESR (equivalent series resistance) electrolytic capacitors typically used for switching supplies and rail decoupling in computers are fairly low in inductance.
A 10uF 35 volt capacitor of this type would only be 10mm by 15mm or so in size. To eliminate the effects of any small inuctance that is inherent within the 10uF cap, a smaller value, very low inductance type capacitor such as a .1uF ceramic is parallel connected across the 10uF cap. This allows a capacitor with only a "low" inductance to act as a "very low" inductance capacitor.
The capacitor she "selected", in contradiction to .99's clear and repeated advice and explanation, is specified thusly:
QuoteWe have sourced a cap 708 - 890 micro farads - ac - voltage 330 - 275 volts at R150.00 - which is sort of doable.
150 Rand is almost 19 dollars US. Does this sound like a small, low ESR electrolytic to you?
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 05:14:36 PM
Perhaps PW isn't being explicit enough about the dangers of liquid electrolyte, not sealed, LA batteries.
1)They are full of sulfuric acid. Their cases are vented to avoid internal pressure buildup. This means that you will have sulfuric acid vapor, even in small quantities, whenever you have these batteries.
2) Sulfuric acid vapor, and oscilloscope controls, and other controls, like switch contacts, potentiometers, and so on do not belong in the same air. The controls WILL be corroded by the vapor even if it is in dilute concentrations. In the presence of water vapor as well... it gets even worse.
3) Liquid electrolyte LA batteries give off HYDROGEN GAS when they are being charged. Pull off a cap and look into the electrolyte when charging. See those little bubbles?
4) Hydrogen gas in air is extremely EXPLOSIVE. Hooking up capacitors to batteries creates SPARKS if you do not know how to do it properly. SPARKS and an EXPLOSIVE GAS MIXTURE.... will void your warranty.
Sealed LA are not quite sealed. If you over charge them they whistle. Like a quick high to low whistle. So they must be vented under those thin caps on top. I dont know if during a proper charging if they release Hydrogen, and what ever else. Took me a while to figure out where the whistle was coming from . ;] At first, I thought it was my refrigerator going bad. It happened randomly and was short, so it was a bit before I identified the source of the sound.
Mags
@Fuzzy: you are right about replications. That's why I think that the COP>17 replicators _must_ use the exact circuit Ainslie published, since it hasn't been corrected or updated by her in any official manner. That means the published 555 timer part as well... exactly as published by Ainslie. Otherwise... they are doing something other than a replication, aren't they? Like gmeast.... he's embarked on some kind of journey for sure, discovering for himself the inconsistencies in Ainslie's story... but he's not doing a replication, is he, since he's using a different circuit, a different timing source, a different configuration of load resistor..... ?
And in the present case.... I think Ainslie should use THE ORIGINAL silver-calcium LA batteries that she used for the initial experiments and demonstration from last year. After all.... they are all still FULLY CHARGED, aren't they? So she should not be allowed to even charge them, before starting this current set of tests.
What happened to those batteries, anyway? I thought they were donated to her. Where are they now?
Considering the dangers involved in working with batteries, I retract my statements made about it being appropriate poetic justice for Rosemary to do her testing alone. She needs someone to help her.
The problem with her remains of course, she is daffy and daft when it comes to electronics. It's the old cliche. If you don't know how to cook, you would not dream about being the senior chef responsible for the haute cusine in a fancy French restaurant. But, if you don't know anything about electronics, that doesn't matter and nothing can stop you from discovering free energy.
Uh-oh. Looks like Stella Nokia's little comment on the Ainslie daft manuscript passed thru the JNP moderation without difficulty.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 05:14:36 PM
Perhaps PW isn't being explicit enough about the dangers of liquid electrolyte, not sealed, LA batteries.
1)They are full of sulfuric acid. Their cases are vented to avoid internal pressure buildup. This means that you will have sulfuric acid vapor, even in small quantities, whenever you have these batteries.
2) Sulfuric acid vapor, and oscilloscope controls, and other controls, like switch contacts, potentiometers, and so on do not belong in the same air. The controls WILL be corroded by the vapor even if it is in dilute concentrations. In the presence of water vapor as well... it gets even worse.
3) Liquid electrolyte LA batteries give off HYDROGEN GAS when they are being charged. Pull off a cap and look into the electrolyte when charging. See those little bubbles?
4) Hydrogen gas in air is extremely EXPLOSIVE. Hooking up capacitors to batteries creates SPARKS if you do not know how to do it properly. SPARKS and an EXPLOSIVE GAS MIXTURE.... will void your warranty.
Hi TK,
Your 100% correct in your four part dangers of liquid electrolyte batteries.
In the image shown on any replication attempt of the COP>17 device, the batteries were only connected under testing and totally disconnected when "NOT" under use, all charging was done in my disconnected garage because of vapors. I also have like you do a "LARGE" handy fire extinguisher for those moments we never want to have, but happen time to time .... safety glasses or a face shield is also a nice addition.
I think that somewhere if a alternative energy device using batteries is used that a "end use" consideration should be engineered into said device. For a example the COP>17 device where are the inductive heating resistor coil going to be installed and the battery supply for it. The two items (resistor and batteries) can be or will be some distance apart, then those wire sizes must be enlarged to accommodate it for the device to operate the
exact same way as the "bench" testing and evaluation. This would also include other items to be under consideration to receive any Underwriters Listing (UL) for a actual legal permanent installation in a home or business for insurance purposes.
Now, I agree with you for anything Rosemary uses on the retesting of her unit(s) or device(s) that they should be the same thing as any original testing and evaluation done, to "support" her prior claim(s) ... like those
exact "fully" charged 12 volt
"silver calcium" batteries that's been used for all the
COP>INFINITY testing and evaluation done by the RAT team and the in hiding NERD collaborators.
Fuzzy
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2012, 05:22:09 PM
The capacitor she "selected", in contradiction to .99's clear and repeated advice and explanation, is specified thusly:
150 Rand is almost 19 dollars US. Does this sound like a small, low ESR electrolytic to you?
From the strange MicroFarad rating, it sounds like a big shiny metal can oil filled AC cap as one would buy at an electrical supply house (not electronic supply house), such as those types of caps used in motors as AC run or as 2 to 3 phase converter caps.
Those are the only types that I have seen with similarly odd uF ratings. The 330-275VAC rating also supports that it is that type of cap (large, metal can, oil filled).
It sure isn't the cap .99 specified... or that is needed...
Won't hurt to try it, but they were not designed for use with high frequencies and may have a high ESR at her osc freq.
Tania Kosell (friend of Stella) says, "Hi."
Quote from: picowatt on August 13, 2012, 08:19:28 PM
From the strange MicroFarad rating, it sounds like a big shiny metal can oil filled AC cap as one would buy at an electrical supply house (not electronic supply house).
Such as those types of caps used in motors as AC run or 2 to 3 phase converter caps. Those are the only types that I have seen with similarly odd uF ratings. The 330-275VAC rating also supports that it is that type of cap (large, metal can, oil filled).
It sure isn't the cap .99 specified... or that is needed...
I have this friend, that is always in dire need of ideas for how to do something. But every time I do help, he will do nearly the opposite of what I told him. He seems to specifically will do the reverse of something that I 'specifically' point out that it needs to be done a certain way or else. AND, will act pissed at me because things didnt work the way I said.. Duh.
Rose is doing the same thing. Its crazy that we would have to pull a George Costanza and portray the opposite of what we try to convey, in order to get her to understand something, let alone do something.
Mags
If she understood more about electronics, she might have been able to specify a suitable cap (smugly or otherwise).
I continue to recommend that she find someone qualified in electronics to assist her.
Lest anyone think that electronic parts are all that hard to find in South Africa, Digi-Key actually has a South Africa office!
http://www.digikey.co.za/
One of the best companies you will ever deal with (at least here in the US).
But I bet you the robotic warehouse is in the States! lol
Many "bricks and mortar" component distributors have just one or two warehouses and parts leave from just a few points.
Welcome to the future! 8)
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2012, 09:07:25 PM
But I bet you the robotic warehouse is in the States! lol
Many "bricks and mortar" component distributors have just one or two warehouses and parts leave from just a few points.
Welcome to the future! 8)
I still have one of their catalogs from back when it was just over an eighth of an inch thick. Nowdays, if you gat a paper catalog, it is just over 3 inches thick and the print is much finer.
Many companies use their warehousing and order system as a model of efficiency.
They will actually give you a tour, if you ask in advance, up there in Thief River Falls.
I believe their average order fill time is 12-14 minutes.
PW:
Yep, DigiKey is pretty amazing. I think they guarantee same-day shipping if your order is in by 3:00 PM. They definitely brought something new to the table.
MileHigh
Quote from: polln8r on August 13, 2012, 08:38:11 PM
Tania Kosell (friend of Stella) says, "Hi."
;)
Stella's napping right now, but I'll leave a note for her, that Tania checked in. We don't see a lot of her these days.... I think she's doing some deep undercover work and hasn't reported in in a while.
Thanks !!
DigiKey: Three days from placing the order on the net, to receiving it in my mailbox. In Toronto, it sometimes was in my hands at 10 am the next morning, if I ordered by 2 pm. How they did that I will never understand. They must have their own UPS airplane, or set of flying reindeer or something.
I found the cap she needed in half a minute on the online catalog, found the exhange rate conversion, could have even placed the order for her. She'd have the cap by Wednesday, or Thursday at the latest. And she wouldn't have had to admit her ignorance to anyone.
But if she wants to spend three or four times as much on a useless (for her purposes) and more dangerous (in her intended usage) capacitor ... well, that is just part of the plotline, isn't it.
I agree, it sounds like a big, multisection oilfilled motor cap, since she calls it specifically an "AC" capacitor. But the capacitance rating seems high for that type of cap. But who knows what numbers she might have scrambled.
She probably ordered something like this but with a higher VAC.
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/DAYTON-Motor-Start-Capacitor-6FLV5?Pid=search
Note how the uF on start caps is typically specified as a range of capacitance similar to the numbers she stated.
Quote from: picowatt on August 13, 2012, 11:29:25 PM
She probably ordered something like this but with a higher VAC.
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/DAYTON-Motor-Start-Capacitor-6FLV5?Pid=search (http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/DAYTON-Motor-Start-Capacitor-6FLV5?Pid=search)
Note how the uF on start caps is typically specified as a range of capacitance similar to the numbers she stated.
Facepalm.
That woman is going to hurt herself one of these days. It's a good thing for her that the voltages in her system are actually relatively low AC. Charge up 800 microFarads to a couple hundred volts and manage to leave it on the cap ... that's not chopped liver. 25 Joules will kill you if you take it across the chest.
What is even more hilarious is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0)
I am here running Tar Baby at 36 volts.... with NO BATTERY, just a bank of capacitors in parallel. I've charged these caps to the same voltage as the batteries, showed the SAME AINSLIE OSCILLATIONS, same negative mean power product, and then disconnected the batteries and let the circuit run on the caps alone-- showing that the oscillations and the negative mean power persist unchanged for as long as there is enough charge in the caps to sustain them.
And not a single cap in the _parallel stack_ is rated over 55 volts ... DC. Most are rated 40 volts. They are all polarized electrolytics of course.
So... why didn't they blow up? Duh....
Oh... maybe it's because I wasn't using enough mosfets. Yeah... that's got to be it.
TK do you think it would help to slow the rate of the discharging capacitor bank to hook it up to ground thru a diode? I was just thinking that when the system goes positive the Earth might give up some electrons so the other capacitor plate doesn't have to supply them?
Quote from: sparks on August 14, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
TK do you think it would help to slow the rate of the discharging capacitor bank to hook it up to ground thru a diode? I was just thinking that when the system goes positive the Earth might give up some electrons so the other capacitor plate doesn't have to supply them?
I'm happy to try it, but no, I don't really think it would help in this case, like it does in some of my other, high voltage capacitively coupled systems.
I'm not so sure about the picture of a capacitor plate supplying electrons, though.... I'm pretty sure that all the electrons concerned are coming from the Earth somehow anyway, if you could trace them back to their origins.
Some people think there is really only one electron, anyway. I might be one of those people... let me check.
Posted by Ainslie on 5 August 2012. And today is still 14 August, but it's almost 15 August.
I guess God hasn't been willing. Or... perhaps.... Ainslie has not been able to do what she claims she will CERTAINLY do. Again.
Tick tock, Ainslie. Every day that you do not fulfil your promise/threat, when everyone knows you have your apparatus and your oscilloscope and your function generator and your DMM and your batteries-- at least three of them, which are plenty for this test.... every day that goes by with you not fulfilling your promise... is another day of defeat for you.
Just admit you were wrong, retract your manuscripts, and go back to waiting tables, or cosmetology, or something you might actually be able to do .... like writing bad doggerel insults.
The only reason a lot of us are still hanging around is because we want to see you fall flat on your face with these promised video 'refutations' of the things we've been telling you about your circuit and data. So would you please just get on with it, already?
Or admit you cannot.
I am rolling on the floor laughing my eyes out. Look at what the ignoramus has come up with now. I swear, it's a miracle this person can even use a computer at all, she is so completely ignorant.
.99 .... I really hope you can make some effort to explain things to her so that she can stop making such an utter and complete fool of herself.
And she really REALLY needs to get a grip on her math. She thinks 800 microFarad is AN EIGHTH OF A FARAD !!!
She thinks I "stack 40 volts in parallel"... She thinks that RUNNING TAR BABY FOR A SIGNIFICANT TIME ON CAPS ONLY UNTIL THEY RUN DOWN JUST LIKE BATTERIES ONLY FASTER is somehow "typical of decay of a parasitic oscillation". But the CAP DOES SUSTAIN THE OSCILLATION as she would see for herself if she wasn't blindered by her arrogance and ignorance. She thinks 800 microFarads is an EIGHTH of a FARAD !!! ... and somehow comparable to 0.3 Farad, and she thinks that her FILTER CAPACITOR ( what was supposed to be a filter but is actually going to be useless to her for any reason) is for the same purpose as my SUPPLY CAPACITOR; she thinks that 60 nF is one nF; she thinks that there is some relationship between a capacitor's capacitance and the current it can carry; she thinks that a capacitor stack providing DC voltage is somehow completely discharging its entire potential with every oscillation; she challenges my assertion that my power transmitter caps are handling upwards of 40 amperes as if that were amazing and special... In every sentence she makes a bigger and bigger fool of herself. She really should NOT be drinking in the afternoon.
What a nitwit she is.
.99... I really hope you come up to the plate here and explain to her where she is going wrong in her silly statements.
HEY AINSLIE: 0.3 Farad is 300 MILLIFARADS. 800 microFarads is 0.000800 Farad. Much much MUCH less than 0.3 Farad. THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTYFIVE TIMES LESS. When will you learn to do simple arithmetic?
And an eighth of a Farad is 0.125 Farad.... quite a bit more than the 800 microFarad cap that you suckered yourself into wasting money on.... about a hundred and fiftysix times MORE than your measly 0.0008 Farad, 150 ZAR motor-start capacitor. An eighth of a Farad! I would LOVE to watch you hook up an eighth of a Farad to your 72 volt battery stack.
HEY AINSLIE: Call up your local radio station and ask them about their transmitting capacitors, the ones that are rated in PICOFARADS and handle KILOAMPERES of current. Be sure and tell them that they cannot possibly exist because our standard model doesn't allow it.
HEY AINSLIE: where is YOUR VIDEO that you promised us last Monday, last week, last weekend, by dinnertime..... You can't do it, because we are right and you are wrong and your "papers" are full of garbage that you think is data but is completely invalid because you did NOT have the FG black lead in the right place, you LIE about your schematics, and your mosfet was blown for at least some of your reported data.
The IRFZ44N is rated at 49 amps when cool... but only 35 amps when running at 100 degrees C. And I am running these twinned mosfets at close to the edge of their envelope. And my 60 nF capacitor stack is directly between the drains of the two mosfets. Now, how can an input current of 5 or 6 amps result in 40 amps circulating around in the caps, mosfets and transmitting loop? It's a miracle, for sure. And it must be happening, else how could a SINGLE TURN COIL make enough magnetic field to transmit 5 or six hundred milliamperes of current across a half a meter of EMPTY SPACE?
But yes, the only relevance of this is to emphasise Ainslie's ignorance and give her some more material for her foot-in-mouth disease while she avoids doing the test that will completely falsify her daft manuscripts and cause her to admit that they are completely invalid since the data are so much garbage.
@Picowatt:
You know, the schematic in the JNP "publication" of the second daft manuscript gives Ainslie the perfect "out" explanation for the scopeshots. ;)
Since that schematic shows the mosfets whose gates are connected to the RED + FG lead as the Q2x4 gang of four.... she has the perfect explanation for why there is no current flowing when they are getting a +12 volt signal from the FG.
The 4 gates are in parallel, so each one is only getting 1/4 of the +12 volt voltage signal from the FG RED + lead .... three volts. And any fool knows a mosfet won't turn on with only three volts to the gate.
:o
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 15, 2012, 05:19:07 AM
@Picowatt:
You know, the schematic in the JNP "publication" of the second daft manuscript gives Ainslie the perfect "out" explanation for the scopeshots. ;)
Since that schematic shows the mosfets whose gates are connected to the RED + FG lead as the Q2x4 gang of four.... she has the perfect explanation for why there is no current flowing when they are getting a +12 volt signal from the FG.
The 4 gates are in parallel, so each one is only getting 1/4 of the +12 volt voltage signal from the FG RED + lead .... three volts. And any fool knows a mosfet won't turn on with only three volts to the gate.
:o
;)
Stop baiting... She is already more than confused...
Again, I suggest she find an individual qualified in electronics to assist with her tests.
It is not reasonable to expect that someone with her limited understanding will be able to implement .99's suggestion regarding the use of caps wthout understanding the properties of various types of caps and the need for very short connections between the CSR and the negative most battery terminal (as well as the cap leads). Even a 4" length of 12 gauge wire is 1.4 ohms at 2.5MHz.
The best non-indcutive resistor I can find for the CSR (with inductance data provided) would be a Caddock TO-3P unit. Inductance is specified as 10nHy if connections are .2" from the package. Even this represents a significant error (.157 ohms) at 2.5MHz.
I would suggest soldering the CSR immediately to and at a wire clamped to the negative most battery terminal. Also, I would suggest increasing the CSR value to as much as 1 ohm to reduce the % of error from lead inductance.
She really needs to find a qualified individual to assist in making/documenting accurate measurements and to ensure safety.
TK,
I don't think I can help any further with explanations, as it seems the more I explain, the less that is understood.
I think it best I watch as the test results come in, and hopefully I'll have time to do my own demonstration.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 15, 2012, 09:50:59 AM
TK,
I don't think I can help any further with explanations, as it seems the more I explain, the less that is understood.
I think it best I watch as the test results come in, and hopefully I'll have time to do my own demonstration.
.99,
I applaud your efforts, and your patience...
It was, however, like watching someone try to describe colors to a blind man...
PW
@.99
I told you. She hasn't learned a thing from you. She has only been pretending, leading you on. If you gave her a 'quiz' today on everything you've covered so far... she'd flunk miserably, and not even acknowledge it, because it's actually YOU that are wrong, you see.
Not only does she know everything there is to know about mosfets, but now, after a day or two of gargling (google garbling), she now knows all about capacitors too.
As I've said before, ignorance is excusable.... barely, in today's internet environment.
But this thing that Ainslie has is not just ignorance. What dynamic makes her come out of the blue and make statements full of error, mendacity and sheer vileness as that last post about my running TB on caps, when people are actually trying to help her understand? What makes her think that 800 microFarads is an eighth of a Farad, and to trumpet this idiotic "fact" as if it was some great revelation from on high? What makes her garble EVERY SINGLE BIT of information she gets and has to repeat? It's a lot more than mere ignorance. There is an active force inside her, deliberately and aggressively screwing up her mentation. Why doesn't she even bother to check her facts? How can she continuously commit such outrageous math errors as to think that 800 microFarads is anywhere near an "eighth of a Farad" and compare it in the same sentence with the 300,000 micro Farad bank that I used to run TB without any batteries at all? I mean...OK, she doesn't understand powers of ten and the common abbreviations like milli, micro, nano, pico. But doesn't the woman have a frigging CALCULATOR WITH BIG BUTTONS ????
This thing she has about capacitors and current really bugs me. How is it possible for someone to pretend to write "papers" on electronics and electricity.... replacing them with zipons ... and yet get material facts so stupidly wrong? This is the Ainslie Phenomenon, a mindworm that crawls through her deluded, half-in-the-bag brain, eating real facts and replacing them with garbled garbage that doesn't even hang together internally... and that, for some reason, she MUST spew forth like so much vomitus and bile.
What testing is this that .99 mentions, though? There will be no testing. She has already demonstrated that she will do ANYTHING... even including sending her apparatus off to strangers..... heh heh , however strange they might be.... to avoid performing any tests. And now that she's driven .99 off with her ignorant mendacity and failure to do her homework.... she gets to play all by herself in her little sandbox and do whatever she likes, interpret what she sees to confirm her "thesis" and continue to lie about her work. She's not going to be doing TESTS at all. She will be trying to do, if anything at all, demonstrations of colored wiggly lines on her Etch-a-Sketch toy oscilloscope. Wiggly lines that are there just for show because she knows the real information is in those little boxes with numbers in them. Numbers she cannot even read correctly..... constantly confusing "milli" with "micro", or thinking that "AC coupling" is appropriate to measure the low-voltage, fluctuating DC gate drive signal.
I just wish she would get on with the comedy show and actually POST THOSE VIDEOS she has been promising us for months now. None of us are getting any younger.
Quote from: picowatt on August 15, 2012, 08:59:21 AM
Stop baiting... She is already more than confused...
Oh, no. She isn't confused at all. It is WE who are confused. She is perfectly clear in her mind and has no doubt whatsoever that she is fully and completely correct, and all the things that we think are her misunderstandings and confusions are actually "failures" in what she calls "standard model", which would become clear if we would only read her daft manuscripts.
Quote
Again, I suggest she find an individual qualified in electronics to assist with her tests.
What person, qualified in electronics _ according to normal standards_ , could sit down with her for half an hour discussing background, test apparatus and protocols, and come away still willing and able to participate? Her co-author Evan Robinson is supposed to be knowledgeable in these matters.... but then his web design portal still thinks it's 2010, so who knows.
Quote
It is not reasonable to expect that someone with her limited understanding will be able to implement .99's suggestion regarding the use of caps wthout understanding the properties of various types of caps and the need for very short connections between the CSR and the negative most battery terminal (as well as the cap leads). Even a 4" length of 12 gauge wire is 1.4 ohms at 2.5MHz.
Agreed, completely. It is not reasonable at all to believe that she will construct or test competently her apparatus without help, and further it is not reasonable, I believe, to expect anyone knowledgeable to help her. Witness .99's efforts, and he isn't even there to be hornswaggled by her mendacity in person.
Quote
The best non-indcutive resistor I can find for the CSR (with inductance data provided) would be a Caddock TO-3P unit. Inductance is specified as 10nHy if connections are .2" from the package. Even this represents a significant error (.157 ohms) at 2.5MHz.
But that is in a TO-3P package. How long before she's calling its pins "gate" and "source", and wondering where the middle pin went?
Quote
I would suggest soldering the CSR immediately to and at a wire clamped to the negative most battery terminal. Also, I would suggest increasing the CSR value to as much as 1 ohm to reduce the % of error from lead inductance.
I am almost certain that the USA laboratory sent her a good non-inductive shunt resistor or two to use. She has said that they sent her some "special resistors" and I can think of no other reason or kind of "special resistors" that would be important for her to use, or any other reason for the lab, which disconfirmed her claims of battery non-discharge, to send any kind of resistors at all. But she's not going to be giving us any details of her open source project, unless they support, or can be twisted to appear to support, her contentions. Contrary data is always ignored or suppressed by Ainsile: since it does not jive with her "thesis" it must be wrong and so must be omitted from consideration.
Quote
She really needs to find a qualified individual to assist in making/documenting accurate measurements and to ensure safety.
Yep. One that somehow understands the issues, but who also somehow can work with the domineering, willfully ignorant and overweeningly arrogant Rosemary Ainslie.
Seen any hen's teeth lately? I think there's a box of them out by the barrels of propwash. You'll need a left-handed hammer to open the box, though... somebody put all the nails in backwards.
Her latest rant at Volter regarding capacitance and amperage only further demonstrates that she knows very close to nothing about electronics, including simple passive components.
I doubt very much that she could calculate the reactance of a 12" length of .08" wire at 2.5MHz, even though links to "plug in the numbers" online calcultors were provided to her. To her, a wire is just a wire...
She should be very glad that the EE's that designed her computer knew way more than she ever will.
Until she can admit that there is indeed +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG 3, she only continues to further demonstrate that she does not even know how to use an oscilloscope.
Again, if she wants to present any credible evidence regarding her circuit and claims, she needs to find someone qualified in electronics to assist with performing and documenting her tests. And doing so safely...
ADDED: Incorrectly stating capacitance values in her last two posts was the least of the errors and demonstrated lack of understanding contained within them...
Here's a capacitor bank for your consideration and amusement.
I just unhooked the two, 1.9 Megohm bleeders so I could get a good capacitance measurement for this series-parallel stack.
Across the whole thing it measures just under 1 nanoFarad, and from middle copper bus to outer it measures just under 2 nF.
The individual caps are rated at 30 kV, so across the whole thing it will handle 60 kV. This unit normally operates fully submerged in circulating, cooled oil, and it itself is part of a bank of 4 identical sub-banks.
Would anyone like to speculate on the current handling ability of this little capacitor bank of one nanoFarad capacitance? The need for the large copper busplates? The heavy braided copper ribbon cables that connect it into its circuit? The 1.9 megohm, 10 Watt bleeders? Does the term "kiloAmperes" mean anything in Ainslie-speak?
Probably not.
Holy carp. I just looked in over there. Un believable.
Will somebody please remind her that she is NOT getting 0.8 Farads, or anything even close to that, in her 150 Rand capacitor? She is buying a THOUSAND TIMES LESS, at 800 microFarads.
QuoteWe have sourced a cap 708 - 890 micro farads - ac - voltage 330 - 275 volts at R150.00
So if she buys enough of those caps to make 0.8 F..... it will cost.... er.... um..... well DO THE MATH (tm RA).
ETA: Notice too that she blames Volter for misunderstanding her "typo".
And while we are at it, will someone please point to just where I claimed that 2 nanoFarads of inductance can pass upwards of 40 amps?
I need to edit that right away.
"2 nanofarads of inductance" ??
She needs to hire an EE or technical writer just to post a sensible comment or question...
Refraining from tippling so early in the afternoon would help, too. She might learn to read what she writes, at least, or check her calculator results.
Meanwhile, since she doesn't seem to believe that I used a third of a Farad for Tar Baby.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib1kdP7W_tw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib1kdP7W_tw)
But somebody else is going to have to explain the difference to her, between an AC bypass/filter cap, and a cap bank used as a _power source_.
(Do you think she'll criticise me for my misprint, after she blamed Volter for misunderstanding her own.... much more egregious and continuing..."typo"? I do.)
It should be OBVIOUS that when Ainslie says " one eighth of a Farad" she really means 800,000 microFarads, or 0.8 Farad. I'd have thought?
How could ANYONE be so stupid as to not understand that Ainslie ACTUALLY means 0.8 Farad when she says "one eighth of a Farad"?
And if YOU don't understand what she means, that is YOUR FAULT. I'd have thought.
Now... isn't anybody going to ask her where she is getting her 0.8 Farad, or 800,000 microFarad capacitor? Or what it has to do with .99's suggestion that she use 10 microFarads, or her own "SMUG" ordering of an 800 microFarad cap at 150 Rand?
After all, we are supposed to KNOW what she means, even if she says something entirely different and bases her conclusions and rants on her own hallucinations rather than reality.
And it is amazing that she actually brags about her ignorance. Girls who are math challenged, and can't tell the difference between 0.8 and one-eighth. LOL.
Caterers, making FOOD from recipies? Ptoooie, who put all that salt in this cake?
The rant in the post image attached below, including the promise of the video test demonstrating that picowatt, me, and a lot of other people including LeCroy engineers are wrong, was posted by Ainslie on 5 August 2012. And today is 16 August.
I guess God hasn't been willing. Or... perhaps.... Ainslie has not been able to do what she claims she will CERTAINLY do. Again.
Tick tock, Ainslie. Every day that you do not fulfil your insulting arrogant promise/threat, when everyone knows you have your apparatus and your oscilloscope and your function generator and your DMM and your batteries-- at least three of them, which are plenty for this test.... every day that goes by with you not fulfilling your promise... is another day of defeat for you.
Just admit you were wrong, retract your manuscripts, and go back to waiting tables, or cosmetology, or something you might actually be able to do .... like writing bad doggerel insults.
The only reason a lot of us are still hanging around is because we want to see you fall flat on your face with these promised video 'refutations' of the things we've been telling you about your circuit and data. So would you please just get on with it, already?
Or admit you cannot.
Where is the video of this test, AINSLIE? You wouldn't want to lose any more of your few sycophants just because you are LAZY, in addition to being an arrogant liar, would you?
I, for one, do not wish to see her "fall flat on her face".
It would, however, lend a great deal more credibility to herself, and her claims, if she would address issues presented to her in a more scientific and ethical manner.
Take the Q1 issue for example...
My you are easy to please. So am I really.
Just to see her correct her constant math errors like this recent one where she thinks that 800 microFarads are 0.8 Farad...... that would make me happy. Of course correcting all her math errors would also require her to correct the conclusions that she draws from her erroneous results, like all that spouted insulting nonsense in the screenshot of her forum post.
But she's not going to do that at all. Her very deliberate strategy is to put off doing any testing at all until her detractors, like me, get so disgusted that we give up and go away... so she can start her nonsense all over with a new group of hopeful idiots, hopefully not containing anyone like you, me, Mile High, .99, Glen, Ashtweth, Aaron, Harvey, Windisch and a score of others who realise what she is.
How long ago did she agree to repeat testing on her apparatus? Over a year ago, I think. And how many delays and excuses and insults have we heard? So many I've lost count of them ... which is just what she hopes for.
Looks like there will be no videos any time soon.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 16, 2012, 03:13:07 PM
Looks like there will be no videos any time soon.
Yep I saw that ..... ODD ???
I TOLD YOU SO.
LONG AGO.
The liar has discovered that she cannot support her contentions and her insulting criticisms of what we have been telling her all along. So she will bury the whole thing, until she's got another carefully selected audience of sycophants with little or no critical thinking ability and the lack of knowledge that she depends upon. And she will brook no criticism, no dissent.
She has not been able to disprove or refute ONE SINGLE CONTENTION we have made here on this forum thread, in spite of all her promises and lies and insults and threats. Not one. And yet she continues to make ridiculous assertions of her own that are easy to refute... like mistaking an 800 microFarad motor cap for something like a "one eighth of a Farad" or 0.8 Farad, and insulting me for showing my GENUINE 0.35 Farad capacitor bank.
And on top of this she continues with her paranoid delusions and hallucinations that we are somehow engaged in an operation to rifle her computer and otherwise prevent her from PROVING HER CLAIMS BY DOING PROPER TESTING.
But we know what is really preventing her from testing her claims, don't we.
It is my Tesla Longitudinal Scalar Linecaster, set at frequencies to prevent her and her "team" from ever being able to do any testing. I still have it running in the corner, and it clearly works.... and there is better evidence that it does work, than any evidence of anything that Ainslie has ever presented.... other than the continuing evidence of her abysmal ignorance and overweening arrogance.
@Little Miss Mosfet aka Polly Parrot: You had better pull your daft "manuscripts" too, Ainslie, because as long as THEY are in public view, people will be wondering the same things that poor Stella Nokia is wondering about-- the errors, inconsistencies, 5 different schematics, FG lead misplaced, the data fudged and selected and omitted and hidden and simply fabricated from whole cloth, the blown mosfets, the bad math and irresponsible claims and irreproducible scopeshots contained in the manuscripts.
Yes Ainslie... by taking the course that you are now taking you are ADMITTING your fraud and that you CANNOT refute anything that's been said about you and your tinkering in this forum.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679 see the comments section
Quote from: poynt99 on August 16, 2012, 03:13:07 PM
Looks like there will be no videos any time soon.
Nor does it look like there will be any scientific and/or ethical responses to issues raised regarding her "papers", such as Q1 not turning on when it should in FIG3, 6, and 7.
Until something as simple and obvious as Q1 not turning on when it should is acknowledged and dealt with via corrections and/or retractions, she will not have much credibility with the "universities or recognized laboratories" she wishes to demo to in the future (or anyone able to read a schematic and a 'scope for that matter).
She damages and causes dismissal of her own work with her denials. The longer she waits to address even the very obvious Q1 issue, the more damage she does to her own credibility and reputation. How many of the "universities or recognized laboratories" that she might wish to demo to in the future does she actually believe will be unable to read a schematic and an oscilloscope capture?
What happened to the "well funded laboratory" that not long ago she was so very excited about and sent her circuit off to? Did she even bother to ask them for an opinion regarding the Q1 issue? Has she bothered to do any due diligence at all to confirm what is obvious to most everyone but her regarding Q1? Apparently, she believes even LeCroy is incapable of reading captures from their own oscilloscopes.
As for doing any further tests with increased precision, she readily demonstrates that she does not have the electronic skills necessary to do so. I again suggest that she find someone qualified in electronics to assist in performing and documenting any future tests, and correcting her existing papers.
Wave Bye-bye, Little Miss Mosfet.
And now she waits for someone to take the time to teach her more about capacitors, things like Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR), Equivalent Series Inductance (ESL), Dielectric Strength, Dielectric Absorption, Quality Factor, Dissipation Factor, and Ripple Current Rating, when she has yet to fully grasp a "Farad" or "capacitive reactance". And, in the end, probably just so she can "argue" and claim that there are "no such animals".
Just as a wire is not always "just a wire"... a capacitor is not always "just a capacitor"...
Maybe she will address this while she waits:
Sufficient voltage is being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG 3, 6, and 7 to turn Q1 on, yet no current flow is observed via the CSR trace. The only possible explanations for this are that during the tests depicted by FIG 3, 6, and 7, Q1 was either disconnected, not connected as per the schematic, or was not functional.
There can be no other possible explanations...
QuoteI do not wish to elaborate on what transpired. I do not want to give TK et al the opportunity to GLOAT - as is their want - at my misfortune.
Wanna bet she blew something up already?
I think that is very likely.
AND... Ainslie you illiterate scribbler... it is "As is their
WONT" not "want". Look it up, you idiotic self-important ignoramus.
Uh-oh.
Looks like the gig is up. She's about to reveal the identity of the dreaded TinselKoala/StellaNokia/TaniaKosell/alestalokin/polln8r, that evil well-paid senior senior at the University of Kentucky.
And yes... I have extreme and total faith in Ainslie's utter and unfathomable stupidity. She may not be able to do a demonstration of her CIRCUIT or her CLAIMS or any refutation of anything we've said about her .... but she demonstrates her utter stupidity every single day with posts like this one attached below.
What am I gonna do? Looks like she is going to force me to move house. But I sure do like it here, in San Antonio, Kentucky.
Ha!
She thinks I'm you, TK. Flattering for me, but I'd be pissed if I were you.
"Tania Kosell" is just another (clever?) anagram of Nikola Tesla I made up, because I also enjoy making them. As far as her theories... I have tried to read her paper proposing a new standard model, but I couldn't get past truants. I'm pretty sure that, in order to understand that stuff, you have to be one of "The Zipon Cult Master Seers." (another clever anagram of another great scientist recently mentioned in this thread).
polln8r.
" The ONLY reason that this attack is never ending and is concerted as it is-is because we know the actual root source of this extra energy."
Wow. That is a bold statement after all this. Where does she claim the 'root' is? :o
Im very surprised she found that root through all the 1/8 farad caps, mosfet switches, super conductive batteries, and 59,000 micro gigawatts through a radios shack clip lead.
I guess after 10 years, at least she found that root. ;]
Im more amazed every day
MaGs
Quote from: polln8r on August 17, 2012, 01:24:30 AM
Ha!
She thinks I'm you, TK. Flattering for me, but I'd be pissed if I were you.
"Tania Kosell" is just another (clever?) anagram of Nikola Tesla I made up, because I also enjoy making them. As far as her theories... I have tried to read her paper proposing a new standard model, but I couldn't get past truants. I'm pretty sure that, in order to understand that stuff, you have to be one of "The Zipon Cult Master Seers." (another clever anagram of another great scientist recently mentioned in this thread).
polln8r.
And that is another thing. Everybody keeps accusing me of using anagrams. Well, can I help it if my mother, Katie Noalls, had a terrible sense of humor? She named me after her great great grandfather, Ali Snotleak, a Persian prince.
And who the heck is this Nikola Tesla, anyway? Everybody keeps mentioning him.... what forum does he post on, anyway? Sounds like a real kook to me.
Quote from: Magluvin on August 17, 2012, 02:17:01 AM
" The ONLY reason that this attack is never ending and is concerted as it is-is because we know the actual root source of this extra energy."
Wow. That is a bold statement after all this. Where does she claim the 'root' is? :o
Im very surprised she found that root through all the 1/8 farad caps, mosfet switches, super conductive batteries, and 59,000 micro gigawatts through a radios shack clip lead.
I guess after 10 years, at least she found that root. ;]
Im more amazed every day
MaGs
Smatter, mags? Her thesis refers.
Notice how she immediately repeats her false claims. After all this.... after all .99's discussions with her, after all the direct refutations of the data in her own papers... after her laboratory in the States reported that the batteries do run down, after every replicator found that their batteries do discharge, after all her errors and mendacity... she still believes that her COP INFINITY is something other than the droll delusion of a batty old ignorant crone with a computer.
Not a single fact in evidence supports her insane contentions, and in fact they have all been soundly refuted by analysis of her own data, manuscripts, and forum posts, not to mention countless hours of sim time and hardware testing. And she snivels and whines and cannot even do the tests she so arrogantly and insultingly promised, or rather threatened, to do last week, last month, last year. Every issue upon which she is refuted, just gets swept under the rug. She buys a useless 800 microfarad motor cap, calls it one-eighth of a Farad and then 0.8 Farad, and berates me for my 0.35 Farad stack calling it a fake. When all this nonsense is refuted, she just ignores it and sweeps it under the rug.
Not even an "OMG, all this time I've been misunderstanding the powers of ten, SORRY for being so insulting to TK and PW and the rest, I've now STUDIED the issue, worked some problems and I feel that I now understand the difference between one-eighth and 0.8 and 800 microFarads and since my objectionable and insane RANT was based on my severe ignorance and misunderstanings of basic arithmetic, capacitance and circuit construction I humbly apologise and will eat a chocolate Stetson in public on YT in compensation." NO... she ducks and runs, and in passing accuses The Boss of sabotaging her in some unspecified manner.
Anyway, Mags, you had better read up on her "thesis" if you really want to understand how Nature works.
(It works like this: insane people with delusions of grandeur and paranoia, will inevitably record their delusions in word-salad-filled notebooks and expect others to read them and take them seriously even though they are pitifully ignorant assemblies of whole-cloth bullcrap.)
QuoteI would caution you that from hereon in - I'm armed and guarded. ALWAYSQuote
Looked in your hard drive for me yet ?
The Boss
QuoteAnd in the certain event that this attack will be denied - and that TK may also try and deny his support of such a declared intention - the proof is in his response to 'the boss' who declared his intention to violate me which intention was made public. And the evidence of that attack is filed in a full report at our local police station - together with supporting forensic evidence.
Quote
Only in her wildest dreams would someone think of violating her
but it appears that I may soon be extradited by the local volunteer constable.
Forensic evidence ?? ...a complete moron !!
The Boss
I guess it's time for me to write another letter to Ainslie's imaginary lawyers, warning them again to reign in their client. It seems that their last admonishment to her, to refrain from making unsupported claims and accusations and threats, has worn off.
I guess I should also write to her doctors, informing them that she seems to need a medication adjustment.
Or maybe just a lock on the liquor cabinet.
Does anybody around here know anything about computers?
Somebody broke into MY computer, and instead of just rifling my data, they left keyloggers and botnet servers and wiped most of my hard drive and set fire to my printer and tried to burn my house down, those evil hackers under the direct employ of Rosemary Ainslie of Cape Town South Africa.... she made the mistake of leaving behind an unequivocal signature of her invasion... a copy of her "thesis". And I have photographs to prove it!!
I've forwarded this information to SAPS
http://www.saps.gov.za/ (http://www.saps.gov.za/)
but they tell me their Ainslie file is so full it might take a while to get any action up here in Kentucky.
Apparently I am one of TK's minions...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I have not laughed that hard since the parasitic oscillation manifestation of yesteryear...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You cannot make this cr@pola up!
ROFLMFAO
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
TK's minion... that's a good one!
;D
What I need is a good filly minion.
I just got a copy of this email in my inbox.
Quote
egrdesign@gmail.com
Dear Mr Robinson
There has been some interest lately in two manuscripts published on Andrea Rossi's peer-reviewed internet journal the Journal of Nuclear Physics.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679 (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679)
These manuscripts list Rosemary Ainslie as principal author and an Evan Robinson as co-author among others. Are you the Evan Robinson who worked with Ainslie on these documents?
It appears that there are several questions, discrepancies and other issues concerning the manuscripts published on JNP bearing the name of Evan Robinson as co-author. Many, but by no means all, of these issues are mentioned in the comments below the article linked above.
Please reply, letting me know if you worked with Ms Ainslie on these experiments. She has been unwilling to address the questions and issues and discrepancies in the documents and we would like to know what the answers are, because some of the identified discrepancies would appear to invalidate the entire data set used in the manuscripts. This is an important issue, considering the claims of Ainslie and her co-authors, and should be resolved as soon as possible. If you do not wish to discuss your involvement with Ms Ainslie, I understand, but could you at least confirm, or deny, that it is your name on the manuscripts?
Sincerely,
(redacted)
p.s. By the way, on your web design portal http://www.ejrdesign.co.za/index.html (http://www.ejrdesign.co.za/index.html), you still seem to think the year is 2010. I hope this doesn't indicate a "zombie" website that no longer is active... or correct.
I wonder who has my real email address here in Kentucky. The University administration won't like this breach of security.
Youknowwho said,
QuoteThe more so in the light of that latest physical attack on my property and my person - which was the promised 'menace' of The Boss - another one of those internet 'horrors'.
Well, I sure hope whoever wrote THAT realises that making accusations like that is.... well, we know what it is, don't we.
There is no evidence anywhere that The Boss ever said, intimated, implied, or threatened or "menaced" anything of the kind. Anyone who believes otherwise is encouraged to post the link, here, where The Boss threatened or encouraged or MENACES a physical attack on anyone's property or person... or any other attack of any kind at any "targets" whatsoever.
If you make claims on this thread without supporting them, you will be challenged EVERY TIME to produce your evidence. If you cannot, your claims go into the compost heap with all the other smelly organic garbage.
TK,
So, I've been trying to design an oscillating circuit using the Falstad sim with the intention of one day making a lower power version of your wireless power transmitter. Starting with their basic LRC circuit (the one that comes up by default) and going from there, this was one I've come up with (see attached document, copy contents, paste into Falstad sim "import" window... click "import.") To start the beast, simply depress the momentary switch for a brief moment. The idea is to put the antenna in the place of the LED's.
My questions:
Is this circuit even possible/practical in a real-world setting? Or, would the actual components just fry or not do anything?
Also, perhaps this post will show my lack of knowledge in the area, and hopefully convincing anybody who may think otherwise that I am not, in fact, you.
polln8r
...then there's this one. An earlier version that seems to oscillate more "evenly" (not sure how to describe it... steadily?) IF you can get it to settle into a sustained mode (I have to push the button several times for it to eventually work.)
I realize these are likely to be completely useless so feel free to just say so if that's the case!
polln8r
@polln8r: I will meditate upon your oscillators and see what I think.
But meanwhile, just when you thought she couldn't possibly be as stupid as I say she is.... She finally comes up with a challenge for .99 that he's not going to be able to meet. Plus, since he hasn't responded to her last question (actually he did, even before she asked it, but never mind)... she knows that she is right, otherwise he would have corrected her.
SO, you electronic geniuses, using the capacitances given for the IRFPG50, YOU explain how a flow of DC current of 8 volts peak to peak is enabled through that mosfet. I'll bet you can't do it.
(Not only don't her answers make sense, she is SO stupid that even her QUESTIONS don't make sense.)
Lol Dc current 8v peak to peak. :o ;D
MaGs
Well she did say she was 'rolling' a few times the other day with her friends. :o ;)
MaGs
Look. We are supposed to KNOW what she means. Isn't it obvious? When Ainslie says something, you have to interpret it backwards. Like Bizarro World. We've noticed this before.
When Ainslie says "Volts" we are supposed to hear AMPS.
When Ainslie says "DC" we are supposed to know she means AC.
When Ainslie says "one eighth" we are supposed to know she means 0.8. And when she says 0.8 we are supposed to know she means 0.000800.
And it is YOUR FAULT that you don't immediately understand and forgive her silly girl, math challenged, not a clue, ERRORS.... the ones that wouldn't even be made if she understood ANY of what .99 has been trying to teach her, or if she simply checked her work before posting. But Ainslie doesn't have to do that, LOL, she's so arrogant that she doesn't even care in the least how abysmally wrong she is... she just moves on to an even greater wrongness. I can't wait to see what she garbles tomorrow. Polly the Paranoid Parrot will be giving us a few more doozys before she's done.
By the way... filing a false police report is a crime in the USA. How about in South Africa?
Yes, it is definitely time for another letter to her lawyers.
Sounds like someone "smugly" spoke to a salesperson at an electrical supply house (not electronic supply) looking for a cap. In the discussion she mentions over 200volts and 8 amps and the salesperson, familiar with only 50/60Hz AC, tells her that she is going to need a large uF value cap to handle 8 amps...
Of course, the reactance of a capacitor for a given uF value at 50/60 Hz is way different than at 1.5 to 2.5MHz. Also, the need for a low ESL (Equivalent Series Inductance) capacitor is not required at 50/60Hz, where the effects of ESL on a cap's ESR (Equivalent Series Resistance) are negligible. In the end, she winds up with a large NP (Non-Polarized) electrolytic motor starting cap and the belief that small value caps can't carry significant currrent.
I assume she meant to say plus/minus 8 amps. Many months ago .99 discussed with her the need to correct the CSR value for inductance, and indeed she even reminded TK of the need to do that. Yet here of late, she continues to use apparently uncorrected numbers regarding the current observed at the CSR. My recent posts discussing the CSR inductance and the frequencies involved put the current flow at closer to or less than plus/minus 1.5 amps. Just as she scoffed at my posts, I guess she has indeed decided that there is "no such animal" as inductive reactance.
Now she wants to rehash the AC current flow thru the MOSFET capacitances with her latest "challenge". This was discussed at length, even on her own thread, immediately following .99's futile attempts to explain the circuit's DC conditions to her. Possibly she should reread her own thread... her recent question was already answered therein. The real "challenge" is for her to quit arguing and actually learn and understand, else all discussions are just a waste of time.
As far as her reading the data sheet for the IRFPG50 and quoting capacitance values, can she understand how the capacitances of all 5 MOSFET's are in parallel in her circuit? Does she understand how the MOSFET capacitances vary with the applied voltage? If she could spend a bit of time looking at and understanding the graph in her data sheet that shows how the MOSFET capacitances vary with the applied voltage, she might even begin to understand why her oscillation is assymetrical.
Where are all her expert collaborator's? Surely one of them can calculate reactance...
Maybe one of them can read a 'scope as well and could also explain to her that there is indeed an issue regarding Q1 not turning on when it should in FIG3, 6, and 7...
Regarding crime in SA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa
And more recently:
http://news.yahoo.com/mine-bloodbath-shocks-post-apartheid-africa-082527381.html
Wow. I knew it was bad... but....
QuoteAccording to a survey for the period 1998â€"2000 compiled by the UN, South Africa was ranked first for rapes per capita.[15] The incidence of has led to the country being referred to as the " capital of the world".[16] One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[17] More than 25 per cent of South African men questioned in a survey published by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in June 2009 admitted to rapes; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person.[18][19] Three out of four of those who had admitted rapes indicated that they had attacked for the first time during their teens.[18] South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rapes in the world.
Sounds like a real fine place to raise your kids up in, dunnit. Take twenty South African men at random.... and three of them are likely to be serial rapists.
ETA: weird. The word " " ( r a p e ) is apparently a forbidden word on this forum. Rapist, rapes, raper, raped all OK but not " ".
Fuck, fick, bugger, all OK... but not r a p e .
You cannot even parody Polly Parrot. She is her own parody.
See... she really meant 4 AMPS DC from the 8 volts peak to peak measured across the shunt.
For her next edit, Polly Parrot will finally replace the "DC" with AC.... even though she has no understanding even of those simple distinctions, or she would never have made the howling errors in the first place.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 18, 2012, 03:20:09 PM
even though she has no understanding even of those simple distinctions, or she would never have made the howling errors in the first place.
similar to you and your use of the words; replication, exactly, etc. etc. ::)
interesting that you can use 'howlers' at your whim and pleasure but anyone else does, that's grounds for an immediate spanking by the koala in the tinsel hat... ::)
carry on you sad little man...
If she is able to replicate FIG 3 with the SAME 'scope settings and a functional Q1, I suggest she check the wiring and connections for Q1.
The FIG 3 'scope capture cannot be replicated with a functioning Q1 connected as per the schematic.
Period....
Hey .99... why don't you ask Ainslie to explain how to test a FET. I'd love to hear her explain.
And remember... there have been at least FIVE different schematics claimed to be used for the data in the manuscripts and the scopeshots in question:
1) The single mosfet schematic with a series gate resistor and no "black" lead FG hookup shown, shown clearly in the demo video;
2) The "five mosfets in parallel" claimed by the narrator of the video simultaneously while showing the above diagram;
3) The actual wiring that you determined from looking at the video carefully, and which shows the FG Black lead hooked to the common circuit ground bus;
4) The schematic presented in the first Ainslie manuscript, which accurately shows the mosfet wiring but misrepresents the placement of the Black FG lead as being on the transistor side of the shunt... which is the correct location but which was NOT used for the paper, actually... it couldn't have been, she didn't know that was the right place for it until the analyses subsequent to the experimental trials.
5) And the schematic presented in the "paper" most recently posted on Rossi's JNP which has the same FG Black lead location but has the Q2x4 stack on the right side instead of the left side, where the RED FG lead is connected to the gate NOT of the lone mosfet Q1 as in the first paper and the demonstration, but to the gates of the Gang of Four Q2s.
Recall also that she deliberately concealed the true schematic-- or claimed to, perhaps she didn't know about the mistake until you found it -- at any rate a deliberate deception was perpetrated by her concerning the wiring of the demonstration apparatus.
So for anything coming from Ainslie, I think you need to see actual photographs, clear and focused, of both sides of the apparatus so you can know how it's wired.
Now... .how does someone who thinks 0.8 is one eighth... who thinks that the capacitances of a group of mosfets can't possibly "enable" 8 amps of "dc" peak to peak current (sic!)... who thinks that 1 Watt = 1 Joule ... who asks you and everybody else to believe that she dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in 96 minutes without getting...er... uncomfortably warm....
How exactly does this person test 5 FETs for functionality and integrity?
Does she perhaps put them into the circuits that are shown in the data sheet for the mosfet and monitor the behaviour of those circuits? I laugh out loud.
Perhaps she uses the "transistor check" Hfe function on a DMM. I laugh even louder.
Now that's a really nice forum she has there.
Not too difficult to envision her sitting there on her own deserted island of shifting delusions
with no one to talk to but herself, waiting for someone ..anyone, to please post something ..anything.
Time for her to PM as many people as she can, to at least leave a comment.
.
Quote from: The Boss on August 19, 2012, 11:12:15 AM
Now that's a really nice forum she has there.
Not too difficult to envision her sitting there on her own deserted island of shifting delusions
with no one to talk to but herself, waiting for someone ..anyone, to please post something ..anything.
Time for her to PM as many people as she can, to at least leave a comment.
.
LOOK .... at the web site stats !!
Talk about a "DRY" spell over there, when having
532 members and Rosemary with
300% more postings including time logged in than anyone else. I wonder why all the members aren't posting ..... maybe there just members to be able to view the attachment files posted, because you have to be a member of this IP and cookie tracking honey hole web site to see anything.
Just think .... Rosemary is proud of this personal web site of
COP knowledge destruction .
FTC
:P
If applying +10 volts to the gate of Q1 in her recent test does not turn on Q1, what, exactly, does she have to do to make Q1 turn on for the "high heat" mode?
Surely if +10 volts were applied to the gate of Q1, the waveforms would look like FIG 5, wherein the CSR trace shows substatial current flow during the positive portion of the FG cycle.
So, if a functional Q1 is connected as per the schematic, and the FG output is +10V, the CSR trace should look like FIG 5 during the positive portion of the FG cycle and FIG 3 will not be able to be replicated (wherein +12 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 and no current flow is observed).
Or, if Q1 does not turn on with +10 volts applied to its gate, Q1 cannot be connected as per the schematic in which case the CSR trace will look like FIG 3, and FIG 5 will not be able to be replicated.
Again, a functional Q1 connected as per the schematic must turn on when the FG output is +5 volts or greater and current flow will be observed at the CSR trace as in FIG 5.
She can't have it both ways. If Q1 is connected as per the schematic, the waveforms should look like FIG 5 when the FG output is +5 volts or greater with substantial current flow observed at the CSR.
If she has indeed applied +10 volts to the gate of a functional Q1, and observed no current flow, I would suggest she has the source and gate leads of Q1 reversed, placing Q1 in parallel with the four Q2 MOSFET's. Of course, there will be no "high heat" mode with this connection, which would also not be as per the schematic.
To be credible, the evidence for her claim MUST include the following:
1)A clear and conventionally drawn schematic NEWLY MADE of the circuit in use, not a clone or rehash of any of the existing diagrams;
2)Clear and large photographs of both sides of the circuit in use, with a time-date stamp that is verifiable, BEFORE the test run is accomplished, so that the schematic given can be verified as that actually in use;
3)Some confirmation testing that all mosfets used are fully functional before testing;
4)The data run itself, including time-temperature profiles of the load in use;
5)A known and verifiable signal of +10 to +12 volts at the RED function generator lead connected to the Q1 mosfet GATE / Q2 mosfet SOURCES as shown in the paper's schematic;
6)The relevant scope shots;
7)Some confirmation testing that the mosfets are STILL all fully functioning after testing;
8)Clear and large photographs of both sides of the circuit in use, with a time-date stamp that is verifiable, AFTER the test run is completed, so that the schematic given can be verified as that actually used.
The timestamps could be done by displaying, in the same frame, some unique information, like a computer screen showing a live time indication like this one:
www.time.gov (http://www.time.gov)
Although even that could be faked easily. A live video would be even better than still photos, but still possible to fake of course.
I submit that, considering the sum total of Ainslie's past history with data, scopeshots, schematics, wiring and testing, anything less than this full set of information will be unreliable and untrustworthy at best, and complete mendacity otherwise.
I ask again. How are the mosfets to be tested for proper functioning before and after the experimental trials?
.99.......
You really should require HER to show HER work, which she never does.
Because as you well know, forgetting to divide by one can really screw up a calculation. I'd like to see just where forgetting to divide by one caused her to get the numbers she got... so I don't make the same stupid mistakes.
Maybe I should just divide everything by one, and see what happens.
Polly Parrot, the mathematician who thinks dividing by one will solve her problems. I swear you cannot even parody this woman, she is her own parody. I don't even believe SHE is that stupid; she must surely be joking.
Also you really should check her other thread, where it is very clear that she doesn't believe a thing you have been telling her.
Of course, someone who thinks that 1 Joule = 1 Watt and that "per" never indicates a division operation.... might also think that dividing by one is the same as taking the inverse of a number..... dividing 1 BY the number, not the other way around. And anyone with a day's experience in a math classroom would know that ANY NUMBER DIVIDED BY ONE yields that same number. Why... even a calculator can show that this is true. But maybe she should try all numbers just to make sure that when you divide any of them BY ONE, you get the same number you started with. Exactly.
But of course we are mind readers and we know what Ainslie means: it is the exact opposite of what she says, and if we misunderstand this, it is OUR fault, not hers.
She knows what the "2" in an expression like
x2
means, I hope. It means "square" or the second power; in other words, take x and multiply it by itself.
I wonder what she makes of an expression like
x-1
?
:o
:'(
This is SIXTH GRADE math, the kind an eleven year old child can do in a few minutes, with a paper and pencil.
I ask again: how are the mosfets to be tested to show that they are functional before and after the scopeshots we are worried about are reproduced by Ainslie?
Do I expect to get an answer? Of course not, I am just emphasising that there won't be an answer, nor will there be any honest testing or reporting from Ainslie and her "team" of incompetents.
Drinking in the afternoon again I see, Ainslie.
You are a liar, a fool and an ignorant idiot. Your "papers" with all their lousy "data" and all their contradictions and errors are still posted in multiple different versions all over the internet. Each time you pretend to understand something .99 has worked so hard to teach you, you simply parrot back words that you don't understand at all and you get them wrong every time. Your arithmetic is execrable, your English atrocious and your arrogance knows no limit. And you aren't taking the advice of your lawyers. You are paranoid, deluded, and apparently alcoholic as well, and you have never been able to refute a single thing that's been said about you or your silly toys or your lying error-ridden daft manuscripts, ever. You don't even have the common courtesy to correct your errors and apologise for them. And now you and your sock puppets are continuing to lie and pollute the environment with your madness and delusions.
Don't worry... "soon, you will attain the stability you strive for, in the only way that it's granted... in a place among the fossils of our time."
@.99:
Ainslie has said that she received some "special resistors" that the laboratory in the USA, which confirmed that her circuit DOES discharge its batteries, sent her to use in some testing. She has never told us precisely what those resistors are or exactly how they were to be used. At the time she reported this, I guessed that they might be non-inductive current-viewing resistors or perhaps a different, more readily characterizable load than her RV water heater element.
And she's never mentioned them again.
This usually means that I've hit the nail on the head. Why don't you ask her?
Hey TK,
If I were to say to you, "You're old and likely going to die soon." Would you take that as a threat?
I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't... unless they were a little paranoid.
polln8r
TK,
I think it is highly unlikely Rose will provide the answer to that question.
And it would seem strange for it to be a CSR if she is sourcing one. So most likely it is a load resistor, although I can't imagine why they sent it.
Quote from: polln8r on August 22, 2012, 12:13:26 AM
Hey TK,
If I were to say to you, "You're old and likely going to die soon." Would you take that as a threat?
I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't... unless they were a little paranoid.
polln8r
Are you referring to the "stability you strive for" quotation?
It's a quotation from one of my favorite songs. Are you saying Grace Slick and Paul Kantner were threatening someone? I think she was telling us all about our common fate, if we don't wake up and see the Crown of Creation for what it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-dz3cxhQy4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-dz3cxhQy4)
"In loyalty to their kind
they cannot tolerate our minds.
In loyalty to our kind
we cannot tolerate their obstruction....."
Quote from: poynt99 on August 22, 2012, 12:15:57 AM
TK,
I think it is highly unlikely Rose will provide the answer to that question.
And it would seem strange for it to be a CSR if she is sourcing one. So most likely it is a load resistor, although I can't imagine why they sent it.
I think it's unlikely as well.
However, she is "sourcing" a shunt just like she "sourced" the capacitor you recommended. You gave her a link that would have resulted in the specified acceptable and inexpensive part arriving at her mailbox within a few days. She chose to waste days and Rand on a part that isn't going to be suitable for the purpose (the 800 microF cap) and she's now choosing to delay perhaps another four weeks to "source" the resistor she says she's found.... and what are the chances that it will be suitable for the purpose?
You may recall that, over a year ago, in the locked thread, she was told exactly how to make an extremely low inductance CVR from readily available components economically, by I think cheeseburger. And of course Fuzzy has also specified a readily available resistor of suitably low inductance, long ago. She is doing this as a delaying tactic plain and simple. If she were at all sincere she would have had one of these things long ago.
Also, I find it inconceivable that a professional laboratory of battery chemists and EE types would not have used their own noninductive CVR when testing Ainslie's circuit and compared its results with those given by her concrete wirewound power resistors. You would have done this (in fact you did in the sim I think) , I would have done this, PW would have done this... etc.
And in an effort to get Ainslie to understand... because you _know_ that they would have gone back and forth about it in communications.. it makes perfect sense for them to send along a six dollar part, just to call her bluff and get her finally to shut up.
I know I would.
Quote from: polln8r on August 22, 2012, 12:13:26 AM
Hey TK,
If I were to say to you, "You're old and likely going to die soon." Would you take that as a threat?
I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't... unless they were a little paranoid.
polln8r
Well, I am old and likely to die soon, aren't I? How can anyone argue with that?
Is it sort of like killing two birds with one stone, one of which is TK? That's pretty silly, because I'm not a bird, after all, I just use one for a body double in my feature films.
TK,
I was just offering what I saw as the worst-case scenario in terms of the interpretation of that quote, which is not even close to what I would consider "threatening."
I mean, I guess I just assume this is what Rosemary is talking about in this recent post (the image refers).
polln8r
She is a hoot, ain't she, that Ains-lie.....
;D
(BTW... do you really believe that SA has no nuclear weapons any more? )
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 22, 2012, 01:20:05 AM
(BTW... do you really believe that SA has no nuclear weapons any more? )
Well, it says so on the internet... so it must be true.
Making progress there are we, .99? I see someone dodged your question about the resistor that was sent, while confirming that they did send one. Of course someone can't be arsed to get up, go find it, and LOOK AT IT and tell you what it is.
@poynt
I think there's room for confusion with your answer to...
"IS it the rule that the measured rate of current flow through a circuit must be consistent. In other words it cannot be greater at one element than at another?"
I realise you're answering with a specific context in mind there (AC at a particular frequency range, in a particular circuit), but is it safe to assume you're sharing enough context with RA that obvious exceptions like DC parallel resistance won't be thrown back into the mix when it suits?
Quote from: mrsean2k on August 23, 2012, 08:56:51 AM
@poynt
I think there's room for confusion with your answer to...
"IS it the rule that the measured rate of current flow through a circuit must be consistent. In other words it cannot be greater at one element than at another?"
I realise you're answering with a specific context in mind there (AC at a particular frequency range, in a particular circuit), but is it safe to assume you're sharing enough context with RA that obvious exceptions like DC parallel resistance won't be thrown back into the mix when it suits?
I think .99 has been about as clear as possible without overcomplication that would surely only confuse. He started out the discussion with DC conditions before moving on to AC. Whether or not she can understand and visualize the difference between the two is another question.
The point is that even if Q2 is turned off with regard to DC, the AC current current path is ALWAYS there via the MOSFET capacitances (i.e., Ciss and Coss). Stated otherwise, AC current can flow thru the MOSFET capacitances irregardless of the on or off state of the MOSFET.
In fact, when the voltage at the drains of the MOSFET's is at their minimum (less than 25 volts), the input capacitance (Ciss) for a single IRFPG50 MOSFET increases to over 7,000pF and the output capacitance (Coss) increases to over 5,000pF. For the four Q2's in parallel, those numbers are 28nF and 20nF. In other words, the MOSFET capacitances are not a singular fixed value, but are dynamic, and the capacitance values typically increase as the drain to source voltage decreases. This is why the waveform in FIG4 slows down when Vds is below 25 volts (i.e., the longer charge/ramp time at the negative trough of the waveform in FIG 4).
Regarding inductance, she needs to understand that the amount of AC current flow is determined by, and limited by, the impedances at the observed AC frequencies, which requires adding or accounting for the inductive reactance of the components and wiring.
A 2" length of 12 gauge wire has about 40nHy of inductance, which has a reactance of about 1 ohm at 2MHz. So, even if a .25 ohm non-inductive resistor is used for the CSR, if the 'scope probes are connected to a point 1" on either side of the CSR, it will cause the CSR to actually be a 1.25 ohm resistor at 2MHz.
A wire is not always a wire, and in the instance above, measurements made using just a 1" length of wire connected to each end of a perfectly non-inductive CSR will cause a very large error, indicating 4 amps when in reality only .8 amps are flowing (and that assumes using 12 gauge wire!).
Therefore, very short lead lengths are required. In fact, it would be advisable to increase the CSR value to between .5 and 1 ohm to decrease the percentage error caused by lead inductance. The best non-inductive resistor I have found has 10nHy when measured .2" from the package, which would add .112 ohms of reactance to a .25 ohm resistor at 2MHz, which represents a very significant percentage error. Increasing the CSR value to .5 or 1 ohm would reduce the percentage of error caused by the .112 ohms of lead reactance (and again, that's .2" from the resistor package).
Also, as the NERD waveform contains a multitude of frequencies and harmoonics, power calculations must be made individually for all of the observed frequencies (at least the five most dominant frequencies, as would be observed in an FFT spectral plot). One cannot simply use the indicated trigger frequency as the singular frequency contained in the waveform. This would only be the case if the waveform were a perfect sine wave with 0% THD. At the higher frequencies and harmonics contained in the waveform, inductive reactance becomes a more significant source of measurement error.
As an aside, someone should let her know that if she is going to discuss resistor values using European notation, the "R" replaces the decimal point. A 50 ohm resistor is 50R, not R50. R50 would be a .5 ohm resistor. More typically, a .5 ohm resistor would be written as a 0R5. A 50 ohm resistor would be 50R, or 50R0, depending on the resistor"s specified precision.
PW
ADDED:
An alternate method of reducing wire related inductance is to use larger diameter wires or use parallel runs of wire.
In the 2" of wire equals 40nHy used above, paralleling two 2" lengths of wire will cut the inductance in half, or to 20nHY. Paralleling two more wires, that is, a total of four 2" lengths of wire in parallel, will again halve the inductance, now totaling only 10nHY.
In fact, an infinite number of parallel wires would represent a geometric plane with a given thickness, so, in order to reduce inductance in the ground and supply circuits of high speed printed circuit boards (PC motherboard, etc) entire circuit board layers are dedicated as the ground and power planes with as much solid copper area as possible on these layers (six to eight layer circuit boards are very common because of this). For the most part, these solid ground and power plane layers act as infinite parallel runs to reduce inductance to a minimum.
Quote from: picowatt on August 23, 2012, 12:36:35 PM
He started out the discussion with DC conditions before moving on to AC. Whether or not she can understand and visualize the difference between the two is another question
That's what prompted me to comment really. That and the fact that .99 restricted the response to just answering yes to a summary in RA's own words, rather than stating the position in less ambiguous terms (but I suppose even Sisyphus fancies a rest now and again).
And of course she has seen and commented upon my short video demonstration of a"measurement pitfall" using the simple Joule Thief circuit.
I show a dramatic difference in the scoped waveform, simply by moving the scope probe's reference lead to the other end of a 3" bit of wire in the circuit.
Her considered analysis of this video is... that it is faked in some way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ
Quote
And Poynty - here's another thing I've thought of. The impedance is INCREASED - those Ohmic values INCREASE - as the frequency increases. Conversely, it would be LESSENED as the frequency is slower.
Capacitive reactance decreases with frequency. That is, the AC impedance ("resistance") of a capacitor DECREASES as the applied frequency increases.
A 1uF capacitor has a reactance of approximately 159 ohms at 1 KHZ. At 1 MHz, it has a reactance of .159 ohms.
Inductive reactance increases with frequency. That is, the AC impedance ("resistance") of an inductor INCREASES as the applied frequency increases.
A 1uHy inductor has a reactance of approximately .0063 ohms at 1KHZ. At 1 MHz, it has a reactance of 6.3 ohms.
Quote from: picowatt on August 23, 2012, 11:33:13 PM
Capacitive reactance decreases with frequency. That is, the AC impedance ("resistance") of a capacitor DECREASES as the applied frequency increases.
A 1uF capacitor has a reactance of approximately 159 ohms at 1 KHZ. At 1 MHz, it has a reactance of .159 ohms.
But then, depending on the capacitor, there will be freq above 1mhz that the resistance/impedance will increase, again depending on the inductance within a particular cap.
I wonder if we were to make 2 caps, both using the same length and width plate strips, but we roll them a bit differently.
The first, we lay one strip on top of the other and we connect our leads to each strip at the same end of the stack of 2 strips, say both leads on the left end of the strip stack. We wont even roll these for this. Just strip capacitors.
The second cap strip stack, ;] , we connect our leads, one on each end. One lead is connected to the top plate on the left end, and the other lead to the bottom plate on the right end.
When a cap is charged, 'current' flow, in one plate and out the other, the arrangement of where we have our leads(the way in and the way out of the plates) must affect the level of inductance in the cap, due to which way currents flow in and out of the plates, while the plates are inducing currents in each other, depending on the flow of those currents.
If the leads are connected at the same end of the plates, currents should flow easily as they are in opposite directions. But leads on opposite ends of the plates, the currents flow all in the same direction, so inductance should be well present here.
Weird aint it. So, with opposite ended, higher induction, maybe this kind of cap, say rolled, could receive a charge from a pulse of a primary coil magnetic field. Use a diode across the cap leads that uses the pulsed induction to take from one side of the cap to the other.
Then the charge will stay in the cap till taken. lol Now for discharge, use leads on the same end for least inductance. Ive seen 4(2 on each end) lead caps, but Im not sure they are used this way.
I wonder. And Im about to drop. Sleeps
MaGs
Electrolytic FETs. Look! Polly Parrot squawks a new word, without the faintest clue as to what it means.
Capacitors....some capacitors are electrolytic .... FETs have capacitance.... therefore FETs are electrolytic.
Can't grasp the difference between a direct relationship and an inverse relationship... can't see that dividing BY one is different from dividing INTO one. Just wait until someone tries multiplying by one!
Well the writers of this sitcom are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Just start grabbing numbers and multiplying them, why not.
Spam for lunch again!
Better stick to gin, Ainslie.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 24, 2012, 10:01:04 AM
@All
I sort of thought this thread was going to fall on its sword. Apparently not. In which case perhaps it needs some more comments. Here's this for starters.
The lament of the trolls
A pickle spent much of the day trying to say
That his size was most certainly measurable
While conductance was possibly part of that art
It was capacitance made that art pleasurable.
But reactance then came to be largely to blame
For his size that was somewhat dirisable
As the whole was revised and accordingly sized
And found to be ever divisible.
His friend who lived up there some many miles high
Explained that he had a solution.
But he factored the square of pi in the sky
Which compounded to abject confusion.
And the owl then decided to throw in the towel
As she tried very hard not to snigger.
For she knew that though small, Planck's constant was all
Of it yet most assuredly bigger.
And the point of this sorrowful dirge that I urge
You to hear in this gentle reminder
Is the brunt of the joke that I poke at this bloke
Is one needs to be cruel to be kinder.
And here some links for some required reading.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3138 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3138)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3139 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3139)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3141 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3141)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3146 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3146)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3150 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3150)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3151 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3151)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3155 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2310.msg3138.html#msg3155)
enjoy.
Hmmm, all the energy put into writing that. But still no testing. Ahhh, the leisure life. ;]
MaGs
@YSW
Don't you find it remotely humiliating to come here under the paper-thin pretense of being someone else, posting in your own defense, and then lying about it to your own followers on your own website?
From over there:
"By the way - Poynty Point. I see that Harvey or 'piowatt' as he prefers to be called - has denied this statement of mine.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on Yesterday at 04:40:59
Quote
And Poynty - here's another thing I've thought of. The impedance is INCREASED - those Ohmic values INCREASE - as the frequency increases. Conversely, it would be LESSENED as the frequency is slower.
He's WRONG. Do let him know."
REALLY?
Is she saying that she disagrees with my statement that capacitive reactance decreases with frequency and inductive reactance increases with frequency? I sure would like to see some supportive data to her "argument".
Possibly she can provide the "correct" reactance for a 1uF cap at 1KHz and 1MHz?
.99, please do read my recent posts and indicate where I am wrong...
Flabbergasted...
(And yet again, I am not Harvey. She continues to wage her battle with him against the wrong person... )
PW,
Rose didn't mention which impedance she was referring to, so I stated the facts once again for her. I empathize with your frustration.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 25, 2012, 10:11:56 AM
PW,
Rose didn't mention which impedance she was referring to, so I stated the facts once again for her. I empathize with your frustration.
.99,
From her preceding posts, she was apparently discussing the MOSFET capacitances ("electrolyte" and all...).
She also appeared to be confusing the effects of capacitive reactance with inductive reactance.
Thanks,
PW
Rosemary,
You should be more circumspect in the allegations you make when you lob them in my direction. I don't place the same value on anonymity as other, more patient people you toothlessly rail against, so I'm not anywhere near as constrained in my possible response.
The offer has been made to you, on more then one occasion, to select a specific file that you claim has never been made public, and for the original public source of that file to be disclosed to you. You have never taken up this offer. Now why would that be?
The simple answer is that it is so hard for you to keep track of your lies and changing story that you have no idea what you have or have not posted publicly.
The telephone number you posted in full public view on you own forum for instance. The actions consistent with someone clueless about security and privacy in general.
There is no need for me to exaggerate your behavior to paint you as a fool - you confirm your own ignorance of even basic arithmetic almost every time you post.
S
WRT @gmeast 's results he claims that:
"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing, and these are small batteries ... 7Ah each and two in series for a nominal 24VDC & 7Ah and they are running everything."
Looking at the rough guide here:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/batteries/battery-voltage-discharge.php (http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/batteries/battery-voltage-discharge.php)
a difference of 0.8V can represent a total discharge of anything up to 75% of the capacity of the original.
Quote from: mrsean2k on August 25, 2012, 12:15:06 PM
WRT @gmeast 's results he claims that:
"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing, and these are small batteries ... 7Ah each and two in series for a nominal 24VDC & 7Ah and they are running everything."
Looking at the rough guide here:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/batteries/battery-voltage-discharge.php (http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/batteries/battery-voltage-discharge.php)
a difference of 0.8V can represent a total discharge of anything up to 75% of the capacity of the original.
Although I have not seen his circuit or test setup (unable to "view" anything over there), he has mentioned frequencies as high as 12MHz or better. Hopefully he is aware that the possibility of measurement errors due to inductance is 5 to 6 times greaterat 12MHz than the effects of inductance on measurement errors in the NERD circuit with its lower frequency.
In looking for a non-inductive resistor, the best I could find that actually provided inductance data had a stated 10nHy inductance when measured/connected .2" from the package. Many of the manufacturers of non-inductive resistors whose data I looked at merely specified "less than 100nHy" for their non-inductive resistors.
Using the 10nHy figure, at 12MHz, that's .733 ohms that must be added to a CSR value using the best non-inductive resistor I could find (possibly there are better). If the CSR used is 5 ohms or less, that .733 ohms represents a significant error. With a CSR of 1 ohm or less, that .733 ohms represents a huge error.
Does anyone know what value gmeast is using for his CSR or load resistor? Has he given any inductance values for either? Has anyone seen an image of his set up? (short leads, etc)
PW
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on Yesterday at 04:40:59
Quote
And Poynty - here's another thing I've thought of. The impedance is INCREASED - those Ohmic values INCREASE - as the frequency increases. Conversely, it would be LESSENED as the frequency is slower.
As I surmised, and as she again recently states, she thinks she is describing capacitive reactance in the above quote. However, the above quote describes the exact opposite of the action of capacitive reactance.
Capacitive reactance decreases as the applied frequency increases.
Using and correcting her words, it should have read as:
"The impedance is DECREASED- those Ohmic values DECREASE- as the frequency increases"
PW,
Regarding the older replication, I think this says it all:
Quote"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing, and these are small batteries ... 7Ah each and two in series for a nominal 24VDC & 7Ah and they are running everything."[\quote]
Quote from: poynt99 on August 25, 2012, 01:58:17 PM
PW,
Regarding the older replication, I think this says it all:
Yes, I noticed that too. A claim giving data showing a definite DISCHARGE but interpreted exactly backwards.
Also note that gmeast has confirmed that the short ON duty cycle claimed in the Quantum article does not produce substantial load heat, just as I said long ago, that the given 555 timer makes an exactly inverted duty cycle, and that he is using a completely different circuit, with mosfet gate driver chips, a flyback diode, a different oscillator circuit, a different load arrangement, different operating frequency and very different duty cycle than is claimed in the Quantum article he is supposedly "replicating".
Cock-a-Doodle-Doo!
Quote from: poynt99 on August 25, 2012, 01:58:17 PM
PW,
Regarding the older replication, I think this says it all:
.99,
I believe gmeast recently discussed some power measurements using the Vdrop across the CSR and and another using the Vdrop across Rload.
I was just curious as to what those components were, and what his layout looked like relative to the higher frequencies he mentioned (i.e., short lead lengths, etc. or another "clip lead" set-up).
PW
He's using a circuit, a clock, a load, and operating parameters that are nothing like the "experiment" he claims to be "replicating".... the Quantum article refers.
The only similarity is that it is an N-channel mosfet switching a high-side load.... and that he is making the same measurement errors, although not the same circuit errors, that she did lo those many years ago.
C O C K - a - Doodle - Doo.
In response to her latest "corrected" statement:
Indeed, the effects of capacitive reactance, as they pertain to AC current flow thru a MOSFET's intrinsic capacitances, are less significant at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies.
The observed 1-2 amps at 2.5MHz in the NERD waveforms can pass thru the MOSFET capacitances irregardless of the MOSFET's on or off state.
At a lower frequency of 1KHz, much less AC current can flow thru the MOSFET capacitances, as their reactance is 2500 times higher at 1KHz than at 2.5MHz (hence, 2500 times less AC current can flow via these capacitive paths at 1KHz than at 2.5MHz).
One cannot, however, use the fact that little AC current can flow thru the MOSFET capacitances at LOW frequencies as an argument that somehow proves that AC current cannot pass thru the MOSFET capacitances at HIGH frequencies.
To do so is to ignore the effects of capacitive reactance all together.
At lower frequencies, as DC conditions are approached, very little current flow thru the MOSFET capacitances will be observed. This is why it was important to understand the circuit's DC conditions, where capacitance and inductance have little or no effect, before moving on to understanding the more complex AC conditions, where capacitance and inductance play a major role.
And by the way, correcting her math:
The reactance of 2800pF at 1.3MHz= 43.72 ohms (correct!)
The reactance of 2800pF at 1.3KHz= 43,723 ohms (that's forty three thousand seven hundred twenty three ohms, not 437.182 ohms as she states)
As for the rest of her "arguments" and "logic" based on her very limited understanding of electronics, she is simply wrong.
She should quit arguing and attempt to learn...
What is most astounding to me is that she makes these egregious and elementary errors, draws mistaken conclusions based on the errors, rants and insults people based on her mistaken conclusions, then when the errors are unequivocally exposed and corrected for her.... she doesn't change her mistaken conclusions or apologise for her insults and rants. And she still clings to conclusions drawn from erroneous calculations even unto this day.
I've attempted to register at RA's forum to respond to some of the very obvious points directly. This involves a (perhaps manual) approval step. We'll see.
Quote
The oscillation frequency at 1.3 MHz may enable the flow of 4 amps through the gate leg of Q2 to the negative rail of the battery supply. But IF it was passing this current then the voltage would needs must move both above and below zero to show evidence of this. It does not. It remains below zero and oscillates around this value at a maximum of 1 volt peak to peak.
Apparently she has yet to learn how to read her own schematic.
Looking at her schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the probed end of the CSR. Therefore, the voltage indicated by the CSR trace is also the voltage at the gate of Q2. The CSR voltage does indeed oscillate above and below ground, therefore, so does the gate of Q2.
Again, the gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR, therefore, the voltage at the gate of Q2 is essentially the same as the indicated CSR voltage (ignoring the effects of lead inductance between the gate of Q2 and the CSR).
Teaching her electronics is like trying to help her put together a 500 piece jig saw puzzle. A single piece of the puzzle is explained to her and she is told where it goes. She argues for months about that single puzzle piece but, in the end, she reluctantly places the piece where it belongs on the board. Another puzzle piece is explained to her, and again, after much argument, that piece is placed on the board. After a dozen pieces or so are placed on the board in this manner, she starts going back and removing puzzle pieces from the board and throwing them back in the box, apparently because she believes she knows better. In the end, she will never get to see the "big picture".
Inductive reactance was explained to her a long time ago, yet she recently denied its existence. The fact that the voltage at the gate of Q2 is essentially the same as the observed CSR voltage was also explained to her months ago, yet even now she does not see how they are connected. I doubt she actually understands how Q2 is turned on when a negative voltage is applied to its source terminal, though that too was explained over and over.
Apparently, she continues to throw puzzle pieces back in the box.
She will never see the "big picture"...
Quote from: mrsean2k on August 26, 2012, 06:05:49 AM
I've attempted to register at RA's forum to respond to some of the very obvious points directly. This involves a (perhaps manual) approval step. We'll see.
I see that went well. An insult and deletion in very short order!
In fact posts were constantly deleted under my feet.
I have now been banned for being "disruptive"
The sum total of my posts involved:
1) Asking what make and model Greg's batteries were
2) Pointing out that 0.4v is strong evidence of a significant decrease in capacity
3) Asserting that accepting that this is the case doesn't reflect badly on @gmeast.
At no point in my posting was I insulting or used profanity of any kind, with the exception that I stated I did not want to engage in smalltalk or to spend my time correcting RA's misconceptions.
I would recommend Evernote and it's browser plugin as a fine way of recording the state of a web-page before it is altered for whatever reason.
I am also apparently banned by IP address from viewing.
In your dreams...
Sadly, and no doubt coincidentally, @gmeast has replied to one of my posts after I have been blocked. I am therefore unable to relay to him exactly where he stated that he observer "only" an 0.8v drop in the course of his run.
ETA: for your convenience, Greg, the last paragraph of reply #92 on the "basic circuit" thread, where you state:
"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing"
It is INDEED important. Just not the way you seem to think it is.
Didn't you know, Sean, that the E-SP forum is only open to people who are willing to pat each other on the back?
Example (paraphrased):
Chessnyt: Look, I made a video! See behind me this thing I made?
Rosemary: Oh, Chess! That's absolutely brilliant! Good job! Way to go! I especially liked your SmartScarecrow interview! It was AMAZING!
Chessnyt: Thanks! I didn't even really say anything, but I appreciate your compliments!
Rosemary: Hey, gmeast! Wow, look! you're working on something! It's Amazing! Good Job!
gmeast: It's not really your circuit, but it seems to give me similar measurements.
Chessnyt: That's great gmeast! Welcome to our pat-on-the-back forum!
Poynt99: Umm... you may want to consider the possibility that your measurements, because of the way they're taken, are showing results that aren't exactly true.
Rosemary: What do you mean, Poynt99?
Poynt99: Well, it's like this: All apples are apples. Some are green; some are red... but they're all apples. Oranges are oranges. Some are orange; some are red... but they're all oranges.
Rosemary: Ah, so what you've said is if it's a red orange, it's actually an apple.
Poynt99: No, that's not what I said.
Rosemary: Well, let's just forget about that for now. Take a look at gmeast's stuff, will you?
Poynt99: I have, I think he may be wrong about some things.
Rosemary: Just how the Hell would you know?
Poynt99: I don't have time for this.
mrsean2k: (deleted, because it wasn't in the form of a compliment)
Rosemary: Sugar, spice, everything nice! If only the world believed in orange/apples... then they'd be true!
mrsean2k: Um... did I say something wrong? I just meant that making an error like this is understandable, and that it shouldn't reflect on one's reputation.
gmeast: It wasn't--I didn't--somebody help me out here. Why are you being so mean to me?
mrsean2k: I'm just pointing out some facts, as I see them.
Poynt99:I agree with mrsean2k's facts.
Rosemary: There's no room for "facts" on our forum unless they're of a complimentary nature.
gmeast: B-b-but I-
Rosemary: There, there, gmeast. I've made the bad man go away. You're doing wonderfully! Well done! Good job!
Rosemary: Poynt99, I know I asked you to look at gmeast's stuff... but what I meant to say was to actually leave him alone.
etc. etc. etc.
polln8r
I sort if expected RA to act that way fairly quickly - when I went to the author of the Wikipedia entry she was relying on and asked him to confirm first hand that her interpretation was incorrect, she characterized it as an attack - but I was surprised at @gmeast who Ive assumed was working in good faith.
It doesn't help that she was deleting my posts and then misrepresenting what I'd said.
I genuinely believe there's absolutely no face lost in conceding an error such as this. But his reaction is questionable.
It's laughable, or would be if it weren't so boring.
The parrot in question still does not understand even the most basic facts about her circuit, reading schematics, the factors that determine impedance, the behaviour of mosfets, or what current is, what voltage is, what AC and DC mean. She still does not even acknowledge that a mosfet has a linear response operation region, nor does she understand the effects of inductance or capacitance on her circuit's measured voltages. Why...it it even seems as if she has not watched or understood any of the simple teaching demonstrations that I have made, explaining and illustrating some of these simple things in a manner that a bright ten year old child.... whose cup did not run over.... could understand.
I guess .99 is the only one who can see all the schematics and other images that are being presented over there. I am just going by the verbal descriptions of gmeast's apparatus and equipment. May we be shown HERE the actual schematic that he is using, and a scopeshot or two from his 12 MHz scope?
We get doggerel and spam here from the sock puppet Youknowwho, but information is carefully omitted. Perhaps .99, as the only "agent" other than Youknowwho allowed to read and post in both places, will provide us with an image or two.
It would be nice, but as soon as he did, I imagine their TOS would be changed to include "posting the images elsewhere" as a criminal actionable offense.
Quote from: mrsean2k on August 26, 2012, 03:25:51 PM
I sort if expected RA to act that way fairly quickly - when I went to the author of the Wikipedia entry she was relying on and asked him to confirm first hand that her interpretation was incorrect, she characterized it as an attack - but I was surprised at @gmeast who Ive assumed was working in good faith.
It doesn't help that she was deleting my posts and then misrepresenting what I'd said.
I genuinely believe there's absolutely no face lost in conceding an error such as this. But his reaction is questionable.
That bit about deletion/misrepresentation is a big part of what has gotten her banned from several forums in the past. It's part and parcel of the Ains-lie Syndrome, a particularly pernicious and virulent form of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
As far as conceding error or acknowledging what data really mean..... their conclusions precede their data, so any data that doesn't fit is either discarded, discounted, or ignored completely. They are working with the explicitly expressed intent of proving their conjectures! Not testing them! They are PROVING them.
It's interesting that in some languages like German the terms "to test" and "to prove" have a closer meaning than they do in scientific explorations. But even in common English we distinguish between "to prove" and "to probe", cognates with the same root.
Just as in Ainslie's own data shown in the scopeshots, where the battery voltage can be seen to be declining by several tenths of volts over the course of a day's trials on several occasions..... if the data do not correspond to the predictions they are ignored. She claimed that there was no measurable decrease in the battery's charge and presented data at the same time that showed measured decrease, consistent, systematic and clear, in the battery's charge. The only way this can happen is that data is simply ignored when it does not fit the preconclusion.
Quote from: polln8r on August 26, 2012, 03:56:21 PM
It would be nice, but as soon as he did, I imagine their TOS would be changed to include "posting the images elsewhere" as a criminal actionable offense.
Nahh.... ever since he sent her his picture, she's got the severe hots for .99. Her knees quiver. I think she probably keeps it as a desktop background. He can do no wrong, and I'm sure she believes that he will eventually come to understand that the only possible explanation for her waveforms is the zipon, arriving twice as before as it went. The LeCroy does not lie!
(He is a lot better looking than I am, I'll happily concede that.)
You mean this desktop background image I found (by way of rifling) just now?
I too initally believed gmeast to be acting in good faith and to be a person of integrity, since he quickly identified the problem with the 555 timer published, and never corrected, by Ainslie so long ago in the Quantum magazine article.
But after this latest, I see that I was mistaken. He resorts to the same kind of lying misrepresentation and claims without reference, the same kinds of self-contradiction, the same kinds of personal insults and innuendo as his mentor.
QuoteUp until now I didn't know what a 'TK' was. I thought it might be a tea pot manufacturer. So I searched for it and found TK's thread. He/She/It suggested that I might be using clip leads for my circuit connects and also that I am in error using PWM percentages to define my power percentages. I also believe there was also some crowing of some sort. I also noticed after logging on to OU.com, I could not reply directly to this tread ... yes "tread". Fine ... a bunch of school girls just listening to themselves.
Nobody except Ainslie is blocked from replying directly to this "tread", unless Stefan has blocked them for some reason of his own.
Now... just where have I suggested that gmeast is in error for using "PWM percentages to define his power percentages?" I'd like to see a link to the precise place I said that and just how I may have said it..... since I've carried out tutorials on just how to use digital oscilloscopes and their math functions including live realtime integration of instantaneous power curves to give total energy integrals.........
And surely gmeast knows that only people who are registered on that forum are allowed to see the images... unlike here, where all is revealed to everyone who is curious.
And I'm also wondering just where anyone insulted gmeast personally yet. But we can certainly start, if that's how he wants to play.
Even though he has now revealed himself as a bigoted, sexist, bloviating idiot liar who contradicts himself then whines about it later trying to change the meaning. 'NOT MORE THAN 0.8 VOLTS'.... well, if it was not more than, say 0.7 volts, or not more than 0.78 volts.... why not say that then? Gmeast reported a voltage drop of 0.8 volts on his 24 volt battery supply, plain and simple, and now he's trying to weasel out of that report.
The facts remain:
Gmeast found that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article did not perform as claimed.
Gmeast is not using the circuit published by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not using an equivalent load to that used by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not operating at the same frequency as Ainslie.
And so on. In short, he has actually refuted Ainslie's claims in the Quantum article by NOT BEING ABLE to reproduce her effects using the published circuit, or even another circuit operating at the claimed duty cycle and frequency of the Quantum article. He has reported these facts and then he has proceeded to allow distortions of the interpretation of these facts to proceed unchecked. The Quantum circuit has no diode, no mosfet gate driver, and has a timer that produces a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load. This is not the circuit gmeast is testing or reporting on.
I asked gmeast about his post TK, but Rose deleted it. I looked back at your posts here and could not find any reference to what he claimed you said.
Apparently, I'm not permitted to converse with gmeast unless it is to compliment him on his success, even though we are now being told it is not a "success" per se, but more a "work in progress".
Regarding his uploads, don't worry there's nothing to see really. The scope shots convey little, and there is no schematic as far as I recall.
@.99
Thanks for looking; I didn't think I had said anything like what he claimed wrt PWM power computation. He's probably gotten confused by some of the many absurd things RA herself has said about power computations, averaging, DC vs PWM vs AC, and so on.
Nice armour, by the way!
I hope it's holding up to the corrosive environment you have to deal with.
Is there any news about when RA will be showing us how she makes that Paper 2, Figure 2 scopeshot? These replications of her own work do not require special noninductive shunts or bypass caps on the batteries, they must be done with the exact apparatus used to make them the first time, of course! And so there should be no reason for delay in presenting these replications, that were promised to us many times, beginning months ago, even with specific days and times (By dinnertime, God willing) ....
These replications must of course be performed with intact mosfets wired as she has been claiming -- that is, according to the schematic in Paper 1-- , a full 6 battery stack at 73 volts or more, and a period of about 160 seconds, with 15-second gate HI duty cycle, with a positive 10-12 volts at the gate of Q1 but no current shown at all in the CVR during those gate HI times -- the key points to be addressed in her replication.
I'm also wondering how she intends to show that the mosfets are functioning properly before and after reproducing that scopeshot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 27, 2012, 02:45:13 PM
Nice armour, by the way!
I hope it's obvious to everyone that this was just intended as a little humor... the only rifling I did was through the old thread to find .99's posted pic, and through google to find a suitable pic to paste it into. I mean no offense to Poynt99 by this and hope none is taken. I chose the armor because he is nothing less than knightly when it comes to the way he carries himself in these forums. If there was any confusion here, or if I offended you Poynt, I apologize.
polln8r
No offense taken polln8r.
8)
i just sourced a rare video of poynty... and man, can he cut some rug...
http://www.jibjab.com/view/RgR0sZ68vL9vlWzp?utm_campaign=URL+Copy&utm_medium=Share&utm_source=JibJab&cmpid=jj_url
sorry poynt, i'm sure you wanted to keep that hidden... :D
Quote175ml of water was heated 14.4C in 3 hours taking .9766867Watts to do that, but the heating circuit used only .43885Watts to do it.
Astounding. Gmeast can achieve precision to the tenth of a microWatt. Why, that is ten thousand times better than MOAC, which can measure to the milliWatt in good conditions-- and it is considered to be one of the world's most precise bulk calorimeters in civilian labs.
Either that.... or his numbers are wrong. After all, in the other part he is saying .43885 Watts is the actual value. A hundredth of a milliWatt precision, only 100 times better than MOAC can achieve after a week of stabilization and calibration. Not .43884, or .43886, or even what I might say, "About 0.4 Watts". So if the actual value is NOT found to be 0.43885 Watts exactly.... his numbers are wrong.
Someone should remind this scientific researcher gmeast, experienced as he is, that the result of his computations cannot possibly be more precise than the LEAST PRECISE of his measurements. Sig digs and all that there neat stuff.
A tenth of a microWatt precision in the answer ... when the temperature rise is specified to the tenth of a degree C and the water quantity to the nearest milliLiter... if that.
I laugh in my coffee... all eight ounces of it.
Now.... does he mean that it took 3 hours for his insulated load cell to increase the temperature of 175 mL of water by 14.4 degrees C?
It takes (14.4 degrees x 175 mL) = 2520 Joules to heat that water that much. 3 hours is 10800 seconds, and a Watt is a Joule per Second, so the average power needed simply to heat the water is 2520 Joules PER 10800 seconds, or 2520/10800 = about a quarter of a Watt average, over the entire period. (or 0.233333333..... Watt if you prefer.)
The circuit, according to gmeast's measurements, took 0.43885 Watt to do it ( measured to the hundredth of a milliWatt how? ), for a heating efficiency of 0.23333/0.43885 or a little over 50 percent. Most of the losses probably occur in the mosfet itself, and through the insulation of the load cell.
Where did gmeast's " .9766867Watt to do that" (sic) number come from, can anyone tell me? Is this a calibrated measurement?
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 29, 2012, 01:05:12 AM
0.23333/0.43885 or a little over 50 percent.
Where did gmeast's " .9766867Watt to do that" (sic) number come from, can anyone tell me? Is this a calibrated measurement?
Looks like GM knows how to use a calculator. ;]
MaGs
The only way I can see that figure being in some way correct, is if 0.97-blah-blah is the calculated instantaneous power during the on phase of his duty cycle, making his duty cycle ~25%. That would let him arrive at the correct total energy required for that increase in temp.? Very hard to tell from the phrasing used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolomite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diorite
Can't you be more specific, .99? Just where, exactly, is Ainslie wrong?
???
And three months of careful and patient explanation, poynt by carefully argued poynt, are gone ... like tears in rain.
Look, if you shut up and read the thesis you might learn something; these particles travel faster than the speed of light, right, so naturally we can't see 'em, yeah, because photons can't catch them, OK? And presumably the bit about head-on and side-on collisions never happening is in the pipeline.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 26, 2012, 11:57:20 PM
I too initally believed gmeast to be acting in good faith and to be a person of integrity, since he quickly identified the problem with the 555 timer published, and never corrected, by Ainslie so long ago in the Quantum magazine article.
But after this latest, I see that I was mistaken. He resorts to the same kind of lying misrepresentation and claims without reference, the same kinds of self-contradiction, the same kinds of personal insults and innuendo as his mentor.
Nobody except Ainslie is blocked from replying directly to this "tread", unless Stefan has blocked them for some reason of his own.
Now... just where have I suggested that gmeast is in error for using "PWM percentages to define his power percentages?" I'd like to see a link to the precise place I said that and just how I may have said it..... since I've carried out tutorials on just how to use digital oscilloscopes and their math functions including live realtime integration of instantaneous power curves to give total energy integrals.........
And surely gmeast knows that only people who are registered on that forum are allowed to see the images... unlike here, where all is revealed to everyone who is curious.
And I'm also wondering just where anyone insulted gmeast personally yet. But we can certainly start, if that's how he wants to play.
Even though he has now revealed himself as a bigoted, sexist, bloviating idiot liar who contradicts himself then whines about it later trying to change the meaning. 'NOT MORE THAN 0.8 VOLTS'.... well, if it was not more than, say 0.7 volts, or not more than 0.78 volts.... why not say that then? Gmeast reported a voltage drop of 0.8 volts on his 24 volt battery supply, plain and simple, and now he's trying to weasel out of that report.
The facts remain:
Gmeast found that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article did not perform as claimed.
Gmeast is not using the circuit published by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not using an equivalent load to that used by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not operating at the same frequency as Ainslie.
And so on. In short, he has actually refuted Ainslie's claims in the Quantum article by NOT BEING ABLE to reproduce her effects using the published circuit, or even another circuit operating at the claimed duty cycle and frequency of the Quantum article. He has reported these facts and then he has proceeded to allow distortions of the interpretation of these facts to proceed unchecked. The Quantum circuit has no diode, no mosfet gate driver, and has a timer that produces a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load. This is not the circuit gmeast is testing or reporting on.
Hi guys,
I've just built what was easiest for me to build. I can't afford any expensive scopes or analyzers, nor will any companies loan one to me. I built a real nice digital Poly-Phase PWM for the work I was doing with Bob Boyce's 3-Phase Toroid self-battery-charging thingy that Johan, down in South Africa got the world excited about ... and me too. It hasn't worked out because Johan has hushed up (it was supposed to be an open-source effort ....NOT) and Bob Boyce has stopped emailing clues as to how it 'really works'. I just got interested in the Ainslie thing because I have a good PWM, and a working engineering knowledge of most things, and I can solder. I've come to the conclusion that it is very hard to use electrical power, then through some means of conversion, or alteration, turn it back into another usable form of electricity with a gain. But ... I truly believe that there can be a Heat-Equivalent Gain in a system ... that is 'Apples IN, and Oranges OUT instead of Apples IN and Apples OUT.
I'm actually setting out to do very much what Rosemary did initially with the (what I call) the Equilibrium Heat Loss Test. But, I will first characterize my batteries as part of the test regime and run my new heater tests within the margins of the batteries' discharge curves. I will not try and determine power into the system using 'power shunt' calculations although they can be valid if you know how to deal with current lag and so on. My circuit is the same as the one shown in the 2009 publication. It shows a 'recovery diode' in that publication ... you guys call it a "flyback diode" ... as if you guys really know what "flyback" means in engineering terms. BUT ... there is one main difference with my hardware ... I'm running my PWM and FET Gate Driver off of the 'bottom battery of my 24V stack (2 x 12V x 7Ah SLA batteries). There will be NO chance for arguing power 'somehow' entering the system from a separate control circuit source such as a function generator.
Regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 29, 2012, 01:05:12 AM
Now.... does he mean that it took 3 hours for his insulated load cell to increase the temperature of 175 mL of water by 14.4 degrees C?
It takes (14.4 degrees x 175 mL) = 2520 Joules to heat that water that much. 3 hours is 10800 seconds, and a Watt is a Joule per Second, so the average power needed simply to heat the water is 2520 Joules PER 10800 seconds, or 2520/10800 = about a quarter of a Watt average, over the entire period. (or 0.233333333..... Watt if you prefer.)
The circuit, according to gmeast's measurements, took 0.43885 Watt to do it ( measured to the hundredth of a milliWatt how? ), for a heating efficiency of 0.23333/0.43885 or a little over 50 percent. Most of the losses probably occur in the mosfet itself, and through the insulation of the load cell.
Where did gmeast's " .9766867Watt to do that" (sic) number come from, can anyone tell me? Is this a calibrated measurement?
Well, a lurking poster nfeijo is on the ball, and has pointed out that I forgot to multiply the "calorie" figure from gmeast's report by 4.184 to convert to Joules.
So the math becomes 2520 Calories x 4.184 Joules per Calorie = 10544 Joules, so over the 10800 seconds we do arrive at a figure of around 0.98 Watt average power necessary "in theory" to accomplish the heating. Yet gmeast found that his circuit used less than half that much to do the trick. Do we know the details of how his experimental measurement was obtained?
My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted.
And thank you, Gmeast, for posting your information here. It makes it a lot easier to interpret when we have all the data.
You do realise, I hope, that the circuit you are working with is not the circuit Ainslie used for the Quantum article. And of course the frequencies and duty cycles you are using are nothing like what she claimed to use.
QuoteMy circuit is the same as the one shown in the 2009 publication.
What 2009 publication? Ainslie has one real publication, and that is the Quantum magazine article, which used.... according to her.... the circuit below. No diode. The diode only showed up when the original circuit was analyzed and it was demonstrated not to work as claimed. And where are the mosfet gate driver chips in any circuit Ainslie has ever claimed to have used?
I am puzzled about the scope traces though. The displayed "numbers in boxes" don't seem to agree very well with what the trace shows.
I count about 19 full cycles in 6 horizontal divisions, at 0.5 microsecond per division. This gives me 19/0.000003 or about 6.33 MegaHertz for the oscillation frequency.
Am I making a silly math error again?
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 31, 2012, 11:33:25 PM
Well, a lurking poster nfeijo is on the ball, and has pointed out that I forgot to multiply the "calorie" figure from gmeast's report by 4.184 to convert to Joules.
So the math becomes 2520 Calories x 4.184 Joules per Calorie = 10544 Joules, so over the 10800 seconds we do arrive at a figure of around 0.98 Watt average power necessary "in theory" to accomplish the heating. Yet gmeast found that his circuit used less than half that much to do the trick. Do we know the details of how his experimental measurement was obtained?
My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted.
And thank you, Gmeast, for posting your information here. It makes it a lot easier to interpret when we have all the data.
You do realise, I hope, that the circuit you are working with is not the circuit Ainslie used for the Quantum article. And of course the frequencies and duty cycles you are using are nothing like what she claimed to use.
What 2009 publication? Ainslie has one real publication, and that is the Quantum magazine article, which used.... according to her.... the circuit below. No diode. The diode only showed up when the original circuit was analyzed and it was demonstrated not to work as claimed. And where are the mosfet gate driver chips in any circuit Ainslie has ever claimed to have used?
I know more than you hope I know. I'm not shooting for an exact replication ... I never claimed to be. I'm investigating the possibility of a "Heat-Equivalent Gain" from an electrical system. That's it. Rosemary's investigation seem the best place to start ... or carry on from. I had no place to start until this 'Inductive Heating Element" approach passed under my nose. I have my own twist is all.
In the 2002 Quantum Mag article there is NO diode. I never could get that to work. Ainslie never claimed to use any gate driver chips. Only I have because I have not been completely successful with the 555 circuit, only with my digital PWM and driver chip. My PWM and UCC27322 driver chip takes about 1/4 (or so) the power of the 555 circuit anyway. Who would want to use the 555?
If my investigation(s) can substantiate her theories (which are way over my head - by the way) I'm glad to have been of some help.
You will find the 2009 Publication on my FTP space. I just put it up there for you. It seems to be a re-cap of the 2002 Quantum article but I really don't know anything else about it. I found it on a search while doing my homework before starting all of this.
Here's the address for the 2009:
http://02d1852.netsolhost.com/radiant/Heater/electric_heater_experiment.pdf (http://02d1852.netsolhost.com/radiant/Heater/electric_heater_experiment.pdf)
Regards.
Quote from: gmeast on September 01, 2012, 12:22:24 AM
I know more than you hope I know.
In the 2002 Quantum Mag article there is NO diode. I never could get that to work. Ainslie never claimed to use any gate driver chips. Only I have because I have not been completely successful with the 555 circuit, only with my digital PWM and driver chip. My PWM and UCC27322 driver chip takes about 1/4 (or so) the power of the 555 circuit anyway. Who would want to use the 555?
Hey Gm
Not bustin your chops, but, cmos 555 is VERY efficient. at 5v 50ua yes micro amps
At 12v 150ua max 400ua All less than 1ma Thats pretty good in my book. ;]
Also they handle up to 3mhz vs the regular 555
Now you know more than ever. ;]
MaGs
Actually, a 555 charges up a capacitor and discharges it through a resistor wasting ALL the energy into heat.
In my book that does not even come close to the word efficient.
But it is needed for the timing interval.
If you ask me a 12f629 would be much better since it times by counting clock pulses.
It is MUCH more accurate too and it is a lot easier to set the frequency, you do not have to replace any components just adjust the code or even add up and down buttons.
Quote from: ionizer on September 01, 2012, 01:03:33 AM
Actually, a 555 charges up a capacitor and discharges it through a resistor wasting ALL the energy into heat.
In my book that does not even come close to the word efficient.
But it is needed for the timing interval.
Lol the cmos555 uses much smaller caps than normal 555. Here is a data sheet for ya.
Im not against pwm chips. I just wanted to clarify that the cmos 555 is a fine circuit. Using 2 of these LMC555, we are still below GM's claim that his 2 ICs use 1/4 of the power of a 555. Using 2 lmc555, 1 as a freq oscillator and on as the pwm(shown below) using 12v input, these 2 chips would consume 300ua to 800ua max.
12v/.8ma = 9.6mw = 2 lmc555 max
So what is your pwm IC spec for power consumed at 12v?
Its not a real big deal, but GMs statement might be misleading. 555 is not a useless IC.
MaGs
here is the data sheet and the pwm from the pdf that i posted on above,
MaGs
Gmeast.... thank you for proving my point. Your work was unable to make her circuit given in the Quantum magazine article work as claimed.
Now.... I hope you are aware of the prevarication that Ainslie indulges in with respect to her schematics.
Please note the description given for the schematic in the pdf you just linked. I have attached it below as an image. You can see, I hope, that she represents this NEW schematic, containing the diode, as the circuit used in the experiment reported in the Quantum magazine article. Is the diode a significant difference, do you think? Which report of the experiment do you think is correct? When do you think people started working with a diode in that position? Are you even aware at all of my work, or Glen's work, or .99's work, with that circuit, with and without the diode?
And in the present case, the 5 mosfet circuit, there have been no less than FIVE different schematics claimed to have been used, and even now there are two different schematics given, in the two papers "published" on Rossi's JNP.
Just to drive the point home: In the 2009 "publication" you have linked, Ainslie claims to have used the circuit including the diode. Yet this diode was NOT in fact used in the original experiment, nor does it appear in the schematic given in the Quantum publication.
You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality. You put words in people's mouths. You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone. Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that. At least the world had the opportunity to see this:
"
My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted."
I bet that's the first time in your life that anyone in the entire world has ever heard the word "apology" come from your mouth.
Have fun with yourselves. I'm going surfing. The sun is shining and the waves are breaking nicely.
@gm
The response to discussion of the 555 was couched in appropriate terms. If you feel the sentence was misleading WRT your opinion, you can say so, and I believe you'll see that point accepted, explicitly clarified, and I dare say apologised for if it's something you're particularly sensitive about.
So far you've been treated with nothing but courtesy; it's difficult to see what prompts your grawlix.
Quote from: gmeast on September 01, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality. You put words in people's mouths. You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone. Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that.
Have fun with yourselves. I'm going surfing. The sun is shining and the waves are breaking nicely.
This is what you said GM ....
"My PWM and UCC27322 driver chip takes about 1/4 (or so) the power of the 555 circuit anyway. Who would want to use the 555? "
Ok,maybe 'useless' was not the best interpretation.
Your evaluation of the 555 being inefficient is simply not true. ;] But you are inferring that others should use something else instead, when in reality, the cmos 555's can be configured to produce a very high quality PWM circuit, with a ton of ways to customize, and can work very efficiently, contrary to your beliefs.
Dont play the Rose card and be stubborn to things you can learn from others. From what we can see, you are many levels above Rose technically. =] As of late, I see that most people are above her level. It can be detected in most all of her posts. You will see this sooner or later. All you have to do is open your eyes. ;]
Surfing? East coast (GMeast)? My brother lives in Vero. Im in Ft laud. I can tell ya, Yes the sun is shining. I cant take the heat like I used to. Or maybe Ive never been in this kind of heat. ;]
There were probably good waves earlier this week from Issac.
MaGs
Quote from: gmeast on September 01, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality. You put words in people's mouths. You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone. Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that. At least the world had the opportunity to see this:
"
My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted."
I bet that's the first time in your life that anyone in the entire world has ever heard the word "apology" come from your mouth.
Have fun with yourselves. I'm going surfing. The sun is shining and the waves are breaking nicely.
Well.... there you have it. Insults and disparagement from the holier-than-thou gmeast. Who isn't doing an "exact replication" or even a replication at all... .he's doing something completely different.
He actually has the temerity to criticise ME for CORRECTING MY MISTAKE.... but he conveniently ignores EVERY INSTANCE OF AINSLIE'S UNCORRECTED ERRORS, LIES AND MISREPRESENTATONS.... and to top it off, he actually refers to one of her
lies as support for what he's doing: the schematic in the 2009 document.
Hey...gmeast..... you really should be doing your homework. Here's a suggestion: Find out just why that diode suddenly appeared in Ainslie's schematics. Find out who first used a diode there.
And no, you lying idiot GMEAST: I've issued apologies before, in the rare instances when I am shown to be wrong due to a mistake I've made. But.... look back and tell me please, just how long it took before Ainslie acknowledged and apologised for..... AND CORRECTED...... her 555 timer circuit published in 2002. How long did it take for her to acknowledge AND CORRECT the schematics given for the present 5-mosfet circuit? How about her wonderfully creative math? Examples.... uncorrected and unapologised for and misleading examples.... of Ainslie's ridiculous math abound. Not only does she not correct them and revise the conclusions based on them, she CANNOT correct them because she doesn't even grasp the simplest concepts of algebra... or intellectual honesty.
Why does GMEAST dodge the actual questions about his own fiddling: How was the power figure obtained, showing the working and the measurements? What is the actual frequency of the oscillations, and why does the scope give the wrong value? Why do the oscillations not persist as Ainslie claimed they did in her circuit? Why is he NOT using the timer and components specified? Because they DON'T WORK? Where is Ainslie's correction, retraction and apology for perpetrating this FRAUD -- the Quantum circuit -- on her readers? And even on Gmeast himself, who had to waste his time building a KNOWN INCORRECT circuit to find out for himself, because AINSLIE CONCEALED INFORMATION, even from him......
Can you imagine the furor if it had been ME, publishing that diagram and insisting that it was correct and concealing information that others had found it not to be correct?
But who cares, after all. Gmeast is NOT replicating anything Ainslie has ever done. He's using part of a schematic that she "published" as a lying attempt to make some people believe that she had a circuit that worked, instead of what was ACTUALLY PUBLISHED IN THE ONLY REAL PUBLICATION. And he's using some other components that Ainslie never used nor even heard of: gate drivers and capacitors and etc.
His "work" is irrelevant and his attitude sucks. All he's got is a great pair of blinders, so he doesn't have to look at the huge Polly Parrot and all of her UNCORRECTED and UNAPOLOGISED FOR mistakes, errors, and outright lies.
He seemed to come with his mind made up about the reception he would receive and then acted as if he'd actually received it, as opposed to a handful of polite questions and observations, and on-topic technical questions.
Sadly mistaken if he thinks this reflects badly on anyone but himself.
Quote from: gmeast on September 01, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality. You put words in people's mouths. You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone. Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that. At least the world had the opportunity to see this:
"
Wow Greg ! ???
Personally I've never ran with any pack, I do question opportunist with banners of dubitable intentions. If you can't manage a TRUE scientific
"REPLICATION" of a device, that's not mine or anyone else's problem but the experimentalist doing the work. I must emphasize that the "CORRECT" terminology should be used to be more explicit in all meanings so there is no confusion on anyones part.
I'm glad to
"FINALLY" see that Rosemary has hired a professional "article" writer / composer whom advertises in the new forum you seem to be so fond of, maybe he can help you all
"OVER THERE". ::)
FTC
;)
@ Greg ( gmeast )
If your having trouble with the "Quantum 2002" circuit there is a available option but everyone else known hasn't had any luck. Now that your under Rosemary's wing maybe she'll release what is claimed to be as indicated in her possession ....
http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html) 07-13-2009, 07:52 AM
Quote
Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.
So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.
I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.
So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.
What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.
Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.
I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. :o
Rosemary's quote is quite specific that she has a "Quantum 2002" device that has a claimed COP>17 efficiency of operation ( using a flyback diode ? ) ..... she is withholding 100% all the required information to replicate the device or she's a liar and doesn't have said device with any COP>17 not even a COP<1 . ::)
Of course .... you are a member also at "Energetic Forum" so you should already know the history there on this I assume. ;)
FTC
:)
There is a lot more prevarication and mendacity from Ainslie in that post.
I ask you all to consider this. Take a random 555 timer circuit and some "mistaken" timing caps and resistors. Assemble it and test the frequency range and duty cycle.
Does your random circuit make the EXACT INVERSE of the duty cycle claimed to have been used in the Quantum paper? Of course not. Perhaps Ainslie and her sycophants do not realize that the caps and resistors of a 555 timer circuit are CALCULATED based on desired performance parameters. A simple "error" would NOT result in an exact inverted cycle.... these values were deliberately calculated to result in the duty cycle attained: one which would make the mosfet DRAIN voltage be HIGH only 3.7 percent of the time. In other words, a fundamental conceptual error guided the design of the 555 timer switch and carried all through the subsequent work of Ainslie and her sycophants. Even in some discussions of the present, 5 mosfet circuit she makes the same error.... which is why there are no Drain voltage traces shown in most of Ainslie's current claims. She cannot understand why the Drain voltage is LOW when the circuit's load is receiving power and goes back to battery voltage when the mosfet gate signal is LOW.
The story about the 555 timer circuit that she told in that quoted post is a complete lie. She used the circuit that is given in the Quantum article, it makes the exact inverted duty cycle, and it gives a 3.7 percent HI voltage at the mosfet drain. This is what made Ainslie, and most of the "replicators" at Energetic Forum, think that the mosfet and the load were ON for only 3.7 percent of the time..... they did not and in some cases STILL do not understand that in the circuit as given, when the mosfet drain voltage is HIGH the mosfet, and the load, are OFF.
Ainslie did use the timer circuit given in the Quantum article .... which can be seen easily by anyone else who does it..... because her load temperature profiles correspond very accurately to a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load, given by the 555 timer as used in the circuit, and as we know her claims about battery recharging are simply not true.
QuoteSo, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.
She claims the "feedback diode" was "in the apparatus".
Yet when she began the present set of "experiments" using a single mosfet, in an attempt to repeat her earlier work... before anyone even conceived of the 5 mosfet system...... there is no "feedback diode" in evidence.
And in several "revised" schematics she presented in 2009 .... there is no recirculation diode in the schematic.
There was no diode used by Ainslie in the Quantum circuit. There is no evidence to support her claim and there is plenty of evidence that refutes it.
TIE? EIT? IET? Whatever.... In this "rewrite" of the Quantum article, which also gives some of Glen's results, the only diodes mentioned are the ones in the 555 circuit and the mosfet's body diode.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html)
Ainslie simply lies when she claims that a recirculation/flyback/feedback diode was used in the original Quantum article. Nor was any used or claimed by her until well after the hard work in 2009 of replicators like Glen, .99, and..... me. It doesn't even appear in the EIT submission made in 2010.
Quote from: Magluvin on September 01, 2012, 01:34:45 AM
Lol the cmos555 uses much smaller caps than normal 555. Here is a data sheet for ya.
Im not against pwm chips. I just wanted to clarify that the cmos 555 is a fine circuit. Using 2 of these LMC555, we are still below GM's claim that his 2 ICs use 1/4 of the power of a 555. Using 2 lmc555, 1 as a freq oscillator and on as the pwm(shown below) using 12v input, these 2 chips would consume 300ua to 800ua max.
12v/.8ma = 9.6mw = 2 lmc555 max
So what is your pwm IC spec for power consumed at 12v?
Its not a real big deal, but GMs statement might be misleading. 555 is not a useless IC.
MaGs
Offcource this does not change the fact that it still is wasting energy by discharging the cap onto a resistor.
That just isn't right.
Micro's usually run somwhere between 3,3 and 5 volts but as you know the operating current depends on the frequency and i don't see any in your example.
Anyway the 12f629 has a operating current of 100
uA @ 1 MHz, 2.0V
Thats
micro amps and not milli amps !
I do have something against 555 as oscillator or pwm they drift and they are not suitable for such application.
They also effect each other when they are placed on the same supply rail due to the RF noise they generate.
They are good for delay timers and led flashlights but not as high speed oscillator or pwm.
I'm not saying it's a bad chip but choose the right component for the right application.
A digital uc with a crystal clock is about the best you can get and it is programmable to do whatever you want it to do and the price good too.
Quote from: ionizer on September 01, 2012, 08:34:05 PM
Offcource this does not change the fact that it still is wasting energy by discharging the cap onto a resistor.
That just isn't right.
Micro's usually run somwhere between 3,3 and 5 volts but as you know the operating current depends on the frequency and i don't see any in your example.
Anyway the 12f629 has a operating current of 100uA @ 1 MHz, 2.0V
Thats micro amps and not milli amps !
I do have something against 555 as oscillator or pwm they drift and they are not suitable for such application.
They also effect each other when they are placed on the same supply rail due to the RF noise they generate.
They are good for delay timers and led flashlights but not as high speed oscillator or pwm.
I'm not saying it's a bad chip but choose the right component for the right application.
A digital uc with a crystal clock is about the best you can get and it is programmable to do whatever you want it to do and the price good too.
The cmos 555 consumes 50ua at 1.5v. using 2 of them = 100ua, typically.
Your IC 100uA @2v= 200uW
2 cmos 555 IC's 100ua @1.5v= 150uW
Your IC uses 50 uW more than my 2 555's
Man, you are losing soo much energy using that thing, that your IC just might be the cause of global warming. ;] lol
Stop sweating the small things. ;]
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on September 01, 2012, 09:29:36 PM
The cmos 555 consumes 50ua at 1.5v. using 2 of them = 100ua, typically.
Your IC 100uA @2v= 200uW
2 cmos 555 IC's 100ua @1.5v= 150uW
MaGs
At what frequency?
I hope your not comparing your 1 shot 555 'all switches open' to my uc running at 1 MHz cos that ain't fair bro.
Yep that 12f629 is a winner. Im checking them out as I may have a use for this.
I didnt realize it was a PIC. So whats that mean @1mhz, as it says it runs at 20mhz? Is the running freq variable?
The data sheet is long and also other info is necessary, downloading.
MaGs
Sorry to interrupt...... but let's see if we can decode this latest from the Red Queen Ainslie.
She now appears, in her convoluted way, to be standing by her retraction of her acknowledgement that the Quantum circuit is in error. In other words, if I am following this, she is NOW CLAIMING yet again that the Quantum circuit is CORRECT and that it does not make the inverted duty cycle from the claimed values.
Well, this is easy to check isn't it. In fact many people HAVE checked it. Even, as I recall... GMEAST has checked it.
I am just shaking my head over this. This is truly madness. Anyone can build that circuit, many people have built it, I've built it myself several times, it can be simulated..... and it always does just what I say it does and just the opposite of what Ainslie thinks it does.
It is impossible to argue with a MADWOMAN. She cannot even get her own story straight, and she will cheerfully tell you the sky is green if that is what her zipon delusion requires, and if you think it's blue, shame on you, check the Wiki, it's right there, the sky is green.
The standard of "professionalism" we all ought to aim for ??? :
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg3290.html#msg3290
QuoteA sad little troll was Magsy the poor
little sod who crossed the line on the floor
To knock for admission inside the door
Where he asked if troll membership still needed more.
He then said what he could still bring to the table
Was a knowledge of circuitry where he was able
To advance the pretense of that scurrilous stable
That the unity barrier collapse was a fable
Though crowded the trolls said 'Pull up a chair.
Your knowledge is rank and your language is spare.
You're thin on IQ and you seem not to care
Which are precisely those talents that we hold most dear.'
So Magsy the man became MaGsy the mouse
The troll who lived in that rather soiled house
as an intern for schooling to learn how a souse
Can devolve from a troll to a lousy louse.
Rosie Pose
An FYI for all:
It's just come to my attention that member "ionizer" is "IST".
Polly put the diode on
Polly put the diode on
Polly put the diode on
Breach unity.
Quickly take it off again
Quickly take it off again
Quickly take it off again
It's all gone away.
Who is this Rose that thinks she's beyond us
She has probably claimed to be a lover of the great Mohondus
Presenting circuits so simple that all can replicate
But none have proven her work even up to this date
For those that refute her she has a poem for all
To gloss over her lies and insidious gall
Ten years have gone by and she still has nothing
After all that time you'd think she's learned something
From batteries to mosfets she has no clue
She believes her own lies as if they were true
There once was a time I thought she was a friend
But she turned on me with means to no end
She seemed so nice I gave her what I could
Defending her blindly defending the good
Beware to all who read here the truths are on these pages
Rose is simply crazy and has been for ages
MaGsY
Quote from: poynt99 on September 02, 2012, 11:17:32 AM
An FYI for all:
It's just come to my attention that member "ionizer" is "IST".
I have remembered that the quest of an evolvingape can become a quest for a devolvingape when purposefully led astray by evil in the shadows...
http://americantrollsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/most-wanted-list.html
http://barbergp.com/1078/oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-when-first-we-practise-to-deceive/
http://www.sweetliberty.org/wolves.htm
http://www.granddelusion.com/category/controlled-opposition/
http://www.savethemales.ca/is_alex_jones_controlled_oppos.html
http://www.truthin7minutes.com/controlled-opposition-how-to-spot-a-fake-leader
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/its-official-anonymous-hackers-are-now.html
How much of the illusion do you believe is real ?
American Troll Society !! Precious, I am lolling all rotf.
http://americantrollsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/most-wanted-list.html
Who made that site?
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on September 03, 2012, 12:08:21 PM
http://americantrollsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/most-wanted-list.html (http://americantrollsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/most-wanted-list.html)
Who made that site?
MaGs
No idea dude, it was not me.
Quote from: evolvingape on September 03, 2012, 12:54:17 PM
No idea dude, it was not me.
This was all around 2010. The only thing back then that I can think of was possibly Mylow posts that could have earned me any troll status to someone. I remember Sterling not liking my comments and posts on Mylow at the time.
I remember seeing this before, but cant remember why it was done. No biggy. Just buggin on my mind.
Mags
The ATS site is clearly a spoof. From context I think that it's "TheBuzz" who made it, but I don't really know.
It's a great idea though... with the proper marketing, there should be lots of money coming in from T-shirt, coffeemug, stickers, and licence certificate sales.
Well..... it looks like _ALL_ of the effort and patient explanation that .99 has been doing has been exactly for nought. Ainslie actually believes that SHE has refuted all of .99's arguments thus far, and will continue to do so when she manages to show some of the testing she's been promising for the past year or more.
And you've got to watch out for that 45 ohms of inductive capacitance.... there is no telling what that will do to your argument, .99.......
What's a knight in shining armor to do, in such a corrosive atmosphere?
:-[
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 03, 2012, 06:49:21 PM
Well..... it looks like _ALL_ of the effort and patient explanation that .99 has been doing has been exactly for nought. Ainslie actually believes that SHE has refuted all of .99's arguments thus far, and will continue to do so when she manages to show some of the testing she's been promising for the past year or more.
And you've got to watch out for that 45 ohms of inductive capacitance.... there is no telling what that will do to your argument, .99.......
What's a knight in shining armor to do, in such a corrosive atmosphere?
:-[
Well .....
It would appear .99 needs to trade up in his present armor to something more suitable for handling Rosemary now .......
http://approvedgasmasks.com/suit-TK645.htm ???
FTC
:)
Quote from: poynt99 on September 02, 2012, 11:17:32 AM
An FYI for all:
It's just come to my attention that member "ionizer" is "IST".
You are mistaken.
I am not IST.
Quote from: ionizer on September 04, 2012, 12:51:01 AM
I am not IST.
I rather doubt that William.
Shall I post that PM you sent me? It has IST written all over it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 03, 2012, 06:31:04 PM
The ATS site is clearly a spoof. From context I think that it's "TheBuzz" who made it, but I don't really know.
Yes, it was "TheBuzz" (only one of several names he used here).
It is no spoof, this guy is serious and highly demented.
Hey, .99...
Did Ainslie ever bother to tell you what those mystery special resistors are, that were sent to her by her USA laboratory that confirmed that her batteries DO discharge, using her own exact apparatus?
Maybe they are special ones, with extra low inductive capacitance ohmage.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 04, 2012, 10:50:41 AM
Hey, .99...
Did Ainslie ever bother to tell you what those mystery special resistors are, that were sent to her by her USA laboratory that confirmed that her batteries DO discharge, using her own exact apparatus?
No, unfortunately she skirted around that question.
I'd like to know why she is asking me these technical questions though, when she clearly rejects everything I have to say. I've advised her to ask her collaborators and experts to explain these things. After all, if they are indeed experts etc. why ask me? ???
Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency.
And as far as her "experts" go.... I'm sure that when she starts arguing with them about her "45 ohms of inductive capacitance" they nod sagely, drink up, check their watches and flee, late for their next appointments.
She has just been toying with you all this time, only pretending to understand and pretending to see your poynts. She thinks she's backed you into a corner... when really she's still at Square One, and has made zero progress in understanding anything at all. Her most recent posts seem to indicate that she is still confused about the phase relationship between voltage and current in an AC circuit! And I'd bet that she is still also confused about the relationship between the mosfet Drain voltage and the applied gate signal in her circuit, as well as still not realizing or acknowledging that the mosfets have a linear operation range where they do not act as a simple switch. She certainly doesn't understand how amplifiers can produce feedback oscillations.
In short.... we have been arguing with a madwoman, who neither understands nor cares what "team classical" has to say, who simply ignores facts, and who is so arrogant that she will not humble herself to take instruction from anyone. There are no collaborators left and she consults with no experts.... as the recent capacitor purchase indicates.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 04, 2012, 02:51:18 PM
Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency.
And as far as her "experts" go.... I'm sure that when she starts arguing with them about her "45 ohms of inductive capacitance" they nod sagely, drink up, check their watches and flee, late for their next appointments.
"Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency."
Thats for certain. I wonder if GM agrees with that terminology? Or anyone on her site? :o But your right, she is all alone in this, saddly, or there would be at least a small percentage of what she says that could be found in books, but just about none of it is. I wonder who created her circuits for her?
As for the mosfets being switches, they can be, transistors also, just at lower freq. But in her case, the sig gen just turns on and off the oscillation, and the oscillation happening back and forth between the mosfets is not a square wave like a switch being turned on and off.
"45 ohms of inductive capacitance"
Lol Where does she get this stuff? It must be in the book that shows how to detect and measure zippons with standard equipment. I havnt been able to find a copy of that book yet. Still looking. :o
MaGsy
Quote from: poynt99 on September 04, 2012, 12:48:03 PM
No, unfortunately she skirted around that question.
I'd like to know why she is asking me these technical questions though, when she clearly rejects everything I have to say. I've advised her to ask her collaborators and experts to explain these things. After all, if they are indeed experts etc. why ask me? ???
Absolutely. They cant be all of her ineptitude. You have been doing an excellent job. ;] You have exuded professionalism. ;] Its a shame to say, but you have job security on this one, thats for sure. ;]
The never ending ending. ;D
Mags
Hi all,
This is to funny, but a new member over there at Rosemary's personal blog/forum has a revaluation that if her experimental data is correct that it would prove Ed Leedskalnins (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Leedskalnin) work. :o
For several years now a "David Lambright" (link) (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5690-gravity-waves-found.html)has made some YouTube videos (link) (http://www.youtube.com/user/potatoheadist)of a device he has created, that was supposably duplicated by our Rosemary at Energetic Forum as "Witsend" in her thread postings and was trying to attach her zipnot THESIS too it. I personally could never see any connection, maybe someone else can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMMFMz-ZUMg&list=UUGLr6nPVdiEdtit9AswkV8Q&index=60&feature=plcp ( Rosemary Ainslie aka Witsend referenced @ 2:58 ) ???
FTC
;)
I think Dave must have gotten hold of some bad acid and it fried his visual system. I hope he doesn't drive much.
Here's something you'll never see from David Lambright: A controlled, blinded test. Let a disinterested third party set up a box, and either put the distortion maker in it, or not. Then let David look and see his distortion plumes and fields. Can he reliably detect when the distortion producer is active, when he can't see or manipulate the device itself? I will wager that he cannot.... and also that this simple test using the Theory of Signal Detection will never be performed.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 05, 2012, 12:57:33 PM
I think Dave must have gotten hold of some bad acid and it fried his visual system. I hope he doesn't drive much.
Here's something you'll never see from David Lambright: A controlled, blinded test. Let a disinterested third party set up a box, and either put the distortion maker in it, or not. Then let David look and see his distortion plumes and fields. Can he reliably detect when the distortion producer is active, when he can't see or manipulate the device itself? I will wager that he cannot.... and also that this simple test using the Theory of Signal Detection will never be performed.
This is the only person some time ago that has inquired about a demonstration on my
web site (link) (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/Home.html) to show the visual effects of his device. He does live less than 50 miles from me but I offered to wait until he had something more concrete because of the difficulty showing this effect on all his YouTube presentations. ???
FTC
;)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on September 05, 2012, 02:17:33 PM
This is the only person some time ago that has inquired about a demonstration on my web site (link) (http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/Home.html) to show the visual effects of his device. He does live less than 50 miles from me but I offered to wait until he had something more concrete because of the difficulty showing this effect on all his YouTube presentations. ???
FTC
;)
He doesn't have to show it so anyone else can see it.... just make him prove that HE can see it himself, by doing the blinded test. First, let him set the distorter in the box himself, and confirm that the box doesn't interfere with him seeing the distortion above the box. Then you decide, by flipping a coin, whether actually to put the distorter in the box or not, with him not knowing which is which. Then let him tell you if he sees the distortion, or not. Do this a number of times, say, 20, with 10 trials in each condition.
You will then have 4 scores to consider: HIT, MISS, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection.
A Hit is when the distorter is present, and he sees the distortion.
A Miss is when the distorter is present but he fails to see the distortion.
A False Alarm is when the distorter is absent but he sees the distortion.
A Correct Rejection is when the distorter is absent and he does not see any distortion.
So if he simply says "I see it" on every trial, he will of course have 100 percent correct performance on the trials where the device was present.... but he will also have a 100 percent False Alarm rate.... which means he is completely unable actually to make the discrimination, even though he might be "correct" on all trials where the distorter is there.
There is a lot more detail that comes out of the four TSD scores too, in a real setting. For a simple experiment, it can really reveal a lot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 05, 2012, 03:07:19 PM
He doesn't have to show it so anyone else can see it.... just make him prove that HE can see it himself, by doing the blinded test. First, let him set the distorter in the box himself, and confirm that the box doesn't interfere with him seeing the distortion above the box. Then you decide, by flipping a coin, whether actually to put the distorter in the box or not, with him not knowing which is which. Then let him tell you if he sees the distortion, or not. Do this a number of times, say, 20, with 10 trials in each condition.
You will then have 4 scores to consider: HIT, MISS, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection.
A Hit is when the distorter is present, and he sees the distortion.
A Miss is when the distorter is present but he fails to see the distortion.
A False Alarm is when the distorter is absent but he sees the distortion.
A Correct Rejection is when the distorter is absent and he does not see any distortion.
So if he simply says "I see it" on every trial, he will of course have 100 percent correct performance on the trials where the device was present.... but he will also have a 100 percent False Alarm rate.... which means he is completely unable actually to make the discrimination, even though he might be "correct" on all trials where the distorter is there.
There is a lot more detail that comes out of the four TSD scores too, in a real setting. For a simple experiment, it can really reveal a lot.
Hey Tk, I never thought of this kind of testing that you've outlined because of the possibility of actually catching the optical distortions for others to view being some have seen what's described in his video presentations. This does although sound good as a alternative method to do at least some testing and evaluation of his device.
Please note
David's YouTube videos (link) (http://www.youtube.com/user/potatoheadist) shows fairly the same device in each one. It took me a while to wade through the blah, blah, blah postings of Rosemary's ( aka witsend ) as usual but I found her "replication" ( :o ) http://www.energeticforum.com/100788-post904.html for her testing and evaluation .... but she claims not to be able to electromagnetically lock the tubes together. :-X
FTC
;)
Hey Fuzz
The point of the testing I've outlined is to see if there really is an effect at all, or if it's just in David's imagination. After all.... the most sensitive instrument we know about to detect what he's describing is David himself, right? So if we suspect the reality of the effect, as I do, we should calibrate our instrument before we do anything else. Does it (he) really detect what it says on the box, and with what accuracy?
So an analysis under the Theory of Signal Detection fits the bill perfectly. If, under controlled conditions, even David can't reliably detect the effect, then there isn't any real need to go farther, is there? On the other hand, if the TSD analysis shows that there is even a slight ability to discriminate whether the effect-producing device is active or not.... then a deeper study is entirely justified, and you have something solid to justify it: real numbers from a blinded, objective test that shows the detectability of the phenomenon and also David's "bias"... his tendency to read "one side or the other of the needle" so to speak. I think you know what I mean. Both of these parameters fall out of the TSD score matrix.
http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/pages/chap_5/ch5p1.html
Golly.... and RA actually tried to make one of these things? Doesn't really seem like a thing a woman would want to do.... although, now that I think about it, sawing off all those pipe pieces...... oh, never mind.
Incredible. The woman is swamped by her own delusions. There are so many lies and false conclusions in that mess of bloviated "refutation" that it's nearly impossible to believe that it came from an adult human being who can dress herself. (Presumably she can do that much, although we have no evidence of it.)
Here's just one of her silly claims:
QuoteThe argument that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains is REFUTED. Because according to the measurements there should be NO loss of potential difference from the supply. Therefore the measurements are pointing at an anomaly that needs resolution.
But her own actual data of the measured battery voltage REFUTES her silly claim. And most of the rest are just as bad. Even the independent lab testing her own apparatus confirmed "that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains"... because the "measured gains" are no such thing... they are artefacts. The actual battery voltage data tells the tale.
On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series.
On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.
On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, less than 10 minutes later.
The scopeshots are available for inspection here:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts.
The next shots I can find are SCRN0361 and SCRN0362, both on May 8, both at 25.1 volts, and I think those might be the latest I have.
I am quoting the scope's computed means, always the highest of the three it gives (mean mean, high mean, low mean, fortune cookie extra).
In short, Ainslie's OWN DATA refute her silly claim that her silly claim has been refuted.
Quote
1
We have continuing evidence of an alternate energy supply source in an electric circuit that cannot be explained within conventional physical paradigms.
[/color]FALSE. The measurements that led Ainslie to her specious conclusion were completely modelled in simulators several different times using conventional physical paradigms... about the actual nature of which, Ainslie has no clue. Simply by entering into the sims the physical parameters of the circuit, the exact waveforms and "negative mean power products" were obtained, entirely conventionally and in a completely understood manner, using conventional physical paradigms.
Quote
2
It is evident that a solid state switching device is well able to supply electric energy without any cost of energy from a conventional supply source.
[/color]FALSE. No such fact is in evidence at all. IN FACT, the independent laboratory testing Ainslie's very own apparatus confirmed what everybody else has also confirmed: the "conventional supply source" does in fact supply electrical energy to the load of her SS switching device.... and to all other such devices as well.
Quote
4
It is also evident that this is NOT due to measurement errors.
[/color]FALSE. The measurements that have been taken are in error NOT in the measurements themselves but rather in what they represent: the claimed current measurement is contaminated by spurious voltages induced by the circuit's wiring and the manner in which the measurements are taken. The battery voltage measurements also suffer from the same defect. All this has been modelled, explained, and fixes have been suggested... and applied by others but not by Ainslie. True measurements of the quantities necessary for accurate power measurements reveal the truth: the batteries do discharge, they do provide power to the load, and there is no gain in efficiency from the feedback oscillations.
Quote
5
The implications are that this energy supply source can supplement conventional grid supplies - and that with adequate development - should entirely replace the need for our utility suppliers.
[/color]FALSE. The implications are that the Ainslie team is incompetent and also refuses to acknowledge the true facts of the matter: they have made false conclusions based on a false "thesis" and have made amateurish mistakes in every stage of the process. There is no excess energy, therefore there is no hope of any "supplementing the grid". There is only a mass of Ainslie's self-delusion and mendacity.
Quote
6
It is also evident that this news is WIDELY resisted on competing forums based on spurious and irrelevant arguments.
[/color]"This news" is resisted WIDELY, by everyone who has encountered Ainslie sooner or later, because it's simply not true. And the arguments that have been put forth against it are not spurious or irrelevant, quite the contrary. They can be checked and confirmed by anyone who cares enough to do so. Ainslie's claims.... cannot.
What are your qualifications @ysw?
Last time you were here, you claimed you were a professional. How so? Just a list of your qualifications, that doesn't compromise your anonymity, does it?
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on September 07, 2012, 08:17:53 AM
@All
What is interesting is what is not referenced. This should put you in the picture better.
What I see is a trail of
"SLIME" from a meal sent to us from the
slug dame .... any one here what to have another bite of Rosemary's cooking ??
Go back under that rock with your idiot friends and collaborators ....
:P
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on September 07, 2012, 08:17:53 AM
@All
What is interesting is what is not referenced. This should put you in the picture better.
On the contrary, your spam is not interesting, as it is a moldy rehash of Ainslie's mistaken and mendacious claims. As I have indicated in my post above WITH FACTS, the claims made are spurious and false.
What is interesting is that you also share the same characteristics as Ainslie herself: you lack the ability to reason correctly, you are ignorant of your topic, you refuse to educate yourself, you are uncritical of absurd claims without evidence, you are overweeningly arrogant and refuse to accept clear and irrefutable facts when they are presented to you, and you do not know how to, or choose not to, engage in a reasonable scientific discussion. You also deny the reality of data that does not fit your preconceived and incorrect "thesis" and you simply lie about what has been done and how it has been measured. In short, you are a typical sock puppet of Ainslie.
There is one thing for certain: You are not heating your home, or even making tea or oxtail soup, with anything like an Ainslie circuit. In fact.... you are still hooked up to the national grid, aren't you, instead of running off of your perpetually charged batteries.
Yousaidwhat cannot dare to explain why Ainslie's own scope data clearly show her battery voltage declining in exactly the "classically" expected manner during several sets of trials, while at the same time Ainslie claims that it doesn't.
On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series. THE BATTERY VOLTAGE HAS DROPPED BY 1.3 VOLTS IN A SINGLE EVENING OF TESTING ... which indicates a severe drain and NO RECHARGE OR PREVENTION OF DISCHARGE.
On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.
On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, less than 10 minutes later.
The scopeshots are available for inspection here:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts. So from the 12th of April to the 30th of April, during several sessions of testing, the battery voltage DECREASED from 63.8 volts down to 62.0 volts, as shown in AINSLIE'S OWN DATA, the most reliable of all her data, the mean battery voltage as measured on the LeCroy oscilloscope. A voltage decrease of NEARLY TWO VOLTS, in just three days of testing. And with silver calcium lead acid batteries, that actually indicates a substantially DISCHARGED battery, not one that is at and remaining at a full charge level.
Come on, YOUSAIDWHAT.... explain this away as being consistent with Ainslie's mendacious claims about "no loss of potential" from the battery.
You cannot.
Just a quick snapshot of some numbers.
TK,
I've really enjoyed these power transmitter vids of yours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTFeoJpkYBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ogTf3S3r8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnwDh4CsD-c
It's great seeing the different applications (underwater SNM; HHO buoyancy control; Pulse motor driver). The practical uses seem to be endless! Thank you for sharing with us the things that you do.
polln8r
Thanks! I too find the power transmission system fascinating. There are a lot of similar systems on YT, some with very nice construction.
Since my receiver system produces smooth DC power with good current, it will power just about any kind of load you like. I was especially surprised at how well it worked doing straight electrolysis with a spiral copper electrode and a little magnet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2kehvxB_A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2kehvxB_A)
I haven't made this video public because I was so startled that I uttered an expletive that I didn't delete. So you need the link to view it, it doesn't show up on searches on my channel. The spiral electrode with magnet idea comes from... someone we know, and thank.
ETA: I see that DrStiffler has shown a different, capacitively coupled, submerged diode RF system that electrolyzes some water with tiny bubbles output. Wireless... OK. Sure. Even though there are wires, and not much current. I am happy to concede that DrStiffler has shown some electrolysis without directly hooking power wires to his diodes, but rather using a home-made capacitor to couple the RF into them.
Ainslie's a hoot, isn't she?
Claiming that the solid evidence for battery voltage decreasing over trials is IRRELEVANT to her claim that it doesn't, or is somehow in error... more in error than her own use of the same measurements.... even though it's from the numbers in boxes on her superdooper LeCroy Etch-a-Sketch oscilloscope, which never makes an error.
I wonder if she would claim that the same evidence is IRRELEVANT if it indicated battery voltage increasing by the same amount.
I know, right?
"The batteries are shown to be not discharging. If it is found that they really are it won't matter, because the measurements say they aren't." (not a direct quote). (Indirect quote continues...) "Therefore, we can assume that the measurements are an anomaly, which means that we have found something truly incredible.
Incredibly anomalous measurements. Indeed.
Edited: Forgot to say thanks for the link. Expletive? I didn't hear shit.
Hmmm.... there seems to be some confusion all around about just how to calculate equivalent heating power in a circuit that is receiving a DC pulse train or an AC rectangular wave or oscillations.
Perhaps these links will help. The first document has been posted before, I think, and the Wiki seems to agree with it.
http://www.eznec.com/Amateur/RMS_Power.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square
At this point I think the main discrepancy to be accounted for is the accuracy and false precision in gmeast's quoted data. There is no way that anyone can accurately measure heating power down to the tenth of a milliWatt using tabletop hobby equipment, sorry. The latest actual results, calculated using average power = V(rms)^2/R or V(rms) x I(rms) as is proper according to the links, give a result consistent with unity performance, within the limits of measurement accuracy. And without seeing calibrations against real standards, the accuracy in the third or fourth least significant digit of any tabletop instrument is questionable and should be confirmed by multiple measurements with different instruments if possible.
I sure wish I could see gmeast's waveform shots. I'm kind of concerned still about his use of the Drain voltage and how it's being interpreted. I think the drain voltage is important if used right. But it has proven to be tricky for Ainslie fans to interpret. In the Ainslie circuit the drain voltage will be HIGH at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF and the load is not carrying current, and will drop to a voltage that reflects the total resistance of the circuit when the mosfet is ON and the load... and the mosfet....are carrying current.
Also, is gmeast aware that the Rdss ON of an IRFPG50 is at least 2 ohms? That's not chopped liver in a circuit with a total on-state DC resistance on the order of 12-14 ohms. The mosfet will be dissipating a significant part of the total circuit power dissipation.
. checking math -- I agree with the Pavg = Vrms x Irms , and that for a rectangular, all-positive waveform Vrms = Vpeak x sqrt(dutycycle) , so I don't know what .99 is meaning in this case... but...
--
Actually, running gmeast's numbers using a voltage drop across the mosfet of 1.6 volts, so the load only sees 24 volts peak, 12 rms, I get a better result of 1.09 or 109 percent efficiency compared to the DC case.
Close enough to unity to demand more precise and accurate measurements.
TK,
It appears that Greg has measured/calculated Iavg and Irms to both be around 400ma. So, average power from the battery would be Vbatt times Iavg, which is how .99 arrived at the 10.5 watts from the battery figure (25.6x.410).
Greg also measured/calculated the Vrms across Rload and then multiplied that number by the Iavg (or Irms, both of which were in close agreement) of ca. 400ma, and arrived at the power dissipated in Rload.
I am actually quite impressed that his measured/calculated power in Rload and the equivalent power he measured for Rload using his DC power supply and the measured temp rises are in such close agreement. My hat is off to him for that.
However, to measure the power delivered by the battery, I agree with .99 in that Iavg should be multiplied by Vbatt to arrive at Pavg from the battery.
It is somewhat difficult to follow along seeing only the text in the posts. As you say, too bad the schematics and 'scope shots are unavailable.
Oh well...
PW
The 10.5W Pin is correct. ;)
Here are the pics:
Quote from: poynt99 on September 11, 2012, 08:09:34 PM
The 10.5W Pin is correct. ;)
Here are the pics:
.99,
I suspect that the measured/calculated Iavg may be a bit high due to CSR inductance. The hazard of using such a low value CSR (.1 ohm) is that just a few tens of nHy's can produce a very significant error.
I would suggest repeating the measurements using a 1 ohm non-inductive CSR and comparing the results.
Looking at various non-inductive resistor manufacturers' data, many simply state inductance as less than 100nHy for their non-inductive resistors, which for a .1 ohm resistor can be a very significant error. The best I could find was from Caddock, and they state their's as 10nHy when measured .2" from the package. Even this small inductance can be very significant relative to the .1 ohm value depending on the frequencies involved. Using a higher value CSR, such as 1R, reduces the percentage of error due to inductance.
PW
ADDED: I had assumed that with Greg using a gate driver the transitions would be much cleaner and at least 70-80% efficiency acheived. Having now seen the waveforms, possibly this is a bit optimistic and the measured 50% is indeed closer to reality.
Hmm thanks.... I'll mull over the scopeshot
But what about the Wiki, in the image I attached above, where the actual derivation is given, showing that for a pulsed DC signal, all positive, the Pavg=Irms x Vrms, and the Vrms is given by sqrt(duty cycle) x Vbatt? What am I missing.... the derivation is right there and it makes sense to me and it even explicitly says that this is how the equivalent to a steady DC is determined.....
Is the Wiki wrong.... It even agrees with the Ham .pdf.... so what am I missing, please walk me through it.
@.99.... that scope shot is the signal from the mosfet Drain, with respect to the negative rail?? Or is that the signal "across the load", with the probe on the drain side and the reference on the battery side, or vice versa? I'm not getting it. And with a gate driver.... I am also surprised to see such a messy signal anywhere. Is it that the PG50 just can't keep up at the frequency chosen?
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 10:53:13 PM
Hmm thanks.... I'll mull over the scopeshot
But what about the Wiki, in the image I attached above, where the actual derivation is given, showing that for a pulsed DC signal, all positive, the Pavg=Irms x Vrms, and the Vrms is given by sqrt(duty cycle) x Vbatt? What am I missing.... the derivation is right there and it makes sense to me and it even explicitly says that this is how the equivalent to a steady DC is determined.....
Is the Wiki wrong.... It even agrees with the Ham .pdf.... so what am I missing, please walk me through it.
The power in question is the
input power. If the circuit is a "black box", and the supply is DC, how would you go about determining Pin
AVG?
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 11, 2012, 11:07:13 PM
@.99.... that scope shot is the signal from the mosfet Drain, with respect to the negative rail?? Or is that the signal "across the load", with the probe on the drain side and the reference on the battery side, or vice versa? I'm not getting it. And with a gate driver.... I am also surprised to see such a messy signal anywhere. Is it that the PG50 just can't keep up at the frequency chosen?
The scope shot is the trace across a 0.1 Ohm CSR.
It is a pity that Greg does not understand his error. He is actually computing the power in RL with his method, not the battery power.
When computing the power from the battery, the battery voltage is not derated by the duty cycle.
PinAVG is simply VBatAVG x IBatAVG
TK,
Pages 33-40.
Quote from: poynt99 on September 12, 2012, 08:15:57 AM
It is a pity that Greg does not understand his error. He is actually computing the power in RL with his method, not the battery power.
When computing the power from the battery, the battery voltage is not derated by the duty cycle.
PinAVG is simply VBatAVG x IBatAVG
It is even moreso a pity if Greg allows "her" to attempt to teach him anything at all related to electronics.
Prior to .99 throwing in the towel on the Basic FG thread, she was again disputing the ability of the MOSFET capacitances to carry significant current. She was discussing the waveform at the gate of Q2, and from her posts, it appears that she was referring to the FG output waveform as being the waveform at the gate of Q2. Looking at the schematic, it is obvious that the waveform at the gate of Q2 is essentially the waveform indicated by the CSR trace (the gate of Q2 is, afterall, connected directly to the CSR).
She continues to demonstrate her inability to read her own simple schematic, let alone comprehend basic electronic concepts or understand how Q2 is biased on.
As .99 states, power delivered to or from the battery is simply the product of Vbatt and Iavg.
A pity indeed...
PW
ADDED: She also stated that she has corrected the errors in her documents. Did I miss her corrections regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 even though there is sufficient gate drive indicated to do so?
OK, let me see if I can follow this argument and convince myself.
First, I hope we can agree that the instantaneous input power is the product of the true instantaneous battery voltage times the true instantaneous current thru the CVR. This accounts for both phase differences and dutycycle and results in an instantaneous power curve, which can then be averaged in the usual manner, by integrating then dividing by the time interval.
However we are trying to find the input power without using scope math or spreadsheet operations on lots of tiny samples.
We know that the apparently fluctuating battery voltage really isn't, so that the instantaneous battery voltage can be replaced by the heavily filtered, steady DC average voltage. This then can be multiplied by the instantaneous current curve to give the correct instantaneous power curve.
And then when we compute the average of the instantaneous power by integrating and dividing by the time, we can pull the constant battery voltage out of the integration and just integrate and average the current curve and then multiply, since the sum of (a constant times some values) is the same as a constant times ( the sum of some values).
Therefore, the average current multiplied by the average DC voltage results in the true input power value, and all phase and duty cycle issues are taken care of by this process, since there is no phase issue (the voltage isn't really fluctuating) and the duty cycle contribution is taken care of by averaging the instantaneous current across the "dead" times by integrating and dividing by the time interval.
There is still some difficulty in my mind with the average current figure. I accept that .99 has shown that the DMMs give a usable and reasonably accurate reading of the average current in the filtered CVR. In the present case, are the average current value determined by this method, and the RMS current value determined by multiplying the peak current of the always-positive rectangular pulse by the sqrt of the duty cycle, the same? Perhaps that adds to my confusion. Is this always going to be the case? I need another cup of coffee.
OK, I'm convinced, and I see the difference between measuring the supply to the black box, and what the black box is supplying to the load. The supply is providing a steady DC that is "sipped" periodically by the circuit and so is correctly analyzed as above. The load is seeing a pulsating, oscillating supply coming from the circuit and so may be analyzed using rms values of the pulsating voltage and current.
I am now very suspicious though of using the rectangular pulse simplification for the load, if the CVR signal is as messy as all that, shown in the scope trace above. How are the RMS values of voltage and current at the load actually determined, for the average power (Pavg = Vrms x Irms as used by gmeast) at the load? Are these "numbers in boxes", computed by gmeast's scope?
Here is an easy method I came up with that will provide an accurate Pout (power in RL) computation:
PoutAVG = [VCSR(rms)/RCSR]2 x RL(hot)
Which means: take the RMS voltage across the CSR, divide it by the CSR value, square it, then multiply it by the resistance value of RL taken when it is at it's equalized hot temperature.
PW,
It's still further a pity that Greg is ignoring the write-up I posted, and now ignoring me.
I guess it's another case of the typical reaction; when things start looking as though you may be wrong, just bury your head in the sand and hopefully it will all go away. ::)
Quote from: poynt99 on September 12, 2012, 12:57:13 PM
Here is an easy method I came up with that will provide an accurate Pout (power in RL) computation:
PoutAVG = [VCSR(rms)/RCSR]2 x RL(hot)
Which means: take the RMS voltage across the CSR, divide it by the CSR value, square it, then multiply it by the resistance value of RL taken when it is at it's equalized hot temperature.
As is also given in the derivation in the image above from the Wiki on "rms". But it states there that this is valid for pure resistive loads. Is there a correction that needs to be applied due to the load's inductive reactance?
Astounding. Let's play math games, shall we.
QuoteThe frequency = 62,500 Hz,
V = 25.3
RL = 10-Ohms
Duty cycle = 25%
1/(4x62,500) = duration of a single pulse = 0.000004 or 4usec
Here he has taken the frequency of 62.5 kHz, found the inverse to get the period of 16 microseconds, and THEN DIVIDED BY FOUR TO GET THE PULSE "ON" DURATION of 4 microseconds. In other words, he has put the duty cycle in at this point.
Quote
25.3V / 10-Ohms = 2.53A
25.3V x 2.53A = 64.009Watts per pulse
64.009watts x 0.000004sec = 0.000256036Watt-sec per pulse
There are 62,500 pulses per second so:
(0.000256036Watt-sec / pulse) x (62,500pulses / sec) = 16.00225Watts
In the latter calculation, I have essentially added up all of the identical packages of instantaneous power, but they are spaced apart over time.
That's right... you have sort of the average power figure here, with the duty cycle already factored in, from the first step. This 16 watts figure is an "average" power, already taking duty cycle into account.
You can get this same answer also by simply taking the voltage times current times duty cycle: 25.3 x 2.53 x 0.25 = 16.00225, or really just 16.0, respecting sig digs.
You have 64 Watts being dissipated for 1/4 second (0.00004 x 62,500 = 0.25) and you have 3/4 seconds off. So for that one second, you have an average power of 64 x 0.25 = 16 Watts. The duty cycle is incorporated in this average power figure already.... to put it in again later is... well, it's either a silly mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Quote
This is NOT continuous power. For a 25% Duty Cycle, the FET (switch) is closed or "ON" for 25% of the entire pulse period and is open or "OFF" for the remainder of the pulse period or 75%.
Now this will shock some: The ratio of "ON" times to "OFF" times is:
.25 / .75 = 1/3 even though the ratio of "ON" time to the entire pulse period is .25 (25% Duty Cycle). My instincts tell me that I should divide the SUM of the Instantaneous powers by '3'.
This latter bit is incredible on its own... dividing by three? .... the "Sum" of the instantaneous powers already is the average power taking the duty cycle into account. BUT ALSO..... he now applies the duty cycle, or this "one third" bastardization of it, AGAIN.
Quote
So, I will do that:
16.00225Watts / 3 = 5.334083Watts
An RMS calculation will yield similar results.
Facepalm. I guess actually dividing by four gave him an answer embarrassingly small, so he had to come up with dividing by three to get something "similar" to the RMS calculation results..... even though he already had the duty cycle in the "sum" of the powers.
QuoteSo the inductive heater RL breaches the unity barrier likely because of the Oscillations and the EMF recovered by RL's By-Pass Diode.
The above analysis is just about as simple and unambiguous as it gets.
Regards,
Greg
Ah... no, not quite. The conclusion is not justified by the data; the mathematical analysis makes a couple of egregious errors and a totally unjustified "intuition" that tells Greg he should divide by the ratio of on-to-off time, rather than on-to-total-period time as is correct and proper...... for the second time he puts the duty cycle into the calculation, in order to make his new numbers "agree" with his old ones.
And yes, it's hilarious that an rms calculation does yield "similar" results: for a rectangular, positive-going pulse train, Vrms = V x sqrt(dutycycle) and Irms = I x sqrt(dutycycle) so
Vrms x Irms = (25.3 x 0.5) x (2.53 x 0.5) = 16.0.
QED, this is the average power and duty cycle is already taken into account.
Now... my "instincts" tell me that any further division by, say, four, or three, or any other number is not justified for any reason, unless one is trying to make one's numbers fit some kind of preconceived idea... or "thesis"... without regard to actual fact.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 12, 2012, 01:28:39 PM
As is also given in the derivation in the image above from the Wiki on "rms". But it states there that this is valid for pure resistive loads. Is there a correction that needs to be applied due to the load's inductive reactance?
You already have the true rms current. You square that and multiply it by the RL resistance value measured at the equalized temperature. The correction factor is that you are multiplying the squared rms current by the real resistance of the load, i.e. the "RL(hot)" I specified.
Ok, thanks. It really can't get much clearer than that, can it.
The above analysis is about as simple and unambiguous as it gets.
My instincts tell me that if I divide Tar Baby's input power by, say, 2.... I'll be able to prove overunity performance too. And since 2 is clearly less than 3...... I'll have more OU than Glen. (Since dividing by a smaller number yields a larger answer).
picowatt said,
QuoteShe also stated that she has corrected the errors in her documents. Did I miss her corrections regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 even though there is sufficient gate drive indicated to do so?
She's corrected nothing, only altered some things to correspond with reality after the fact. All of the things that _really_ need correction would invalidate the entire set of experiments and the manuscripts entirely, and she knows this fully well.
The "Official Publication" of her second daft manuscript on Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics "peer-reviewed" vanity blog still has the Q2 stack of four on the right hand side, in conflict with the schematic in the first daft manuscript "published" there. No retraction, no statement of error has appeared anywhere. Stella Nokia's two comments calling the manuscript's problems to the attention of the editors are still the last comments posted on that article.
And even more hilarious, through all of this, she has NEVER corrected, in any version, any of the cartoon "explanations" of the functioning of her circuit, which have the SOURCES of mosfets Q1 and Q2 wired together, the Gates of Q1 and Q2 wired together, and the Drains of Q1 and Q2 wired together. In short, these cartoons, all three of them, and their attendant "explanations" have nothing to do with the actual circuit used, and it is impossible to reconcile the explanations given with the _actual_ wiring used, since the actual circuit has the Sources of Q2 connected to the Gate of Q1 and vice-versa.
Note the screenshot below. This is one of three similar cartoons in the daft manuscript. In Ainslie's crabbed scrawl we can clearly see the designations of the mosfet "legs" or pin assignments. This is a shot taken just now from the "corrected" daft manuscript on her honeypot forum.... the latest and greatest "edit" with the schematic "corrected" to show Q2s on the left. Too bad they didn't "correct" these cartoon representations, which are "explaining" something that corresponds to NO circuit that Ainslie has ever actually shown. They were clearly still made when she and her crew believed that they had all five mosfets in parallel.
Even more important than that, though, is that all of the schematics in every version of both manuscripts are lies, because they falsely represent the position of the current monitoring resistor with respect to the function generator's Black output wire. IN EVERY PHOTO OF EVERY APPARATUS AINSLIE HAS EVER SHOWN, this black lead from the FG is clearly seen to be connected directly to the battery negative at the circuit's common ground point, which is incorrect because it provides a current path that bypasses the CVR. The schematics were only "corrected" well after the actual data was taken, when this "error" was poynted out to Ainslie in the forum. The experiments were NOT done with the schematics pictured, the CVR data was NOT taken correctly and the manuscripts are simply lying and must be withdrawn for this reason alone, but there are many other reasons as well.
Greg has been laughing at himself for his silly "divide by 3" mistake he made. Good thing he figured that out on his own. ;) ;)
What is he going to do when he realizes his even sillier mistake of derating the battery voltage by the duty cycle? ::)
Is he going to issue a "revised" calculation, where he goes ahead and applies the whole 25 percent duty cycle fully twice? The suspense is killing me.
Bada-bing, bada Boom! And there it is, folks, error upon error compounded, false conclusions that aren't supported by facts or "sanity checking" at all.
Heck, if I had twice or three times the power coming out as in, I'd build another identical unit and run the first one on the output of the second one, through a cap/diode, and then use the output of the second one to run the first one. Wouldn't you? Of course if the load is being heated by zipons instead of regular electrical power that wouldn't work, would it. In fact .... that's probably why the overunity result ONLY APPEARS IN CALCULATIONS OF THIS KIND, not in any real form that can actually be used, or measured by different means.
Incidentally, I'm loving the current hypocrisy about the DMM measurements. When I did DMM measurements on Tar Baby, months ago, I was perfectly aware of their usefulness in this manner -- .99 is not the first to explore this issue, although his videos are very well done and very helpful-- and I even showed how my DMM measurements agreed with Ohm's Law at a number of different DC levels, they agreed with a moving coil analog meter, and with scope measurements using my HP180a scope's graticule markers and amplifier setting. And yet, Ainslie was profoundly dismissive of my DMM meter readings, even though she could not actually refute them. Of course I was showing things she claimed were impossible, like the current flowing through the function generator, things she still cannot account for or grasp.
Now, of course, DMM readings are fully acceptable on the NERD side of things .... because they are being used by a sycophant instead of a skeptic.
What a bunch of howling errors and conclusions though. Everything from the false precision of a tenth of a milliwatt in the claimed measurements, to missing the accurate values by a factor of FOUR, or three, or two, depending on which incorrect calculation he's laughing about today.
Of course there is one way to protect oneself from ridicule for these mistakes.... simply refuse to post any more real data or calculations. Or at least, say you aren't. But then when you do, you should be extra careful that you don't stick your foot even further down your throat.
QuoteI'm not going to show any more calculations in this forum or argue about them because I have 3 conservative methods for running the numbers and they all check with each other. - ooohh ... a one-sentence paragraph ... someone will say something about that, I'm sure. Oh look, now it's 3 sentences, never mind.
Three different methods, all making the same mistake, so of course they all check with each other. The lack of understanding of the effect of duty cycle in this person who claims to understand PWM power calculations is astounding, really, and the clear evidence for the lack of understanding is in his recent explanation and "correction" of the divide-by-three error.
Creative power analysis at its best. Good stuff Greg. :o :
If you don't like your wave form, flip your scope leads; now ON is OFF, and OFF is ON. Now your Pin is even lower than before! ::)
PS. TK, I was indeed the first to explore the DMM method of input power measurement, and it was always met with ridicule or indifference. Check the date my videos were uploaded. Also, I had been proposing this method back in the day when Harvey was involved in the testing with Rose (a few years ago), and it is in my "detailed analysis" write up posted about a year ago.
And I might add that the Pout method I posted above, is also most likely a first. At least I've not yet seen anyone suggest that method. I first posted that when I developed my version of Rosemary's latest circuit. The Pin and Pout measurements are right on the schematic for that burst oscillator design, and that was posted at least a year ago as well.
For the record. ;)
Thanks for the correction. I am happy to acknowledge your priority, because you did such a comprehensive test and explanation of the DMM utility. However, it's one of those "secrets" that may have been more commonly known than is appreciated. Your work stands out as an exceptionally clear and detailed account and I, for one, am grateful for it.
Not many people mentioned it when Ainslie was denigrating my use of the DMMs, though, even when I showed calibration to Ohm's law and between other instruments, at DC and at the Ainslie operating frequency. She didn't accept my results with the DMM, even though they agreed with more difficult scope measurements.
The Pout method you are talking about is the use of PoutAVG = IRL(rms)2 x RL(hot) = [VCSR(rms)/RCSR]2 x RL(hot) ?
It's good that you specify that the load should be hot and therefore at a stable resistance, but since IRL(rms) = VCSR(rms)/RCSR, isn't your method contained in the derivation in the Wiki article on rms, as in the snippet attached below?
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 13, 2012, 02:09:59 PM
[snip]... isn't your method contained in the derivation in the Wiki article on rms, as in the snippet attached below?
No. The point of my method is two-fold:
1) The Irms is not part of a v(t) x i(t) computation. It's not required. My method requires only that an rms value be obtained for the current. This is done with either a good True RMS DMM (signal components less than 100kHz), or using the RMS "measure" function on your scope.
2) No one to date as far as I know uses P=I
2R to obtain Pout with these type of circuits. The innovation here is that part 1) is the hardest thing to obtain, and that's real easy. The hot value for R is quite simple, and together with Irms will provide for an accurate Pout measurement.
I'm not saying I came up with P=I
2R. The novelty is applying it to these type of circuits.
Quote from: poynt99 on September 13, 2012, 05:17:58 PM
No. The point of my method is two-fold:
1) The Irms is not part of a v(t) x i(t) computation. It's not required. My method requires only that an rms value be obtained for the current. This is done with either a good True RMS DMM (signal components less than 100kHz), or using the RMS "measure" function on your scope.
2) No one to date as far as I know uses P=I2R to obtain Pout with these type of circuits. The innovation here is that part 1) is the hardest thing to obtain, and that's real easy. The hot value for R is quite simple, and together with Irms will provide for an accurate Pout measurement.
I'm not saying I came up with P=I2R. The novelty is applying it to these type of circuits.
Uh... OK..... but the derivation in the Wiki article is shown to apply to complex waveforms as long as an rms current value can be obtained "somehow". But sure, if you are a bench tech measuring "these types of circuits" presumably meaning noisy PWMs or switching power supplies, you already have an integrating oscilloscope sitting in front of you and you know how to use it.... so you would probably not use your method directly.... even though the scope will be doing it internally.
I think the real contribution and novelty is in your insistence and demonstration that one can indeed make good measurements, reliable and accurate, with your method and without an expensive digital scope, as long as some basic knowledge is present. That is certainly worth the time and effort, and your patience in explaining things to "them folks" is admirable, and something I'll never have. "These types of circuits" hopefully will include many more of the electrical and electronic circuits that free energy hobbyists will be experimenting with, so that better power measurements can be made with confidence with simple and available gear. The TRMS DMM is a handy item to have. It would be really great if more people would read or watch and understand your various documents and videos. I know I've learned from them, so I thank you for your efforts. I've made my own share of silly errors and you've been patient enough to guide me to correct ways of thinking. Would that you could be so successful with RA.
I see Rose has found time between acting as a sock-puppet for someone else's questions on her own forum, and humiliating herself with sock-puppetry of her own on here, to step in and revise history once again.
She's bravely taken the opportunity to delete .99's infinitely courteous and on-topic posts and to paint them as somehow argumentative or abusive. I'd almost feel sorry for Greg being pulled along by the nose, if it wasn't for the fact he's proving to be a total bell end.
That is indeed truly amazing. Is he really going to be able to just get away with applying the duty cycle twice?
He did actually correct his "divide by three" and went ahead and divided by four, apparently, to get his new figure of something like 4 Watts.
In post #163 he describes his procedure to obtain the figure.
QuoteThe frequency = 62,500 Hz,
V = 25.3
RL = 10-Ohms
Duty cycle = 25%
1/(4x62,500) = duration of a single pulse = 0.000004 or 4usec
25.3V / 10-Ohms = 2.53A
25.3V x 2.53A = 64.009Watts per pulse
64.009watts x 0.000004sec = 0.000256036Watt-sec per pulse
There are 62,500 pulses per second so:
(0.000256036Watt-sec / pulse) x (62,500pulses / sec) = 16.00225Watts
In the latter calculation, I have essentially added up all of the identical packages of instantaneous power, but they are spaced apart over time.
That is right, and in other words, the duty cycle has already been applied here, since the 4 microsecond ON time is 1/4 of the 16 microsecond PERIOD of a 62.5 kHz oscillation. You have added up 1/4 second's worth of ON times and averaged their power over the whole second. The 16.00225 Watts, artificially precise, is Joules PER SECOND and you have one second's worth .... meaning that the duty cycle of 1/4 has already been factored into this figure.
Quote
This is NOT continuous power. For a 25% Duty Cycle, the FET (switch) is closed or "ON" for 25% of the entire pulse period and is open or "OFF" for the remainder of the pulse period or 75%.
Now this will shock some: The ratio of "ON" times to "OFF" times is:
.25 / .75 = 1/3 even though the ratio of "ON" time to the entire pulse period is .25 (25% Duty Cycle). My instincts tell me that I should divide the SUM of the Instantaneous powers by '3'.
So, I will do that:
16.00225Watts / 3 = 5.334083Watts
An RMS calculation will yield similar results.
This step has apparently been "corrected" and now Gmeast divides by 4 here, presumably. Thus he obtains a figure of about 4 Watts here.
But he has already applied the duty cycle once, to get to the 16 Watts figure !! How can he possibly think that it should be applied again?
And it appears in his latest, by using the mean battery voltage and the mean current he is again making the same mistake twice.
Am I wrong in this thinking?
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 13, 2012, 07:51:16 PM
That is indeed truly amazing. Is he really going to be able to just get away with applying the duty cycle twice?
He did actually correct his "divide by three" and went ahead and divided by four, apparently, to get his new figure of something like 4 Watts.
In post #163 he describes his procedure to obtain the figure.
Quote
The frequency = 62,500 Hz,
V = 25.3
RL = 10-Ohms
Duty cycle = 25%
1/(4x62,500) = duration of a single pulse = 0.000004 or 4usec
25.3V / 10-Ohms = 2.53A
25.3V x 2.53A = 64.009Watts per pulse
64.009watts x 0.000004sec = 0.000256036Watt-sec per pulse
There are 62,500 pulses per second so:
(0.000256036Watt-sec / pulse) x (62,500pulses / sec) = 16.00225Watts
In the latter calculation, I have essentially added up all of the identical packages of instantaneous power, but they are spaced apart over time.
That is right, and in other words, the duty cycle has already been applied here, since the 4 microsecond ON time is 1/4 of the 16 microsecond PERIOD of a 62.5 kHz oscillation. You have added up 1/4 second's worth of ON times and averaged their power over the whole second. The 16.00225 Watts, artificially precise, is Joules PER SECOND and you have one second's worth .... meaning that the duty cycle of 1/4 has already been factored into this figure.
Quote
This is NOT continuous power. For a 25% Duty Cycle, the FET (switch) is closed or "ON" for 25% of the entire pulse period and is open or "OFF" for the remainder of the pulse period or 75%.
Now this will shock some: The ratio of "ON" times to "OFF" times is:
.25 / .75 = 1/3 even though the ratio of "ON" time to the entire pulse period is .25 (25% Duty Cycle). My instincts tell me that I should divide the SUM of the Instantaneous powers by '3'.
So, I will do that:
16.00225Watts / 3 = 5.334083Watts
An RMS calculation will yield similar results.
This step has apparently been "corrected" and now Gmeast divides by 4 here, presumably. Thus he obtains a figure of about 4 Watts here.
But he has already applied the duty cycle once, to get to the 16 Watts figure !! How can he possibly think that it should be applied again?
And it appears in his latest, by using the mean battery voltage and the mean current he is again making the same mistake twice.
Am I wrong in this thinking?
Nope ........ but gmeast (greg) gets my
FAMED illustrative award for his contribution in "Over Unity" computations ...... need some scissors greg ?
Then there's Rosemary Ainslie that needs to "grow up" and learn how to properly test a circuit a new way ....
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on September 14, 2012, 02:10:44 AM
Then theirs Rosemary Ainslie that needs to "grow up" and learn how to properly test a circuit a new way ....
there is... ::) you really should learn the difference between there, their, they're and there's. ::)
there is a place. eg: go over there.
their is possesive. eg: their house is over there.
they're is a contraction of 'they are'.
there's is a contraction of 'there is'.
there. now you are a little smarter. need 'hooked on phonics' fizzy?
Quote from: mrsean2k on September 13, 2012, 07:04:55 PM
I see Rose has found time between acting as a sock-puppet for someone else's questions on her own forum, and humiliating herself with sock-puppetry of her own on here, to step in and revise history once again.
She's bravely taken the opportunity to delete .99's infinitely courteous and on-topic posts and to paint them as somehow argumentative or abusive. I'd almost feel sorry for Greg being pulled along by the nose, if it wasn't for the fact he's proving to be a total bell end.
I've been banned from Rose's playground. I guess it's a "complete" ban as I am not able to read the forum at all...and it's not set to expire. ;D ;D
Thanks Rose, I truly mean that. :)
Quote from: poynt99 on September 14, 2012, 08:03:18 AM
I've been banned from Rose's playground. I guess it's a "complete" ban as I am not able to read the forum at all...and it's not set to expire. ;D ;D
Thanks Rose, I truly mean that. :)
So, poynt, how much money to stop me live-streaming the site so you can see?
It would be better spent on some good cause of your choice Sean.
But thanks for the offer. :P
I was threatening you rather than soliciting funds :-)
Reading that site is a bit like poking at a very sore tooth (that's excluding contributions from here: what I can follow, I've found very interesting)
Quote from: mrsean2k on September 14, 2012, 08:40:40 AM
I was threatening you rather than soliciting funds :-)
I know. ;)
Quote
Reading that site is a bit like poking at a very sore tooth (that's excluding contributions from here: what I can follow, I've found very interesting)
It's not easy for anyone to read those silly posts over there I imagine.
It's a pity Greg has chosen to bury his head in the sand rather than consider the possibility that he has erred. But don't be surprised if one day soon he posts a big apology to all those he has offended, once he determines that his control batteries significantly outlast his device under test (DUT) batteries. But then again, folks like Rose and Greg have a knack for being creative when it comes to manipulating the tests or numbers to sway in their favor. So, it could go either way.
Quote from: poynt99 on September 14, 2012, 08:03:18 AM
I've been banned from Rose's playground. I guess it's a "complete" ban as I am not able to read the forum at all...and it's not set to expire. ;D ;D
Thanks Rose, I truly mean that. :)
Seriously? They've kicked you out completely? What an abrupt change in her attitude. This is what usually happens when cognitive dissonance becomes intolerable. The offending eye is plucked out, so that it will not see what is threatening to the mind's deeply held misconceptions.
You can of course still read the site using a proxy. But the images won't show up, of course. There has been no significant activity since your message from Ainslie warning you not to post in gmeast's thread.
OK, maybe it's time for a quick review.
Tar Baby is constructed with the exact circuit and specified components used, or rather claimed to have been used, by the NERDs in the daft manuscripts.
Tar Baby produces the same feedback oscillations and the same negative mean power product as Ainslie's original NERD circuit.
Tar Baby's batteries do discharge.
Ainslie has sent her own exact device off to an independent lab in the USA for testing. This lab also found that the mean negative power product was easy to reproduce, but that their batteries also discharged. They sent the apparatus back with some additional components and suggestions for Ainslie to test. So far she has not complied, and has not made public the details of the lab's report, except to admit that their batteries did discharge and that her major claim was disconfirmed.
Ainslie's daft manuscripts exist in many multiple "edits" on various internet sites and these versions do not agree. There are discrepancies involving claimed power dissipation, battery capacity, circuit behaviour, schematics used, equipment used, and lack of correspondence between the theoretical explanations given and the actual circuit's wiring.
Anslie perpetrated a deliberate fraud and deception, from the March 2011 date of the release of the video demonstration of her device, until late April 2011 when the actual wiring schematic used was revealed by .99.... and she has recently expressed regret that it was revealed "so soon"; in other words, she deliberately lied and carried on an internet discussion of over 400 forum comments concerning a circuit that was NOT actually used, for almost a month, and sought to continue the deception longer.
Ainslie has refused access to her original data and spreadsheets. She has attempted to keep secret her scope shots, scattering them about over years and multiple forum threads and even multiple forums instead of publishing them in one easy place. She has refused to cooperate with investigators, instead frequently descending into her sarcastic and hypocritical personal insulting and denigrations whenever she is faced with hard questions for her to answer. She has repeatedly shown her inability to do or understand even the simplest mathematics, she has no calculus, and she does not bother to do the simplest fact-checking of her outrageous claims, for example calling a date in July first a "solstice" and then an "equinox", or claiming that "there is no such animal as inductive reactance". She has made dozens if not hundreds of similar, absurd, easily refutable claims over the years and I have most of them, and their refutations, recorded in my comprehensive Ainslie database collection.
The earlier Quantum COP>17 circuit has been thoroughly investigated years ago and all work by several workers published publicly. Yet Ainslie deliberately, overtly and specifically refused to make her current builder, gmeast, aware of this prior work, all of which is easily accessible in the public record.
Gmeast rejected the NERD circuit as unworkable by inspection, I believe, and decided to work on the earlier Quantum circuit with all its flaws.
In spite of this, gmeast went on to build and test the COP>17 circuit.... and found, from the beginning, that there were many problems. The 555 timer as published does not work as claimed. The circuit as published includes no recirculation diode. The circuit as published, when driven at the specified parameters (rather than the flipped, nearly always on duty cycle produced by the published 555 circuit) does not produce the substantial heating claimed, or in fact any significant heat at a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle. So gmeast substantially altered the circuit to get some kind of heat result. He uses a gate driver, a different kind of load, a recirculation diode, a much longer ON duty cycle (25 percent instead of the claimed 3.7 percent of the Quantum article) and operates at a higher frequency than Ainslie's Quantum report. And he is making basic errors in his power computations still. Using his reported numbers and making the calculations correctly, his device is not achieving OU performance at all, much less the COP >17 claimed by Ainslie for the original experiment. And his batteries are running down nevertheless.
In short, every major claim of Ainslie in both the Quantum article and the two NERD daft manuscripts has been refuted or shown to be spurious, by several different workers and laboratories on _Both Sides_ of the issue. Supporters have been unable to reproduce her claims and in fact have found that they are impossible using the circuits and protocols described. These refutations have happened with Ainslie's very own apparatus, with other, identical apparatus, with and without Ainslie's personal guidance, and all around the world. Nobody has been able to produce any real experimental support for any of Ainslie's claims EXCEPT that it is possible to make an oscilloscope compute a negative mean power product when certain basic precautions are not taken to assure uncontaminated signal data. This has been confirmed many times, in simulations and in hardware, by many people and there is even a pocket "OU" demonstrator that runs without batteries.... the Altoid... that can be used to demonstrate this negative mean power measurement, and a negatively accumulating energy integral measurement, anytime anywhere on demand. The _measurements_ are easy to replicate, and the meaning of them is well understood... and it's not "free energy" or overunity performance.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 14, 2012, 02:18:55 PM
Seriously? They've kicked you out completely? What an abrupt change in her attitude.
Yep.
Hi Poynt,
That is just wrong. >:( After putting your time and effort in trying to help her she just blocks anybody that poses a different view than her own.
I just want to say I appreciate all the hard work you did trying to get to the bottom of the circuit. You truly are a professional, being able to have the patience to stick through this long.
Soon GMEast will say one wrong thing or a number won't match and he will be kicked out next.
Thanks for the comments DreamThinkBuild.
No one will ever likely be kicked from Rose's playground as long as they post "hopeful" tidbits or are neutral. I was the "neutral" posing questions to the "hopeful", and the "Admin" didn't like that. It's understandable of course, because gmeast was beginning to have uncontrolled fits and I don't think Rose wanted to lose him. After all, he represents 50% of the regular posters there now that I'm gone.
Quote from: poynt99 on September 14, 2012, 06:53:41 PM
After all, he represents 50% of the regular posters there now that I'm gone.
Well using standard mathematics, perhaps so. But with Greg's improved variant, you in fact represent 217.9000452% or 23.01551% depending.
so... it is requested that poynty does not post in greg's thread.
poynty ignores the request and warnings of the admin.
poynty gets the consequence.
poynty then cries persecution.
yet at poynty's forum when you disobey the requests of the admin you get the consequence... and that's all fine and dandy, justified and all. ::)
your hypocrisy nourishes me...
QuoteDear Poynty
I may have, inadvertently, and indirectly and entirely unintentionally - 'banned' you. If so - abject apologies. All I meant to manage was to prevent you posting any more on Greg's thread.
I think I've corrected the error - and if this means that you can - in fact - post on Greg's thread - then I've STILL not managed what I meant to achieve. But I'll leave it to Greg to monitor his thread. I see he's now 'enabled' as a global moderator.
Please respect this Poynty Point. More than welcome to argue your work with me. But leave Greg out of this. He's far better qualified than you are - and is also in the rather enviable position of being able to comment from EMPIRICAL evidence. Which is something that you've yet to achieve. And may I add - just for the purposes of this argument - that last equation of yours is a great deal of nonsense. But if you want to try and justify it - then do it on one of my threads or even on your own. Greg is actually doing some much needed WORK and I'm sure can manage this better without distractions. He's well qualified to determine if his results are right or wrong - and I'm entirely satisfied that if he finds error he's got both the required integrity and acumen to acknowledge it. I'm drawing the distinction here that he argues his case and admits his errors when and if there are any - where you simply WITHDRAW from an argument under the spurious pretext of feeling 'insulted'? Not a strong argument Poynty Point - with respect.
Kindest regards,
Rosie.=
::)
Awww..... she doesn't have anyone to argue with any more, and she misses being able to talk down to someone above her.
Man, if that's "respect"...... what does disrespect look like in Ainslie-speak?
May I please have permission to calculate Tar Baby's input power the same way Gmeast does for his circuit?
Because when I do it and find 3 or 4 x OU, they will surely tell ME what is wrong with the method.
How many eggs per carton does it take to make a 3-egg omelette? Let's see.
There are 12 eggs per carton of eggs, so there are 12/3 = 4 of the 3-egg omelettes in a carton.
But I'm only going to make one omelette, so I'll just use 1/4 of the carton, iow 12/4 = 3 eggs per carton, averaged across the whole carton of 12.
Now, my intuition and instincts tell me that, since I'm only using 1/4 of the carton, I'm using 25 percent, and not using 75 percent of the carton. And 75 / 25 is 3. So I should divide my "3 eggs" by 3, which equals 1.
Therefore it only takes one egg to make a three-egg omelette.
Oh.... wait, silly me, that whole 75/25 thing is wrong, because if I take a whole thing and divide it up properly into quarters I should wind up dividing by 4, not 3. So my corrected value is now 3 eggs / 4, which equals 0.75 egg.
So it actually only takes 0.75 egg to make a three-egg omelette, and I have an overunity ratio COPegg of 3.0/0.75 = 4 !
And an RMSegg calculation yields a similar result !!
:o
8)
Quote from: poynt99 on September 15, 2012, 09:14:38 AM
Quote: "Dear Poynty... He's far better qualified than you are..."
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 15, 2012, 01:16:47 PM
I have an overunity ratio COPegg of 3.0/0.75 = 4 !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKm5xQyD2vE
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 15, 2012, 01:16:47 PM
How many eggs per carton does it take to make a 3-egg omelette? Let's see.
You can't make an Orbette without breaking kegs. Hold on, wrong free-energy device...
Hi all,
Well I see Rosemary's forum with her cave clan has been are still in the dark clueless of whats in front of their face. This is of course in context is the "Ainslie" language and grammar thats used to show the professionalism of her clan organization with the hundreds of members contributing daily to the scientific information being posted. :P
These are of course from what we're lead to believe by Rosemary are the collaborators, engineers and academics that back the findings of new "new" claimed COP>INFINITY device giving their 100% support and agreement in the findings without argument ...... oops ...... I suppose that these are hidden postings at her forum/blog to hide their identity as been done for the past ten years everywhere else. ???
I am shocked that the design engineers at "International Rectifier" who invented the IRFPG50 Hexfet Mosfet back in the 1970's, doing years of product testing and evaluation to start production and publish the technical data sheet for consumers, that everyone employed there concealed the "OU" benefits and didn't cash out on the component properties even to this day .... oops .... thats Rosemary's belief .... :o
These devices of Rosemary's with less than a dozen electronic components and shes been arguing the same OU claims .... she must be proud to be smarter than the engineers at International Rectifier. ::)
FTC
;)
Ainslie is the Kathy Bates of free energy. Be careful what you measure, gmeast.
edit: grammar
What, you don't believe me, that an RMS egg calculation also yields "similar" overunity omelettes?
There are 4, 3-egg omelettes in a carton, for a "duty cycle" of 1/4 or 0.25 or 25 percent. And the EggsRMS value is given by Eggs x sqrt(duty cycle). Right? And similarly, OmelettesRMS is Omelettes x sqrt(duty cycle). And of course, Eggsavg is given by CartonRMS/OmeletteRMS. Right?
so we have
CartonRMS = Eggs x sqrt(0.25 carton) = 12 x 0.5 = 6 eggs
therefore eggs = CartonRMS / OmeletesRMS = 6 / (4 x sqrt(0.25)) = 6 / 2 = 3
But only one quarter of the carton will be used, so my intuition and instinct tells me to divide that result by 3, no, sorry, silly me, it's a 25 percent duty cycle, so divide by 4, lol even harder:
Therefore it takes 3/4 = 0.75 eggs to make a 3-egg omelette. QED. A massive overunity egg ratio of 3/0.75 = 4.
By two different measurement methods, all mathematically correct. Right?
"Give a man an egg, he eats for a day. Teach a man to lay an egg..."
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 15, 2012, 06:33:28 PM
By two different measurement methods, all mathematically correct. Right?
Kindest AND best and very well done FOR getting those omelettes. I hope, soon, TO show you some OF our own.
Orbie
Gaahh.... He still doesn't get it.
Gmeast, here is a very simple challenge for you. Please use your function generator to send a 62.5 kHz positive rectangular pulse of 25 percent duty cycle, at 12 volts peak, directly through a simple 5 Watt automotive light bulb, like a dome light. Apply the exact same power measurement techniques and calculations that you have done in the past three days with your mosfet circuit. Compare with straight DC at 3 volts -- or even 6 volts -- to the bulb. Measure and calculate and report. Use the exact same calculations, from a small shunt for current monitoring, that you have been using, just as if you were measuring your circuit.
So, getting back to this discussion...
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 13, 2012, 06:47:37 PM
Uh... OK..... but the derivation in the Wiki article is shown to apply to complex waveforms as long as an rms current value can be obtained "somehow". But sure, if you are a bench tech measuring "these types of circuits" presumably meaning noisy PWMs or switching power supplies, you already have an integrating oscilloscope sitting in front of you and you know how to use it.... so you would probably not use your method directly.... even though the scope will be doing it internally.
Even with a good scope and passive probes, making a Pout measurement on an inductive-resistive switched "high-side" load is notoriously difficult, if not impossible to do accurately. Many have been down that road, including myself.
The only way to do it properly, is to use a differential voltage probe across the load resistor, and a current probe in series with it. The other option is to use an isolated front-end scope. These requirements eliminate 99.99% of all users on this forum, and at least 50% of everyone else.
Quote
I think the real contribution and novelty is in your insistence and demonstration that one can indeed make good measurements, reliable and accurate, with your method and without an expensive digital scope, as long as some basic knowledge is present.
Yes, but more importantly, this method allows the Pout measurement possible to make at all, fancy equipment or not. The only other way is to use a DC control as Rose and Greg have done, and we know this takes a fair bit of time to do, not to mention the added requirement for a variable power supply, which many don't have. My method works very well, and quickly, and without the need for a scope, nor variable power supply. AND, it is accurate.
Quote from: poynt99 on September 16, 2012, 12:21:44 PM
So, getting back to this discussion...
Even with a good scope and passive probes, making a Pout measurement on an inductive-resistive switched "high-side" load is notoriously difficult, if not impossible to do accurately. Many have been down that road, including myself.
The only way to do it properly, is to use a differential voltage probe across the load resistor, and a current probe in series with it. The other option is to use an isolated front-end scope. These requirements eliminate 99.99% of all users on this forum, and at least 50% of everyone else.
Yes, but more importantly, this method allows the Pout measurement possible to make at all, fancy equipment or not. The only other way is to use a DC control as Rose and Greg have done, and we know this takes a fair bit of time to do, not to mention the added requirement for a variable power supply, which many don't have. My method works very well, and quickly, and without the need for a scope, nor variable power supply. AND, it is accurate.
Yep, agreed..... I'm spoiled I guess because at the other location I have nice diff probes and that hugely expensive LeCroy DC-100MHz current probe to hand. Your method makes it possible for me to continue (if I want to for some reason) here with lesser equipment.
Ironically..... the Fluke 123 and 199 ScopeMeters that Ainslie used for the Quantum report, or claimed to use (I still don't know if it was really a 123 or 199 that she used) have isolated channel references. You can have 600 V between the "grounds" of the two probes; this allowed one (or Ainslie) to blithely make measurements all over the circuit without worrying.
Which reminds me... how is Gmeast measuring "across the load"? Is he considering Drain-to-Negative Rail to be "across the load"? Or does he have isolated probe references so he can actually measure across the load while also monitoring the main CVR on the neg rail? Or does he have enough channels available to use two probes in a differential manner for the "across the load" measurement?
It's hard for me to imagine anyone trying any kind of work like this without having a regulated, variable DC power supply or several of them. But I am constantly surprised whenever I dip into threads discussing electronics. I consider my own knowledge and bench setup to be rudimentary.... then I see people discussing resonance and coil tuning for example and they don't even have an oscilloscope and are using an old PC power supply (nothing wrong with that, I use one too for special purposes, but still.....)
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 16, 2012, 01:12:30 PM
Which reminds me... how is Gmeast measuring "across the load"? Is he considering Drain-to-Negative Rail to be "across the load"? Or does he have isolated probe references so he can actually measure across the load while also monitoring the main CVR on the neg rail? Or does he have enough channels available to use two probes in a differential manner for the "across the load" measurement?
Greg thinks he is computing the input power (Pin) correctly, but he is not. For some odd unknown reason, he thinks that he should be multiplying the battery voltage by the duty cycle factor, when of course this is utterly incorrect.
As far as I know, he isn't attempting to measure the voltage across the load for any reason. Is he?
Just a quick note to acknowledge PW and his excellent advice about using a 1 Ohm CSR vs. using a 0.25 or 0.1 Ohm CSR.
Two benefits:
1) It provides for a better signal to noise ratio and uses more bits of those 8-bit oscilloscopes, which is going to improve the measurement accuracy.
2) It reduces the Q of the CSR resistor, provided it is not a wire-wound CSR. Assuming the inductance is relatively unchanged among different values of CSR's this increases the resistance to inductance ratio and therefore the accuracy of the current being measured via the CSR.
One possible detriment is the introduction of 1 Ohm of resistance in the circuit, but most times this is innocuous.
@ gmeast,
Well I can see now you didn't research shit when it came to Rosemary's claimed Quantum COP>17 circuit ..... nothing ..... na da ...... and you call everyone else a idiot ?? Your a fool !!!! :o
FTC
:P
Thanks Glen. ;)
Actually, I posted the same pic over there in response to Greg's accusation.
ETA: Greg has now deleted my recent posts in his thread. I copied the example to my FG thread there.
Greg has had another fit:
Quote from: gmeast on September 16, 2012, 10:18:39 PM
Hi Rosie,
Sorry, but I'm done here. This poyn99t a_ _hole has ruined this for me. Remove my moderator privileges and just ban me so I'm not tempted to post here again. I've decided to NOT share any findings with anyone.
Thanks for the opportunity, but it's not worth putting in the hours and enthusiasm and then having to put up with a self righteous a _ _ wipe like poynt99.
So Rose will no doubt ban me; this time on purpose as opposed to by mistake. Greg's threatening to leave, and once Rose calms him down, he'll agree to stay and Rose will ban me...again. LOL :-X
Greg specifically asked to see what I have built and tested in regards to Rose's circuit, so I obliged him and posted that pic of my setup from 2009. He deleted that too. ???
Evidently, Greg is afraid of something. :o
Amazing.
The guy just doesn't want to do any of his own homework, it seems. And when he's proven wrong he deletes the proof and continues to make the same accusatory claim. That is truly amazing. He's graduated from NERD Novice to full-blown NERD Collaborator with that move, right out of the Red Queen Ainslie's playbook.
It's too bad that he never actually admitted that last fundamental error. Perhaps he saw it, realised how inefficient his circuit actually is when analyzed properly that way, and that was what prompted him to want to discard power analysis and start looking at energy instead. A fresh new fertile field to err in.
And when the deletions and edits that change meaning start happening, you know the end is near.
Ah well, it's par for the course in these circles. ;)
Life goes on. ;D
Poof! Whoosh! And--in the blink of an eye--it's gone.
Quote from: polln8r on September 17, 2012, 01:43:01 AM
Poof! Whoosh! And--in the blink of an eye--it's gone.
:-* :o :-X
FTC
???
Well.... let's review.
Gmeast began by looking at the NERD circuit and rejecting it out of hand as unworkable, but he was curious about the other COP>17 claim from the Quantum article.
So he started building that one. Immediately he posted the "Has anyone actually built this thing" post with the "It does not work"... when he discovered that it made an exactly inverted duty cycle and could not be used to make the dutycycle claimed by Ainslie in the Quantum article.
So he modified the circuit to use his own timer or pulse generator or oscillator. And he decided to use gate driver chips since he knows mosfet circuit design and PWM circuitry and measurements so well. And he had trouble making the "Ainslie oscillations" and never really did duplicate her "random aperiodic Hartley oscillations"... since he used a scope that didn't have the aliasing and Moire patterns of the Fluke 199's low- resolution display.
But he found that a true duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON didn't produce any appreciable load heating, so he went to a duty cycle of 25 percent ON and a higher frequency than Ainslie used in order to have anything to measure at the load that could be called "heating".
But he still couldn't see anything like a recharge going back to the battery so he had to incorporate a recirculation diode that didn't appear in the Quantum circuit at all. Nevertheless, he finally got measurable load heating and was able to make DC power comparisons.... and found massive OverUnity in this "replication" of a circuit Ainslie couldn't even contemplate much less produce and test. Not 17:1, but still some respectable numbers. Clearly OU.... and clearly wrong.
He repeatedly "made the same mistake twice" by applying the duty cycle twice to his input power calculations, in several different ways, giving him a spuriously low calculated input power value. An example of this incorrect calculation method is shown below. Calculated correctly his measurements yield perfectly ordinary efficiency numbers, which at least speaks to his ability to write down numbers from boxes.
He clung to his "overunity" result in the face of several different clear... or more or less clear... explanations and examples of his major error, until finally -- apparently with egg on his face, 0.75 egg -- he melted down in a squall of insulting foulmouthed vituperation.... and a short while later he caused to be removed the entire record of his work from public view. The whole thread is simply gone.
Fortunately I have many images of his posts from that thread, so it's not completely gone from the ken of man.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on September 16, 2012, 07:22:46 PM
Your a fool !!!! :o
FTC
:P
you're...
your is possesive... ::) eg: is that your coat?
you're is a contraction of 'you are'. eg: you're an ignoramus fuzzytomcat.
there. now you are a little smarter... wait... let me re write that so you can understand it.
their. now your a little smarter. ;)
you really have trouble with basic english don't you... you're a fool.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 17, 2012, 07:52:25 PM
Dear Poynty
WHEN are you going to wake up to the damage that you do? And do you even care? I question your 'professionalism' in exposing the content of private emails - in posting in threads where you are not wanted - in imposing faulty equations - in coercing cooperation with arguments instead of simply arguing them - in posting over downloads that belong EXCLUSIVELY to this forum - and in MANY MANY other ways. But the whole exercise becomes one fraught with duress. It is PRECISELY what makes open source so fragile.
Regards
Rosie
Rose,
You've deleted my response to your post over there, so here it is again, for the record:
Rose, any damage done was promulgated by Greg himself. I simply acted as a mirror, reflecting back his own discourse in a different light, hopefully to make him think. He chose instead to lash out and keep his head buried in the proverbial sand.
Anyway, your response went pretty much as I expected, so I'll not be posting any further.
Chau for now.
An interesting (but not all that surprising) development folks; gmeast has 'returned' to Rose's playground, and of all things has taken over my "FG Anatomy" thread as moderator! :o WTF over?
Can anyone decipher the rubbish he just posted there?
Guess he just couldn't help himself. ::)
I see also that my example has been deleted. I guess they can't handle the truth.
Rose's playground rules,
See no truth
Hear no truth
Speak no truth
"Global power corrupts globally."
One can't blame gmeast in this case... he did, in fact, ask to have his moderator status revoked. As he predicted himself, he was led into temptation.
edited: deleted a quotation mark that meant nothing.
Actually, he asked to be banned so he wouldn't be tempted to post. I knew Rose wouldn't comply.
It seems as though he's rather enjoying his new found power, and soiling my thread with his nonsensical intuitive insights. ::)
:D
Well, all that is amusing. Looking around for points to probe that give him values more to his liking, I suppose. That's almost bordering upon the capital sin of oscilloscope abuse... which is mentioned right after onanism in the Bible, IIRC.
I'd like to see gmeast calculate the overunity in my latest switched mosfet resonant feedback oscillator project. I would be perfectly happy to accept his numbers.
Strangely, I've made the challenge before, that the NERDs use their exact "standard measurement protocols" to measure the COP of my TinselKoil 2.0. No takers, total rejection. What's good for the goose doesn't work for the koala, I guess.
But I'd like to make the same challenge again. Let gmeast construct and measure _this_ circuit in the same way he does his, using the same techniques and calculations, including the DC load heating comparisons.
Note that this is in fact a Tar Baby variant. Schematic for the driver attached below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBFopZNF5iM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBFopZNF5iM)
Hi everyone,
Well as WillbyInebriated the huckleberry crusader :-* would say "get along little doggies" .....
Can't really see whom the last sentence is directed at ..... my opinion it must be Rosemary :-X .
I think Rosemary has sent gmeast some of her premo "catnip", and they all may have been indulging heavily. :o
FTC
::)
Well. It seems to be rather difficult for Gmeast to retain his equilibrium, in the face of analyses that destroy his illusions of competency coming from one side, and the inane and frankly stupid questions/delusions coming from Ainslie herself on the other side.
I expect the smoke to start pouring from his ears at any moment. Too bad we won't be told of that phase of his meltdown-in-progress.
I can't see the images in question but from the description he posted earlier and her thinly disguised deformation of it, I am guessing that she is still making the Fundamental Mosfet Attribution Error: she is still not understanding that on the mosfet drain in this configuration, high voltage (the battery voltage) means the mosfet is off, and low voltage down near the ground or zero level-- a few volts above it..... means the mosfet is ON and conducting.
Does this mean that the promised tests.... promised and awaited for how long now?.... will be further postponed? It is nearly the EQUINOX....... the real autumnal equinox for us, vernal for her, and there is no sign of any further testing, just more claims and no results.
Oh.... wait..... I still have the NERD Test Preventer scalar frequency linecaster operating, don't I. And it is clearly still working perfectly. I use it as a nightlight, it's part of my ambient consciousness now.
This is almost unbelievable, but Rose is trying to convince me that it was not Greg nor herself that managed all those post and thread deletions. ???
Apparently it was the "bogey man" logging in as "Admin" and wreaking havoc all over the place. ::)
The advice I've given Rose (she asked) was to demote the "bogey man" (gmeast) back to "Regular Member", and these "mysterious" deletions are guaranteed to cease.
Why would you expect them to cease? They've happened in every thread that Ainslie has control over. They even happened in YouTube comments in the old days.... she would go back weeks sometimes and delete comments, since she couldn't edit those. Forum threads.... we all know that she's even engaged in collusion with forum owners and moderators, to have entire threads removed that she found objectionable. Now that she's got her own forum you can expect her editorial policy to continue.... unedited.
Meanwhile, her last two posts have me wondering. Is she attempting to apply the duty cycle twice, like gmeast has done? I can't tell if she is referring to the whole period or just the "on" time. This is one reason why I'd like to see their calculations applied to a different system. Like one of mine, for example. Also, the talk about gmeast's recent scope trace makes no sense without being able to see the scope trace... duh.
OK, maybe not cease completely, but certainly the number would be reduced.
Rose claimed that "someone" was logging in as "Admin" and deleting posts...I wonder if Rose sleep walks? I'm certain she is the only one logging in as "Admin". I've seen her alternate between "Admin" and "Rosemary Ainslie" within minutes, as the latter login only has "Regular Member" privileges.
I wonder if Greg will be back, now that he's said bye and that he's done? ???
:P
There is at least one other Admin, isn't there?
"G".
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 20, 2012, 12:09:34 AM
There is at least one other Admin, isn't there?
"G".
There is one more than "chessnyt" and thats a member called "Admin" ( Rosemary ) I've seen on the home/front page in the
Users Online.
That would bring it to a grand total of three Administrators. ??? The
Stat area is now closed for guest viewing. :-X
Fuzzy
;)
Open-Farce development
I am certain it is the "Admin" login (Rose) that has been deleting posts other than the ones Greg deleted.
The "users online" viewing has been disabled for all regular members Glen. Same with PM's.
Well, there you have it then. Not content with being banned from all other forums, she decides to kill her own forum as well, by deleting the only posts and thread of significance, and blocking non-members and members alike from seeing the relevant stats. Meanwhile the two active posters seem to be both of them rather paranoid and excitable types.... I'm sure they are feeling right at home with Ainslie.
All those months of work, on my part with Tar Baby, on .99's part with sims and the careful patient explanations, poynt by gentle poynt.... picowatt's analyses, his slow boat from Singapore with his mosfets, Glen's reviews of past work, the efforts and comments of our "lurkers" and other contributors.... all of it down the tubes. Ainslie will just wait for the dust to settle, and then she'll pop up again in some other venue, lying about her "proof" of overunity and suckering another bunch of sincere and hopeful idiots into doing her work for her.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 20, 2012, 10:39:10 PM
Well, there you have it then. Not content with being banned from all other forums, she decides to kill her own forum as well, by deleting the only posts and thread of significance, and blocking non-members and members alike from seeing the relevant stats. Meanwhile the two active posters seem to be both of them rather paranoid and excitable types.... I'm sure they are feeling right at home with Ainslie.
All those months of work, on my part with Tar Baby, on .99's part with sims and the careful patient explanations, poynt by gentle poynt.... picowatt's analyses, his slow boat from Singapore with his mosfets, Glen's reviews of past work, the efforts and comments of our "lurkers" and other contributors.... all of it down the tubes. Ainslie will just wait for the dust to settle, and then she'll pop up again in some other venue, lying about her "proof" of overunity and suckering another bunch of sincere and hopeful idiots into doing her work for her.
You forgot to mention the "three readers of this thread". Oh, that was the other thread. ;]
Not all down the tubes. What you guys have done is pulled many of us out of the sinkhole we were sucked into. She is now isolated. No readers, and 1 member that is mostly posting about other technology and the other, he just might be Rose's long lost twin. They both lie, cheat, and, lie. lol like they are connected in some way.
Hey, I cant see her ever being able to present anything here again. Nor some other places.
The word is out. ;] And the word is strong.
MaGs
Howdy everyone,
FYI .... those that are not familiar with ( gmeast ) greg (?) here is a link to his YouTube video uploads.
http://www.youtube.com/user/gmeast?feature=watch :o
A personal appearance .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwkaQFr_43A&feature=plcp :-X
Someone should tell gmeast the accuracy of his USB interfaced laptop computer scope (20Mhz ?) compared to a Tektronix TDS 3054C or a DPO 3054 used on a high frequency DC pulsed circuit. [Ainslie COP>17 / COP>INFINITY] ::)
FTC
;)
Hearing things over and over and over and over...
Edited to substitute a link to the animated .gif
surprised I can make this change, after this much time.
http://imageshack.us/a/img21/9339/brokenrecordm.gif
@.99
You might try poynting out to Ms NoCalculus that her "vi dt" reduces to V x Idt, since V is a constant in the INput case.
Perhaps the "public confession" of gmeast's error that she is thinking of is the one where he realized that you don't divide by three, you divide by four. But of course he never actually acknowledged that he did the exact error that Ainslie illustrated and acknowledged was an error, in your example.
Relevant images of posts attached below.... since the actual posts are missing.
TK,
Yeah I am aware of those 'admissions', as ambiguous as they are. But ultimately he never admitted that the correct Pin is 10.5W for his circuit, and that is the bottom line. Rose agreed with and duplicated his erroneous computation, therefore she too is incorrect.
Quote from: poynt99 on September 22, 2012, 07:52:11 AM
TK,
Yeah I am aware of those 'admissions', as ambiguous as they are. But ultimately he never admitted that the correct Pin is 10.5W for his circuit, and that is the bottom line. Rose agreed with and duplicated his erroneous computation, therefore she too is incorrect.
Yep, exactly, except that in the recent exchange I think Ainslie was actually illustrating the error, not actually making it in her replies to you. She got the right answer to your sample problem, and then also illustrated how it can be incorrectly calculated (using gmeast's method). Thus, she should be able to see that gmeast has done the same thing that she agrees is an error, in the imaged post above. But neither she nor gmeast have explicitly done so. They just removed the entire error-filled posts and gmeast blithely throws out the entire methodology without justification... other than that it gives him answers he doesn't like.
And I actually do not think that Ainslie can follow the math that gmeast used in the imaged post above, well enough to find the error. You might be able to step her through it one tiny step at a time, but she manages to put a foot wrong even with tiny steps, so I dunno.
No, I never saw any admission or correction of his input power values either, just the admission that his "divide by three" version of a 25 percent duty cycle was wrong. I never saw him correct or acknowledge the major error of putting the duty cycle in twice, nor did he publicly correct the numbers he cited so publicly and enthusiastically. He would have to admit that his circuit is not overunity if he did that! Much better to remove the entire record of the issue and toss out the method entirely with the claim that it's invalid....
(It was valid as long as it produced OU results, though, wasn't it, gmeast and Ainslie.... it only became invalid when it showed that the circuit is NOT overunity in its performance.)
Ainslie said,
Quote
Poynty - I KNOW what you're getting to. Who would NOT? Here's the thing...
5 Amps - 5 minutes
0 Amps - 5 minutes
________________
= 0.25 Amps per every 10 minutes.
.99 said:
>Quote
Correct Rose. You agree then that the average current is 0.25 Amperes. And you would also agree that the average current would be 0.125 Amperes if the switch was ON for 2.5 minutes, and OFF for 7.5 minutes, correct?
And I don't get this. How do you arrive at 0.25 amps as an average current here, if your input current is 5 amps at a duty cycle of 50 percent?
Ah... I see it now. It's another "mindreading" typo error from Ainslie.... she should have "0.5" amps where she has "5" amps. This is why LEADING ZEROS before a decimal point are indeed important. You read her mind successfully and realized she meant one-tenth of what she actually wrote. Silly me.... I just see what's actually written, and I see that 5 amps at a duty cycle of 50 percent gives me 2.5 amps average, not 0.25 amps.
Here, maybe this will help to explain to Ainslie just where gmeast's real error is, as well as illustrating that he never acknowledged nor corrected this major error.... he only corrected the minor one of using "3" instead of "4" to represent a 25 percent duty cycle in his (erroneous) second application of the duty cycle to his input average power value.
Of course, since he's thrown out the method altogether, he is now at odds with Ainslie herself, apparently, as well as the rest of reality.
This is a screenshot of his post, now vanished, where he first makes the erroneous calculation arriving at a small average input power to give a large OU result. My comments are in color, his statements and calculations are in black.
Ah, how we complicate things and go astray.
You can have input _voltage_ and still have zero input _power_, because the power is determined by the current that the voltage is able to push through the circuit. This is where the improper mental models conflict with reality and cause the naive and inexperienced to wander blindly down deadend paths in darkness and despair, trying to get a zipon-powered overunity flashlight to turn on.
You are an humble grad student tasked with monitoring the input power to a black box. You have a voltmeter and an ammeter hooked up between the always-on, regulated power supply set to 10 volts, and the black box sitting over there on the lab bench. And you have a clipboard, a pencil, and a stopwatch. Since you are a very fast writer, you record V and I values once per second. And your record for the first ten seconds looks like this:
1 10 V 10 A
2 10 V 10 A
3 10 V 10 A
4 10 V 10 A
5 10 V 10 A
6 10 V 0 A
7 10 V 0 A
8 10 V 0 A
9 10 V 0 A
10 10 V 0 A
Got the picture, gmeast? The average power is the average voltage times the average current. The average voltage is 10 volts -- the peak voltage times the duty cycle OF THE VOLTAGE, which is 100 percent, and the average current is the peak current times the duty cycle OF THE CURRENT. When you compute the average power here, you do NOT then come back again and divide by 2 for the "duty cycle" of 50 percent.
Doing the problem EXACTLY as gmeast has done above, except using the current as given:
The Frequency = 0.1 Hz (one pulse or full cycle in ten seconds is 0.1 cycle per second or 0.1 Hz)
V = 10 Volts
A = 10 Amps
Duty cycle = 50 %
1/(2 x 0.1 Hz) = duration of a single pulse = 5 seconds
10 V x 10 A = 100 Watts per pulse
100 Watts per pulse x 5 seconds = 500 Watt-seconds per pulse
There are 0.1 pulses per second, so
(500 Watt-seconds/pulse) x (0.1 pulse/second) = 50 Watts.
In the latter calculation I have essentially added together all the identical packages of instantaneous power but they are spaced apart over time.
(Now.... do I stop here, or do I now divide AGAIN by 2, since I have a duty cycle of 50 percent? Gmeast proceeds to apply the duty cycle again, as I have shown in the image above.)
Since I have a duty cycle of 50 percent, my instincts tell me to divide again by 2, giving me an average input power of 25 Watts.
Which is of course wrong. But that's the way gmeast thinks it should be done, and even Ainslie knows better than that, I think.
Indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCxypoN8-xc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCxypoN8-xc)
Note: at about 3:00 I say "fifteen hundred kiloHertz" when I actually should have said "fifteen hundred Hertz" or "one point five kiloHertz". The FG is set to 1.5 kHz for this stage of the demo.
Historical inspiration for the Rosemary Ainslie / GMEast dialogues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY-PEeX5xYY
Good video TK.
Since Rose insists on deleting my on-topic posts and leaving my off-topic posts, I'll post the deleted ones here.
Greg,
Since you and Rose insist that you have admitted all errors regarding your Pin and Pout computations, please summarize them here:
Pin = ?
Pout = ?
COP = ?
And Rose, how does this constitute an off-topic post? Anyway, the correct result for Greg's Pin is 10.5W. If he is still insisting it is half that or less, he is mistaken, and I guess so are you.
You said I need to be more adult-like? Should I be using Greg as an example model of how to be "more adult-like"? :o
gmeast said:
QuoteAnyway, this is going private by invitation only. You are not invited because you have nothing constructive to offer. [snip] As I said ... you're a plague on progress.
Oh, and glad to hear Greg's nonsensical erroneous computations will now be kept out of the public eye. That's definitely for the best. ;)
happy trails...
Looks like Ainslie's been hitting the sherry pretty hard this afternoon.
She is in complete denial of fact. Reality makes no impression on her in her walled compound. For her, things are just so, and just because she says so, and if you do not agree so much the worse for you -- you will be deleted.
She has been soundly refuted on every point, from the fundamental claims all the way down to the tiny individual details such as her present belief that diodes are perfect little one-way valves. Yet she simply ignores the refutations as if they did not exist and continues to claim that she must be right _by default_ since nobody has the patience to deal with her continuous line of logorrhea and word salad, combined with fractured math and fairy tale scoposcopy.
I expect there to be another insulting doggerel "poem" from her shortly. But of course.... she won't watch or comment on any of my video refutations of her nonsense. That would require her taking her head out of her...... sandpile...... for a moment to look around, and actually to _think_ about something logically for a change.
Indeed.
Where did she come up with E=V(IAVG)? Certainly not from me. And what is "E", energy? Goof grief! (sp mistake on purpose) ;)
Actually Rose, the equation I gave several times is: Pin(avg) = Vbat(avg) x Ibat(avg)
And did you really forget about the work I did on your circuit back in 2009, which is when that photo of my setup was taken? My, your memory is extremely poor isn't it? ::)
Oh, and Rose, you know why I'm no longer in discussions with you (because I've told you several times), and it's not because I can't answer your questions, it's because I choose not to. Besides, you delete every PERTINENT post I make, so what kind of incentive is that? And finally, you've rejected my offer to learn anything new from me, so what's the point?
Quote from "her", over "there"...
"If I were merely a deluded old woman with a lonely support for this - then the reasonable reaction would be to 'leave well alone' and let this flame burn out."
With regard to her understanding of electronics (or lack thereof), I took the option above some time ago...
PW
-in a nutshell...
"If you stay and argue while letting us censor you then that's all fine and wonderful. If you choose not to then that must mean we've been right all along and you admit that you've been wrong."
All the more nutty because of course .99 _has_ explained the "flow of current" in all conditions in the Ainslie NERD circuit. Some of it is illusory, an artefact of the inductances. Some of it is passing through the function generator, and some of it is passing as AC through the circuit's capacitances and the mosfet body diodes.
Poynt99 is able to predict, using his simulation, the current waveforms of the NERD circuit at any point. The circuit and its behaviour are UNDERSTOOD, by everyone except Ainslie, who is still trying to justify her Zipon "thesis", in spite of the fact that her "explanation" uses a diagram and a circuit path that is NOT EVEN PRESENT in the apparatus she claimed to use for the experiment.
Look at the labels on the cartoon mosfets! She doesn't even have her explanation describing the actual wiring of the circuit! So how could it POSSIBLY explain the operation of the circuit! It cannot.
So we have the "classical" model of electronics, standard physics, that is able to simulate and predict all of the NERD circuit performance accurately with the correct, actual schematic published as the one used by Ainslie ..... vying with a "thesis" that cannot make any quantitative predictions at all and whose only explanation of the current flow in the Ainslie circuit uses a wrong wiring arrangement entirely -- one that was NEVER used by any NERD circuit at any time -- and thus cannot explain anything.
The cartoons and the "explanation" were clearly prepared during the time when Ainslie and her "collaborators" did not yet realise their miswiring error--- they thought all the mosfets were in parallel AS IN THE CARTOON BELOW. And Ainslie in her arrogance and ignorance has never bothered to correct this fatal mistake, constantly pointing to this very "explanation", when in fact it corresponds to nothing that she ever tested or showed.
I guess Ainslie is still refusing to watch my simple video demonstrations of how silly her claims are. Imagine.... she believes that diodes are perfect little one-way valves! And she thinks that people should pay attention to experimental evidence. Well, I certainly agree with that. Her own evidence refutes her claims completely, and as she continues to make fractured claim after silly claim, the evidence piles up that shows, beyond any doubt, that she is an overweeningly arrogant, ridiculously silly and mendacious old woman with rudimentary knowledge about electronics and none at all about real quantum electrodynamics.
What did I tell you? Another insulting bit of drunken verbiage from Ainslie has dribbled out of her senile mind like the slackjawed drool it is.
The overweeningly arrogant, insulting and miraculously ignorant fool Rosemary Ainslie is now biting the hand that's been feeding her so carefully and patiently for these past years.
Meanwhile, the lies from Ainslie make such a big pile of stinking mendacity that it's hard to imagine how anyone will ever be able to fall into it again. Her "papers" themselves are lies!
Ainslie has failed to deliver anything that she's promised over the last two threads. Ever since her posting of her video demo EIGHTEEN MONTHS ago, she has promised to do many things. Repeated testing, battery draw down tests, transcripts and critiques of all my videos, revisions and corrections of her daft manuscripts, proof of other collaborators endorsing her work.... nothing that she's promised has been performed. Not even the big revelation of the mysterious real identities of her "trolls". Nothing, nada, zip, zero. Ainslie has managed to avoid doing ANYTHING that she promised to do.
And now her sole replicator has gone "private" with his error-filled work. All that remains of the great Ainslie affair is a handful of insulting doggerel... and she can't even spell that right.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 28, 2012, 04:36:14 AM
And now her sole replicator has gone "private" with his error-filled work. All that remains of the great Ainslie affair is a handful of insulting doggerel... and she can't even spell that right.
I doubt they've figured out how to make a thread or board "private", and if they did, who would be posting/reading there anyway?
I guess it does however only take two to have a 'discussion'. ;)
Capacitive inductance again.... and MORE BLOWN MOSFETS..... somehow "degraded". But she's reproduced her constant errors Yet Again, as anyone can who cares to.
Too bad there is no more reality checking. It was getting amusing there, watching her squirm when presented with facts. But now, she's entirely living in her own fantasy world and can say whatever she likes without the inconvenient requirement to provide any evidence.
We've never seen a part number for her "noninductive shunt". We know that the expensive motor-start capacitor she purchased while ignoring .99's suggestions is not appropriate for the measurements that need to be made. We know for certain that she doesn't understand impedance or the contributions of inductive and capacitive reactance to total impedance. We are quite certain that an attempt to reproduce the long periods and the 72 volts input will result in the Q1 mosfet overheating and failing..... and we know that is the only way that the scopeshots we have questioned can be produced. And we do NOT know just what circuit schematic she is using, since she herself doesn't even know, or realise the difference. And we'll not be seeing any real data from these idiots.
She's reduced to the position of essentially saying "look, if you hold everything just right, you can see a tiny sparkle in this glass, therefore it is the Hope Diamond".... when everybody can see that it is only a lump of glass.
And, without the burden of experts to disagree with him, he's back:
It's laughable indeed. Perhaps it's suitable punishment for them, simply to be allowed to travel down their dead-end carnival path, wasting time and effort, but never being able to do what their numbers tell them they should be able to do.
I can't see the scope traces. It is possible that gmeast is also making the Fundamental Mosfet Error of thinking that when his drain voltage is HIGH it means the mosfet is ON and conducting?
And I sure would like to see the equipment he uses, to measure electrical power to the hundredth of a milliWatt. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the citing of numbers with that kind of false precision: they are wrong. How far wrong may be up to debate in some quarters, but unless corroboration can be given for the accuracy of that hundredth of a milliWatt precision claim...... they are undeniably wrong.
Well he's told you there's "no doubt" (p < 0.000000019997) that the gate is off, so that's an end to it.
And cheesenyt is systematically cracking the other conspiracies as a bonus.
But has he, in the course of the thread, given enough information to calculate the true input power on the assumption he's currently calculating with an inverted duty cycle? I couldn't see it, but I doubt I'd recognise it (and who's to say how consistent any of it is?)
QuoteIf the voltage falls below that value, I can not get the desired results.
Why would the voltage fall below that value (25.1V)?
As he's producing excess energy, he can keep the battery topped up, as RA at least has claimed to have done for some time, and heat using the excess only.
Thats why I said GM seems to be able to use a calculator. It seems he is calculating some numbers and posting the figures as if they were readings. No rounding or range info ;]
MaGs
...if my batteries are fully charged, my flashlight shines brightly. If the battery voltage drops below a certain point, the flashlight doesn't work as well.
no shit.
polln8r.
Depressing news. Gmeast has discovered that his battery-powered free energy device is powered by... the batteries. And, sadly, it only runs as long as the batteries are charged. And the batteries run down; they don't stay charged or increase their state of charge like they are supposed to. But they heat a resistor! A few tenths of a degree hotter than DC calculated power !!
At least, until they run down.
Do you think we will see a simple Dim Bulb test from GMeast? I don't.
Pooped!
But great news; it was overunity right up to the point it had no more energy left.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 02, 2012, 01:01:32 PM
Do you think we will see a simple Dim Bulb test from GMeast? I don't.
What do you mean he won't? He very clearly demonstrates a "dim bulb" with every post.
I wonder why he doesn't just build another identical unit and run the first one off the output of the second one. With COP > 17, you'd think that even moderate losses wouldn't hurt much.
Oh...wait.... I don't wonder, because there isn't anything like COP > 17 in real measurements of his circuit in the first place, and in the second place... Conservation of Energy.
But at least the Fundamental Principle of Electrical Overunity still applies: All electrical OU devices must have a battery.
Well TK, it comes down to this;
If Rose, and the likes of Greg could do anything correctly regarding these circuits and how to test them, we wouldn't be having this discussion and this thread wouldn't even exist.
8)
And what a tragic loss to humanity that would be. No gain.... no pain. :'( ;)
Still, I've learned a lot, especially from you and picowatt and MileHigh, from the experiences and analyses on this thread.
And as always, I've managed to branch out in other directions like the wireless inductive power transfer and the Sassy ClassE SSTC projects, both good learning experiences that aren't yet done with either.
It's too bad that I'm not as "well-compensated" as YKW believes......
Indeed it is paramount that threads like this DO exist, because many people learn from them, including the main participants. :D
It's a shame though that the ones perpetrating the erroneous claims refuse to learn anything at all from them. :-\
Here are some pictures of my latest exhibition. Note carefully the pretty colored lines and the nice numbers. See all the tables of data, all the pictures and schematics of the apparatus. Neat, huh?
What's that you say? You cannot see anything? Oh... too bad, that's right, you have to be a member of my special club to see. Too bad for you.
I doubt very much there is anything worth seeing there TK. I haven't logged on there since I left.
He seems to be having fun, even though he has to know he's essentially talking to himself. :o
And after all his word salad write-ups, and erroneous techniques, what does he have to show? Where's the sausage? ;D
The sausage is now COP 1.06, for as long as it sizzles at > 25.1VDC
Quote from: mrsean2k on October 06, 2012, 09:33:28 PM
The sausage is now COP 1.06, for as long as it sizzles at > 25.1VDC
Hey, six percent error is not bad considering the grade-school "calorimetry" and the false precision in calculation.
But.... wasn't that supposed to be a replication of Ainslie's much simpler and much more COP>17 circuit and experiment?
What happened to that? Too much bogosity in that project, even for Gmeast?
Where indeed? We're on the edge of our seats...
Shh! She's TESTING.
Here's an invisible link to her dreams, where the tests might be posted:
At last! Maybe somebody will finally get to see her reproduce the scopetrace that shows 72 volts battery voltage, 12 volts to the mosfet gate, and no current flow in the CVR.
Or.... maybe they won't.
8)
I wonder if I can use GMeast's technique to analyze the power in and out of this device.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0SfDwyM7Kk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11cBBjjd2qA
No comments? Heck, I have oscillations, a negative mean power product, high voltage output, can charge batteries and capacitors, light up incandescent bulbs brighter than with equivalent DC power...... I guess there's no excitement, because I'm not claiming "free energy" or overunity performance.
By the way, did I mention that our boffins, to the man, have endorsed my measurements? I also have test results from FGH, CBPP Inc. and DeLaCroix themselves that my device works just as I show.
Meanwhile.... yet more delays from Ainslie, who promised months ago to post her videos refuting my several points, but of course will not do so. There will be NO TESTING and NO VIDEOS forthcoming from Ainslie, never fear. She won't even post a video to PROVE ME WRONG.... because she cannot.
Meanwhile, let's not forget that Tar Baby can do, and HAS DONE, every single thing that Ainslie claims that her NERD circuit can do.... and just like her NERD circuit, the batteries DO run down and do so in a perfectly normal manner. Not only that, but I have an analogous circuit that runs on CAPACITORS ONLY and makes the same negative mean power result, thanks to .99. I also have many other circuits using switched mosfets and bipolar transistors that do much more amazing and interesting stuff than the NERD circuit does.
What exactly IS the NERD circuit, anyway? Out of all the copies of the several "papers" that Ainslie has scattered around the internet, it's hard to find an agreement. And after the history of the Ainslie affair is considered.... is anyone going to believe anything but ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS of both sides of her experimental board, since she herself manifestly does NOT EVEN KNOW HOW to read a schematic? I know I certainly won't.
Meanwhile we already know that Ainslie has no qualms about claiming to use one schematic circuit when she's actually using another completely different one, as she did from the date of her earlier video in March of last year, all the way through April when .99 finally analyzed the photos and posted the ACTUAL circuit that she used. Nearly a month of lies, over 400 forum posts discussing the WRONG circuit, because either she was so incompetent that she really didn't know, or she is so mendacious and prevaricating that she tried deliberately to cover up and mislead her replicators.
Hey, NERDS.... why don't you show a circuit that is running on a battery that IT CHARGED ITSELF..... like I can do, and have done, and will do again. Let me answer for you: because you cannot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 02, 2012, 01:01:32 PM
Depressing news. Gmeast has discovered that his battery-powered free energy device is powered by... the batteries. And, sadly, it only runs as long as the batteries are charged. And the batteries run down; they don't stay charged or increase their state of charge like they are supposed to. But they heat a resistor! A few tenths of a degree hotter than DC calculated power !!
At least, until they run down.
Do you think we will see a simple Dim Bulb test from GMeast? I don't.
You guys can't even do a good job of attempting to discredit someone. If you use 1 watt of electrical power to supply a circuit that produces 1.5 watts (equivalent) of heat, then it's a winner. The excess power doesn't have to come in the form of electrical components at all. Trying to "close the loop" with a matching type of power is probably impossible in a legitimate system.
So, this thread is the height of social acceptance for you guys. As I had said before, you are all like a bunch of 5th graders exhibiting nothing more than a 'feeding frenzy, pack mentality'. I'll have the last laugh.
@gmeast
Doesn't the fact that your calculation of power was hopelessly flawed wrt allowing for the duty cycle originally give you any pause for thought that your calculations and / or methods are flawed in some other way?
Quote from: gmeast on October 14, 2012, 11:44:16 AM
You guys can't even do a good job of attempting to discredit someone. If you use 1 watt of electrical power to supply a circuit that produces 1.5 watts (equivalent) of heat, then it's a winner. The excess power doesn't have to come in the form of electrical components at all. Trying to "close the loop" with a matching type of power is probably impossible in a legitimate system.
So, this thread is the height of social acceptance for you guys. As I had said before, you are all like a bunch of 5th graders exhibiting nothing more than a 'feeding frenzy, pack mentality'. I'll have the last laugh.
gmeast,
As an alternate input power measurement, you might consider temporarily replacing your battery(s) with a decent sized capacitor and connecting your precision supply to the cap. Your supply will then indicate the amount of DC current at a given DC voltage that your circuit is drawing. Use an electrolytic cap with a small ceramic cap in parallel, both of the proper voltage rating.
Just a suggestion...
PW
Have you figured out yet that Ainslie is a liar, GMEAST? Got anything like her reported results yet? COP >17, batteries that do not discharge, boiling water, dissipating 5.9 megaJoules in 45 minutes? Scope traces that indicate 12 volts to a mosfet gate but ZERO current? Can you do that, with a working mosfet and a correctly wired circuit? I don't think so, but you could always TRY to PROVE ME WRONG. You cannot, though.
No, of course you don't have anything like her reported results. Nobody does, nobody ever did, not even her. She's been stringing you along, and you still haven't been able to refute a single thing we've poynted out to you.
Your double application of the duty cycle in your calculations, repeated several times and even defended by you and Ainslie, indicates that you may know how to punch a calculator but you don't really understand what you are doing. The fact that you _think_ you understand, while demonstrating that you do not, is another prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Quote from: gmeast on October 14, 2012, 11:44:16 AM
You guys can't even do a good job of attempting to discredit someone. If you use 1 watt of electrical power to supply a circuit that produces 1.5 watts (equivalent) of heat, then it's a winner. The excess power doesn't have to come in the form of electrical components at all. Trying to "close the loop" with a matching type of power is probably impossible in a legitimate system.
So, this thread is the height of social acceptance for you guys. As I had said before, you are all like a bunch of 5th graders exhibiting nothing more than a 'feeding frenzy, pack mentality'. I'll have the last laugh.
You quoted me but you did not refute me. Just WHEN will you be having this "last laugh" of yours? Your calorimetry is a nice effort for a rank amateur, but hopelessly flawed. The "fact" that you are getting an "overunity" result should indicate to you that there is something wrong with your methodology and/or your measurements, NOT that you have broken the laws of reality. You should be doing everything in your power to refute your own results, because that is how real science is done. You have already noticed that, as your measurements and technique get better, your "overunity" result diminishes, and now it's so small that it can easily be attributed to noise in your experiment, measurement error, calibration problems. That in itself should tell you something. But you are blinded by your own brilliance and you have been bamboozled by the Ainslie personality phenomenon. Laugh away, Gmeast.... I certainly am laughing too. But not with you---- rather, I laugh AT you, for being such a hopeful fool that you have fooled yourself.
AND LEARN THE MEANING OF SIGNIFICANT DIGITS. When you cite results to the hundred thousandth or a millionth of a Watt, we can know one thing for sure about your result : the numbers are wrong. YOU CANNOT HAVE MORE PRECISION IN YOUR RESULT THAN THE
LEAST PRECISE VALUE THAT GOES INTO THE CALCULATION. Claiming otherwise is.... an error.
Ah, Ainslie is displaying her superb research and investigative skills once again, for all the world to see. What a vile and hateful female, full of bile and bitter gall she is. All of which might be tolerable if she were only right about something, once in a while.
Watch out, Mookie, the big bad Ainslie wench is coming to get...... someone she thinks might be you.
I swear, this couldn't be more hilarious if it were on daytime television.
STILL I DONT SEE ANYONE DISPUTES GMEAST RESULTS, NOT PROPERLY. THE CALORIMETER IS PROOF ENOUGH AND YOU ALREADY ADMIT THAT MEASURING IS DIFFICULT?
Quote from: AlienSigns on October 20, 2012, 11:07:39 AM
STILL I DONT SEE ANYONE DISPUTES GMEAST RESULTS, NOT PROPERLY. THE CALORIMETER IS PROOF ENOUGH AND YOU ALREADY ADMIT THAT MEASURING IS DIFFICULT?
I'll be glad to dispute GMEAST's results, or anyone else's, PROPERLY.... when they are properly reported, or when the miracle device is submitted for proper testing in a real calorimeter, Ainslie SOCK PUPPET.
Meanwhile it is sufficient to note that NONE of Ainslie's claims have been supported by outside testing. Not one. Even GMEAST himself has found that 1) the circuit diagram published in the Quantum article is wrong; 2) the reported heat profiles from that article CANNOT be reproduced at the duty cycles and frequencies that were claimed to be used; 3) even after the most egregious fudging and miscalculation, nothing even approaching the claimed 17 to 1 COP was attained by him; 4) now that he finally has seen his math and conceptual errors with the electrical calculations--- which he said, being a PWM expert and all -- were so simple at first -- he refuses to continue to use them since they indicate underunity, and instead has redone his "calorimetry" and has found that his "overunity" results get smaller and smaller as he refines his procedure, and is now so small it is easily attributed to experimental error. It is NOTHING LIKE the COP>17 Ainslie claimed; in fact his present results are barely over COP 1 .... thus, it is YET ANOTHER set of datapoints that refute the lying mendacious claims of Rosemary Ainslie.
Meanwhile, no proper testing has been produced, nor will it be, by the mendacious, vile Ainslie, who has no qualms about "outing" her critics and calling them rat-faced trolls, and worse. When she identifies someone by name and affiliation and insults them and makes false criminal accusations against them, her paranoid delusional fantasy has crossed the line that separates harmless play from legally actionable libel.
Quote from: AlienSigns on October 20, 2012, 11:07:39 AM
STILL I DONT SEE ANYONE DISPUTES GMEAST RESULTS, NOT PROPERLY. THE CALORIMETER IS PROOF ENOUGH AND YOU ALREADY ADMIT THAT MEASURING IS DIFFICULT?
Rosemary,
Why should anyone pay any attention to gmeast's results, when neither he nor you are willing to refute my unjustly-deleted arguments against his grossly-erroneous COP computations?
And why do you keep coming back here? Things too quiet in your sandbox?
you admit geast is getting better and better at measuring and yet give no credit and only criticize. it looks as though its one sided from here.
She has gone back to the strategy of posting back and forth to herself. The level of obsession is psychologically unhealthy.
Ainslie, you are really overstepping the boundaries. I am preserving these libels for all and sundry to see. Beware: anyone who gets involved with Rosemary Ainslie, the ultimate paranoid deluded lying internet troll, will eventually experience her bitter bile and libels.
From Rosemary's sandbox:
QuoteMeanwhile - as mentioned - we've all of us learned to keep our numbers OUT of the public eye. This will only change when we FINALLY get accreditation that is well supported by industry - and by the press. Which is where our efforts are currently directed.
One must be optimistic and expect Rosemary to adhere to her own self-imposed conditions. If she does, her latest nonsense will never be seen in public. Why? Because it is extremely unlikely that any accredited engineer would give her "work" his stamp of approval, i.e. that they would endorse her ridiculous claims or erroneous measurements.
Good on you Rosemary! ;) This is definitely a VERY good thing for the FE community at large.
The woman is a parody of herself.
Her defence being the "veracity of her numbers".... what an amazing joke! I have preserved in my database MANY of Ainslie's little "veracity with numbers" games: her whacky arithmetic errors that show how little attention she paid in school; the insane calculations based on assumptions gone awry and mistaken conceptions of power and energy units; the absurd claims without any reality checking at all like the claim to have dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes, or boiling water when no water was boiled, and many more.
Perhaps she refers to the "negative wattage" that is so easy to measure when the measurement is done improperly. Well.... if that is newsworthy, then my and .99's Altoid circuit is headline news since it makes the same negative wattage and needs NO BATTERY AT ALL to run, powering a load and making all the negative wattage one cares to measure. As has been explained to her many times in many ways, her negative mean power measurement is well understood, it DOES NOT INVOLVE INJECTION OF HEFTY WATTS FROM A FUNCTION GENERATOR as the continuously lying Ainslie now claims, and means only that her measurements are not measuring what she claims, and evidently believes, that they are measuring. After all...... the exact same waveforms that produce Ainslie's erroneous measurements have been produced in MANY SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE FGs AT ALL, like Altoid, like Tar Baby with DC bias drive, TB with several different 555 timer drives, and in .99's sims. Ainslie simply lies here, to her newcomer AlienSigns and to all who read her forum. See the excerpt from an exceptionally mendacious post of hers, below.
Not only that, but I have also saved plenty of proofs that she has indeed claimed a bit more than just "measurements". She entered her absurd kludge of a circuit into the running for three different Overunity Prizes, remember? Monetary prizes, based on her claim of overunity performance. Not just some anomalous measurements that needed to be explained. COP > INFINITY.... remember that? I sure do, even if the Red Queen Ainslie, Little Miss Mendacious Mosfet, doesn't.
I fervently hope that Brian Little, whoever he is, gets wind of the insane abuses and ridiculous claims and libels coming from this vile and bilious Ainslie wench, and does take the kind of action that the madwoman so ardently seeks.
Are "allegations " of homosexuality a common way of attempting to undermine people in South Africa? Im clearly out of touch, but I can scarcely believe anyone believes its a facet of someones personality that's worth mentioning.
And Rosemary; you have my contact details; I have a large publicly available gallery of screenshots of your risible experimentation, and I state that you're a fool, a fraud, and a liar.
Now what have your legal team got for me, love?
She can't even keep her own story straight, as we've known for some time. In a post earlier she "claims" that she hasn't claimed anything beyond some _measurements_ that need explaining. But here she claims very clearly to have proof of exceeding the "unity barrier". Where is this proof? There isn't any. Even her own data, as shown in her own scopeshots, show that her claims are false.
Isn't it interesting, in the face of her accusations, that the Truth is that WE are the ones who made her scopeshot data available in one place, that WE are the ones who pointed out the various errors in her mendacious daft manuscripts, that WE are the ones who publicly discuss and post our data and research for all to see without restriction...... that WE have publicly replicated and reported on all of Ainslie's measurements and WE have explained them IN PUBLIC FOR ALL TO SEE and to reproduce at will...
While on the other hand, Ainslie has lied, concealed, obfuscated, selected, hidden and falsified, and even today refuses to share her data publicly.... and has missed her own deadlines for public posting of test results many times..... yet she has the overweening arrogance and lying mendacity to assert that it is WE who are trying to "keep AWAY from public knowledge" anything about Ainslie's fiasco of prevarication and delusion. It is Yet another Ains-lie that is easily proven wrong by a simple search through her own posts.
Preserved for posterity.
Note the amazing hypocrisy and overweening arrogance of this deluded old woman. Not only does she lie, misrepresent, misidentify, insult and wheedle, she pretends to instruct! When she herself has been the perpetrator of the greatest fraud ever to grace these pages, surpassing even MyLOW and Archer Quinn in its destructiveness.
Ainslie, to address just a single point in your calumny of prevarication preserved below: I don't know about Brian Little, but I personally have indeed referred to your "papers".... really daft manuscripts.... many times, with chapter and verse. Several of us have pointed out discrepancies in several of the figures presented in both manuscripts. The Circuit Diagrams in the two manuscripts do not match either each other, nor the actual circuit used in the reported experiments. Several claims that were completely impossible were made, like the 5.9 megaJoules claim. The "explanation" cartoons in the second daft manuscript do not correspond to ANY of the claimed circuits actually used, and so cannot be explanations of anything. The two "papers" in their official "publications" on Rossi's JNP do not even agree in their schematics given, and the reports in the manuscripts do not agree with the better, real-time reports made by YOU, Ainslie, in your blogs at the time the experiments were done. I have referred to your "papers" first and foremost many times and you have NEVER resolved the discrepancies. Oh.... yes.... in one of your "edits" you have removed, without comment or explanation, the 5.9 megaJoules claim.... but it persists in the "official" publication still.
In short, you lie with every post you make, on your own forum just as you have done here.
Not only that, but every time you refer to me as "little", as "Brian Little" (or "Bryan"), as homosexual like some of your best friends, or refer to a "pickle".... you are making yourself even more of a complete and utter laughingstock than you have already been.
Can you just imagine the response of a journal editor, when I point them to your little forum post below?
And how do these cartoons from your daft manuscript explain anything.... when they don't correspond to your actual circuit but rather to the circuit you THOUGHT you were using.....? Explain that. You cannot, because you are such a joke you don't even see that your own data and "explanations" are contradictory.
The idiocy from the amazing lunatic Rosemary Ainslie continues. When will the woman learn? She continues her systematic "expose" of her imaginary monsters and her delusions.
And she continues her lies and false accusations, as usual without giving any support or reference. She attributes to Bryan Little, through TinselKoala, an "open admission of strategies".
QuoteWhat's particularly sad is the open admission of their strategies. Bryan - writing as Tinsel Koala - freely admits to his intention to deceive the public. He has also - openly - discussed the strategy of treating me with utter disrespect - basically as this should have served to destroy my own credibility. As mentioned - thankfully - he's overplayed his hand. He's got the bite of a rabid rottweiler - but he's also got that level of judgement and constraint.
I have no idea what Bryan Little might or might not have "admitted freely"..... but the assertion that I have admitted any such intention to deceive the public is a typical AINS-LIE. She cannot provide support for this lying claim of hers, because it is just that: a lie. I have never "admitted" such an intention, nor have I attempted to perform any such deception. But I will again point out the many egregious deceptions engaged in by ROSEMARY AINSLIE HERSELF. One only needs to recall the DEMO VIDEO, which she at first tried to claim that she didn't even post. From the March 22 date of its posting until the April 18 date of .99's reveal of the actual schematic used in the circuit, ROSEMARY AINSLIE engaged in a deliberate program of deception and outright lying, for the over 400 forum posts and replies in the discussion of the circuit made during that time period. There is also the continuing deception that she engages in over the nature and quality of her data. Ainslie is a liar plain and simple, a severely deluded one at that, and I WELCOME the exposure of any and all TRUTH in the matter of Ainslie and her claims.
However, that TRUTH will not be forthcoming from Ainslie, as her continuing pattern of delusion, mendacity, deception and prevarication.... continues without restraint or abatement.
Who is this Bryan Little, anyway? I'd like to inform him about the criminal libels that Ainslie is committing against his good name, and see what his response might be.
TK & all
That stuff of mine you refer to on your Oct. 14 post was a long time ago. I, for one, am very willing to admit that measurement is HARD to do. If everyone would feel better if I admitted publicly to have made some errors in analysis, well so be it. I boo boo'd! But it was because I was caught up in the excitement of the potential for this technology. OH NO! WHAT? you mean I'M HUMAN? Will any of you here claim the same? NOT!
One other valuable lesson I have learned is there is NO GOOD WAY to accurately measure nano-second transients ... meters, scopes, analyzers or whatever. So I have adopted more practical ways to determine COP ... and it is only specific to this technology (maybe). I simply use a control (precision resistor), draw down the battery bank, graph the results V vs T. Then I run the circuit, record V vs T(eq), run another eq dt calibration on RL, graph it then compare the two graphs. The results from this are most telling. The only thing I use a scope for now is relative work ... tuning minimums and maximums and other setup activities.
I have to agree with some other comments regarding the claim of COP>17, etc. I am disappointed that I have not seen these magnitudes, but ANYTHING COP>1 is simply awesome. I made a recent post on the FG thread of Rosie's site. It's interesting.
Oh, I am NOT obligated to make any apology to anyone or to admit anything to any one person in particular. I stated what my errors were on Rosie' site, but no one listened. That's your guy's problem, not mine .... do you hear that poynt99? The only reason I did not address you personally on the 'error thing' was because of your arrogance and narcissism. TK, I have no need nor desire to refute anyone. You guys can continue on the road you presently travel, I'm confidently moving forward with this.
I have the validating evidence I need justifying this technology and am now aiming at a clearer understanding of it, it's odd nature and eventually a scale-up effort and implementation.
Thanks. Regards
You do not have the evidence that is convincing enough for a scientific report or even an article in an IEEE journal. However, your post seems to indicate that you might be willing to communicate on real issues concerning your present work.
It would be nice to see a specific acknowledgement of your specific error of using the duty cycle twice, so that we could know that you understand fully, even though you no longer wish to use the Ainslie-approved "vi dt" method. Actually what she seems to mean is the computation of the time integral of an instantaneous power curve to give the total energy transferred over the time of integration. Which method is totally correct if the input measurements are valid and represent what they are supposed to represent.
Your calorimetry is a good effort for a first attempt. But it is fatally flawed and you could easily do much better. Mile High, in some earlier posts, gave some excellent suggestions for accurate calorimetry and power dissipation measurements at a load resistance. An honest and sincere researcher would not be happy with a single result such as the one you are reporting, but would seek confirmation by as many different methods as possible. In addition, the chosen methodology must itself be validated by using it on a known, underunity system. Perhaps you'd like to try it on one of my systems, and see if you get the expected underunity result.
Using the methodology you describe, in combination with the false precision you often report, an error of 20 percent is well within the realm of possibility. Much more so than a real "overunity" result. In addition, as you would see if you had been paying attention to my demonstrations, the mere fact that you can dissipate more power in the load using a pulsed drive instead of a straight, load-resistance-determined DC drive, or conversely get the same apparent dissipated power in the load using apparently less input with a pulsed drive.... this mere fact is not so remarkable and can be reproduced much more easily than you are doing, and more dramatically as well, by lighting an ordinary tungsten filament incandescent light bulb twice as brightly as "normal", as I show by several different methods in some of my videos.
I'm glad that you are acknowledging that you are seeing nothing even close to what Ainslie claimed. We note that your circuit incorporates many elements that were not evident in her original Quantum circuit, and we also note that your experiments with her _actual_ reported circuit did not pan out so well.
Your circuit incorporates a mosfet driver, a correctly functioning PWM pulse generator, a different dutycycle and operating frequency, and a recirculation diode. Ainslie's reported circuit simply does not work as she claimed, neither as a COP>17 device nor as a heater at the stated duty cycle.
Your circuit is teaching you a lot about power measurements, and the better you get, the more you learn.... and the closer you get to unity performance. Do you dare to continue, and perform proper calorimetric power measurements of the sort MileHigh suggested, and to validate your methodology on a known non-OU system, like an ordinary high-efficiency PWM motor driver driving a resistive load? Note that your comparison to a DC-powered load is only half of the "control" experiment. You need to perform the entire control experiment: You are comparing your system to a DC drive, using the Same resistive load, and you must also compare a known, non-OU pulsed power system to a DC drive using the Same resistive load, in order to validate your overall methodology.
Now, on another topic: What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?
What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 23, 2012, 03:09:41 PM
You do not have the evidence that is convincing enough for a scientific report or even an article in an IEEE journal. However, your post seems to indicate that you might be willing to communicate on real issues concerning your present work.
...................................
I know it's not totally convincing yet, but it's convincing enough for me to continue. I haven't shared all of my results, and I don't intend to. And at present I don't care about a scientific report in an IEEE journal. And what do you mean by "real issues"? I have landed on a comfortable platform for testing and evaluation. It suits me fine for now. I weighed the risks of posting on your site and came up neutral. It's of no benefit to me but some others might benefit from this exchange. I must say you still are prone to ripping someone in the name of getting the last word. That's a character flaw you must live with. I don't intend to address any specific errors ... that's in the past. I'm moving forward, I suggest you find something constructive to do with your time and intelligence. Assassination doesn't suit or serve anyone. [size=78%] [/size]
Hey Gmeast
You should hang out here for a bit and go over some of these things with TK.
It doesnt have to be a slapfest. ;]
I can post links to how I defended Rose for the longest, even though I didnt know if her claims were right or wrong. I just felt that here she is, most always nice as pie and very friendly with quite a vocabulary, indicative of more smarts than me, but getting seemingly beat up by some of these guys and I just went off. As it went along, I was paying attention to TKs vids and posts, to find what he was doing that had shown that Roses circuit cannot be OU as she claimed. As it went along, these guys 'really' figured out why the circuit oscillates, and so many details that 'are' correct vs her analysis, of which Rose seems to know nothing about nor cares. So I became engaged in watching and learning from them. its all here on these pages
Rose did not like this apparently as I appeared to be in agreeance with a few details.
She turned on me like a wild cat after it took the food from your fingers. I queried as to what here issue was with me, but it just got worse and worse and the things she said of me, well you can read it and find out for yourself. Its all on these pages. ;]
That was a turning point for me. Just guess how I felt. All the attacks I put on these guys, just to protect 'my friend' whether my friend was right or wrong.
As time goes by, she really is showing her true colors, and it isnt the resistor color code, of which I doubt she knows.. Lets see, bad boys rape our young girls but violet gives willingly. Throw any resistor at me and I see the numbers. Like learning a different language that becomes normal. Very basics stuff. But from what I see in Roses posts from then on, her technical ability and knowledge, most of it is wiki quotes along with clear misunderstandings of most of it. She tends to learn some things these guys had shown her and then turns on a dime with tons of crappy posts.
Without really knowing what is going on, it might seem like these guys are just bullying her. Well my one friend from Fizzx.org from last I heard, still gets the worst of the worst emails from her. Im very relieved that I dont have that problem. ;] Very
Just a heads up G. Search and yee shall find, the truth. I did. ;] And believe me, you will too. If not now, definitely later. ::) ;)
Cheers
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on October 23, 2012, 10:36:24 PM
Hey Gmeast
You should hang out here for a bit and go over some of these things with TK.
It doesnt have to be a slapfest. ;]
I can post links to how I defended Rose for the longest, even though I didnt know if her claims were right or wrong. I just felt that here she is, most always nice as pie and very friendly with quite a vocabulary, indicative of more smarts than me, but getting seemingly beat up by some of these guys and I just went off. As it went along, I was paying attention to TKs vids and posts, to find what he was doing that had shown that Roses circuit cannot be OU as she claimed. As it went along, these guys 'really' figured out why the circuit oscillates, and so many details that 'are' correct vs her analysis, of which Rose seems to know nothing about nor cares. So I became engaged in watching and learning from them. its all here on these pages
Rose did not like this apparently as I appeared to be in agreeance with a few details.
She turned on me like a wild cat after it took the food from your fingers. I queried as to what here issue was with me, but it just got worse and worse and the things she said of me, well you can read it and find out for yourself. Its all on these pages. ;]
That was a turning point for me. ...........................................
Cheers
Mags
Hi Mag,
Thanks for the advice. Whatever the tools these guys used to determine that it can't work doesn't matter. The things I've seen and tests I've performed say otherwise. As I mentioned before, I "boo boo'd" on some calculations, so what? I've changed my strategy and I still see potential for this. I believe the guys here have only shown that it can't work (theoretically) just as much as Rosie has shown that it CAN work (theoretically). Those oscillations are NOT the only defining trait of this technology. I haven't shared everything I've done nor have I shared everything I've seen. There are probably 100 different analyses that can show why this technology CAN'T work, and all will be based on 200 year old doctrine and NO forward thinking. I have searched for mathematical models and analyses that define the relationships between the nano-second transients, voltage, oscillations (and their harmonics) and heat, to say nothing of these things as they relate to wire made from nickel, ferro-nickel alloys, and alloys with negative temperature coefficients. The anomalous electrical and thermal behavior of these materials when subjected to sharp voltage transients and certain frequencies is only now being acknowledged and studied in the mainstream. What's really going on here are those 'odd' behaviors and they can't be defined by the 'old' outdated, limiting, confining rules and laws.
I'm NOT going to join the 'Club' ... and I mean the type of Club these guys are beating people like me down with, It's NOT going to happen. I'll still share my findings, but not here.
Regards
Quote from: gmeast on October 23, 2012, 11:15:35 PM
Hi Mag,
Thanks for the advice. Whatever the tools these guys used to determine that it can't work doesn't matter. The things I've seen and tests I've performed say otherwise. As I mentioned before, I "boo boo'd" on some calculations, so what? I've changed my strategy and I still see potential for this. I believe the guys here have only shown that it can't work (theoretically) just as much as Rosie has shown that it CAN work (theoretically). Those oscillations are NOT the only defining trait of this technology. I haven't shared everything I've done nor have I shared everything I've seen. There are probably 100 different analyses that can show why this technology CAN'T work, and all will be based on 200 year old doctrine and NO forward thinking. I have searched for mathematical models and analyses that define the relationships between the nano-second transients, voltage, oscillations (and their harmonics) and heat, to say nothing of these things as they relate to wire made from nickel, ferro-nickel alloys, and alloys with negative temperature coefficients. The anomalous electrical and thermal behavior of these materials when subjected to sharp voltage transients and certain frequencies is only now being acknowledged and studied in the mainstream. What's really going on here are those 'odd' behaviors and they can't be defined by the 'old' outdated, limiting, confining rules and laws.
I'm NOT going to join the 'Club' ... and I mean the type of Club these guys are beating people like me down with, It's NOT going to happen. I'll still share my findings, but not here.
Regards
Hey G
No problem. Just giving a heads up. I wont bother you again after these few things..
It wasnt the tools used. It was the circuit rose used, 'supposedly', we dont know due to serious contradictions along the way.
I wasnt suggesting any club membership. Just discussions of the circuits and getting this thing straight between people who are involved.When mud gets slung in your face, we tend to want to throw some back. It doesnt have to be that way. If you were to respectfully begin discussion, I trust you would get respect back. It goes both ways.
But look at what Rose says, and do you see all the mud in both directions?
Wanna know whats funny G. I bet the house, if you asked Rose what she has always thought of me since we met, I bet that house she would consistent with her recent views of me rather than what you can read before she grew horns for me. ;
How do I believe this so whole heartedly? Because since the horns, I saw consistent denials of things she said even an hour before let alone the rest of it. Talk about being blind but now I see. Oh the colors. ;]
You will too. Its inevitable. Look around. Where are the team? Would they not be on that new site of hers? I know that she claims that they would never join here, but why not there??? There is no team. Bah, maybe someone to hook that contraption up and make the scope adjustments, and 'test the batteries for state of charge. Oh, she doesnt do state of charge tests of the batteries, nor does the team, err maybe team member.
I have 3 electric bikes. 2 are 36v one is 3 sla 12v in series, the other is 30 D cell 1.2v nimh in series, and a 48v, 4 12v sla in series. There is a thing called battery balancing when they are put in series. Those 30 D cells, if one is out of balance, there will be different power levels available to the system depending on that balance. Charging them all in parallel at 1.2v will not balance them. Each cell has different tolerances. Does Rose charge them with a 60v charger? or what ever voltage she uses, or all 1 at a time at 12v? Or just charge 1 battery after a fire and leave the rest as they were and add the newly charged battery to the string? Been a green driver for over 5 years. Not one gallon of gas did I buy for that period of time. I have 2 pontiac fieros, on is the v6 with 80hp shot of nitrous(been getting a serious makeover) and the other is an electric conversion in progress.
I know a bit about this stuff. And I can tell you that without tediously testing the state of charge of those huge batteries that Rose used, she cannot claim that there was no charge taken from the batteries nor charge given to them. She is definitely not reading the scope properly and did you see the pic of her circuit that Poynt pointed out that shows where the ground probes of the scope are? Her pic, wrong connections.
Its all here on these pages.
She supposedly was going to do these tests earlier this year or something. Says there is testing going on now. Meanwhile supposedly sent the rig to a lab and they said it was draining the batteries, yet she still lays claims to the batteries getting charged from the circuit, then its that there is more output than input, then its back to the batteries never losing any charge. Next week it will be something else. If that was my rig and I sent it to a lab and they didnt get the readings I got, I would be on the phone, skype, or go there myself and straighten that situation out. You can bet the house on it. But it was just accepted sent back. And what, no in/out OU report from them? Cmon G.
This isnt a joke G. Im dead serious.
Thats all.
Good luck with your efforts and no ill will. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on October 24, 2012, 12:17:56 AM
Hey G
No problem. Just giving a heads up. I wont bother you again after these few things..
It wasnt the tools used. It was the circuit rose used, 'supposedly', we dont know due to serious contradictions along the way.
..................................................
Thats all.
Good luck with your efforts and no ill will. ;]
Mags
Hi M,
I appreciate your input. If you notice, I'm not following any of the protocols she outlines. I'm simply generating a battery discharge curves for a series of batteries totaling 24VDC using 2 precision power resistors ... 100Ohms and 200Ohms. I generate a curve (plot) of the calibrations. Then I'm tuning and running my circuit on the batteries and recording the differential temperature between a TC bonded to the RL interior wall and an ambient TC positioned nearby ... all in a relatively draft-free environment. The RL is tilted so that there is a damped flow of ambient air up through the center of RL ... damped with a very loose cotton ball. This guarantees not too much turbulent flow and prevents laminar flow. There is an equilibrium temperature attained and represents the power from the circuit. I plot the battery stack discharge like with the resistors. I immediately follow with an RL differential temperature calibration using a Precision DC Power Supply and match the differential temperature attained during the circuit test. Though indirect, this second RL calibration states what the circuit power actually was ... with good accuracy ... much better than 20% (TK). The goal is to target and hit either the 100Ohm calibration curve or the 200Ohm calibration curve and then compare the relative power represented by each the respective curves. This is all I'm doing. I'm NOT taking anyone's word for anything. The guys here are determined to make the world turn away from the possibilities of this technology by way of this thread. Anyone reading this thread and buying into it, should just remain happy paying for the yachts, expensive cars, lavish homes an what all else owned by the oil and other power executives. I'm trying to do my part to help mankind. What's this thread doing to that end?
Hey G ;] This is M here. lol
I had not been following over there. Well if you have something different than what was suppose to be Roses circuit, then I can say nothing of your circuit yet.
Sounds like you have a handle on it in many technical aspects. Can you post the circuit here? Id like to see what you have going.
Im all about OU. My record here shows it.
When I first met Rose here, I had a circuit that I called The Believe circuit. Well what I believed was a miscalculation of multiple caps switching from parallel to series. Poynt got involved and pointed out my mistake, and he was right. When he pointed it out that morning, I thought, couldnt be? and I posted that I will have an answer by noon. Ended up he was right. I had done lots of resistor network calculations, Thevenin theorem, but this charged caps parallel then series calculations for what I thought was correct kept sticking me in that side like a pitch fork. Wont make those mistakes again. ;] Its not a common circuit dealing with caps this way other than voltage multipliers that charge in parallel 'and' discharge in series without switching, just configuration and diodes.
Any way, keep on keepin on. Im still working on that cap project, now with corrected thinking with results Im not sure what to make of them.
A quick prelude. Battery, switch, diode, inductor and cap all in series with the switch open.
Close the switch and hold, and the cap has more voltage than the battery due to the flywheel effect of the inductor and is stuck in the cap due to the diode.
Now, if we time or gauge how long we hold the switch on to the point where the cap is at the same voltage as the batt, (here we have 1 more diode in the circuit that isnt active till the switch is released), then the inductor continues to freewheel its current to the cap as the field is collapsing.
So we charged the cap to the voltage level of the battery with the switch on then off, and the charge in the inductor continues to add to the cap till its above the battery voltage.
Now, if we cut off the battery when the cap reaches battery voltage, we have claimed a 'certain' amount of energy from the battery to the cap, being that a cap at a certain voltage is calculable to the same amount of energy every time. Then the inductor continues to charge the cap beyond the battery voltage till full collapse.
I am further into it now. But I dont post a lot of things that I dont think are worthy of an audience till things get interesting even if its not OU. ;]
Alright, I gota eat before I pass out.
Mags
I think there must be something wrong with Gmeast's reading comprehension.
Gmeast says:
Quote
A humorous aside: I spent a little time over at the TK kingdom on OverUnity.com. Those guys are SO dedicated to the destruction of this technology it leads one to wonder of they have vested interests in Oil and Gas ... maybe even nuclear. This TK character bashed my previous results saying that my "poor measurement techniques" resulted in a 20% error which is why I am claiming COP>1 performance. I guarantee that if the circuit was showing a COP of 1.5 he would accuse me of a 50% error. If it showed 2.0 he would accuse me of 100% error. These characters are just determined that this technology can't work. In one of TK's bashing sessions aimed at me, he asked me "...so when are you going to have the last laugh?". Well I'm beginning to have it now.
Actually, I said THIS:
QuoteUsing the methodology you describe, in combination with the false precision you often report, an error of 20 percent is well within the realm of possibility. Much more so than a real "overunity" result. In addition, as you would see if you had been paying attention to my demonstrations, the mere fact that you can dissipate more power in the load using a pulsed drive instead of a straight, load-resistance-determined DC drive, or conversely get the same apparent dissipated power in the load using apparently less input with a pulsed drive.... this mere fact is not so remarkable and can be reproduced much more easily than you are doing, and more dramatically as well, by lighting an ordinary tungsten filament incandescent light bulb twice as brightly as "normal", as I show by several different methods in some of my videos.
What I said is very different from what Gmeast seems to want to believe I said. But he is right about one thing: if he reported 200 percent overunity from a simple switched mosfet circuit... that somehow all the power supply designers and PWM motor controller designers somehow missed over all these years--- I would indeed suspect measurement errors and spend YEARS if necessary tracking them down. Gmeast is doing nothing to attempt to DISPROVE his own results. Measurement error still remains the most likely explanation and until it is RULED OUT by real control experiments carefully performed as I have suggested, the prudent investigator will not come to the conclusion that he has found overunity.
Not only that, when you DID report greater than COP 2 or more OU before.... you were wrong, weren't you. It was a calculation and conceptual error, and you should be grateful to us for insisting and pointing it out, because IF NOT FOR US, you'd still be using the duty cycle twice, and still dividing by THREE instead of FOUR, and thinking you had massive OU when you actually don't.
Don't believe me? Then please, Gmeast, write up your present results and submit them to ANY scientific journal.... any legitimate one that is, not Rossi's fake JNP.... and see what the response is. Note that I am ENCOURAGING YOU TO PUBLICISE YOUR RESULTS, in stark contrast to the accusations from Ainslie who accuses me of wanting to suppress you. PUBLISH !! If you think I am challenging you, wait until you encounter the questions and requirements of a real journal editor.
Come on, you have what you claim is a robust overunity result, repeatable and checkable. So PUBLISH IT, where it can be examined by impartial referees.
I've challenged you to validate your methodology by using it on a known (or presumed) non-OU system like an ordinary PWM controller alone driving the load, or one of my circuits. You don't want to do that, that is up to you. But to accuse me of the things you accuse me of is just wrong. I want you to do things properly and I've given you suggestions as to how to do that. You have not responded to the suggestions by denying their propriety, you have simply refused to validate your methodology. When the errors in your previous methodology were pointed out over and over until you finally got it, you stomped off like a chastened child, and changed your method... which new method resulted in a greatly reduced COP from what you believed you had before. You don't want to examine or test your present methodology because of what is likely to happen YET AGAIN: You will finally see the flaws, you will run and hide and seek another method or finally improve this one, and your COP will drop further, and of course you want to avoid that.
And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:
What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?
What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?
And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 01:20:37 AM
I think there must be something wrong with Gmeast's reading comprehension.
Gmeast says:
Actually, I said THIS:
What I said is very different from what Gmeast seems to want to believe I said. But he is right about one thing: if he reported 200 percent overunity from a simple switched mosfet circuit... that somehow all the power supply designers and PWM motor controller designers somehow missed over all these years--- I would indeed suspect measurement errors and spend YEARS if necessary tracking them down. Gmeast is doing nothing to attempt to DISPROVE his own results. Measurement error still remains the most likely explanation and until it is RULED OUT by real control experiments carefully performed as I have suggested, the prudent investigator will not come to the conclusion that he has found overunity.
Not only that, when you DID report greater than COP 2 or more OU before.... you were wrong, weren't you. It was a calculation and conceptual error, and you should be grateful to us for insisting and pointing it out, because IF NOT FOR US, you'd still be using the duty cycle twice, and still dividing by THREE instead of FOUR, and thinking you had massive OU when you actually don't.
Don't believe me? Then please, Gmeast, write up your present results and submit them to ANY scientific journal.... any legitimate one that is, not Rossi's fake JNP.... and see what the response is. Note that I am ENCOURAGING YOU TO PUBLICISE YOUR RESULTS, in stark contrast to the accusations from Ainslie who accuses me of wanting to suppress you. PUBLISH !! If you think I am challenging you, wait until you encounter the questions and requirements of a real journal editor.
Come on, you have what you claim is a robust overunity result, repeatable and checkable. So PUBLISH IT, where it can be examined by impartial referees.
I've challenged you to validate your methodology by using it on a known (or presumed) non-OU system like an ordinary PWM controller alone driving the load, or one of my circuits. You don't want to do that, that is up to you. But to accuse me of the things you accuse me of is just wrong. I want you to do things properly and I've given you suggestions as to how to do that. You have not responded to the suggestions by denying their propriety, you have simply refused to validate your methodology. When the errors in your previous methodology were pointed out over and over until you finally got it, you stomped off like a chastened child, and changed your method... which new method resulted in a greatly reduced COP from what you believed you had before. You don't want to examine or test your present methodology because of what is likely to happen YET AGAIN: You will finally see the flaws, you will run and hide and seek another method or finally improve this one, and your COP will drop further, and of course you want to avoid that.
And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:
What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?
What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?
And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.
Hi TK and all,
Would you please stop. The COP>2 report I made was long ago and admittedly in error as I have already acceded to your demand to admit I'm a dumb ass.... OK? Now that's over, I'm carrying on with characterizing my circuit variant. I have identified several interesting anomalies that need examining. The SIMPLE graphing technique I'm employing is far more accurate for this type of work. There is no interpreting scope readings or hoping that a dumb DVM can correctly average sharp transients. I'm drawing down a battery, plotting the voltage vs. time of a standard (precision power resistor) AND of the RL & Circuit and plotting THOSE results as well, then following with a fresh calibration of RL vs Differential Temperature at Equilibrium. The analysis is simply comparing the plots, their slopes and that's it.
Now get off my case. I don't have the sort of ego that you obviously do. I don't NEED to "PUBLISH" anything ... not now. In the meantime, I won't be posting any results here.
On Bryan Little: I have isolated and insulated myself from all of that to the point that I have NOT read a single word on the subject. I didn't even read what you wrote above. I don't care about any of that. I almost don't care that YOU have ripped me so many times ... I just don't give a crap! I care ONLY about this technology that I only recently became aware of through the various internet threads about Rosie's circuit. I simply am not going to give anyone the satisfaction of participating in the character assassination of, from or about ANY camp ... true or false, warranted or not, malicious or otherwise.
GET IT? Regards,
Greg
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 25, 2012, 01:20:37 AM
And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:
What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?
What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?
And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.
i'd say it wasn't answered because your question is an irrelevant red herring... ::)
do you ever make a post without engaging in at least one logical fallacy?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 26, 2012, 10:26:12 PM
i'd say it wasn't answered because your question is an irrelevant red herring... ::)
do you ever make a post without engaging in at least one logical fallacy?
WilbyInebriated,
Thank you. Regards,
Greg
Quote from: gmeast on October 26, 2012, 10:22:51 PM
Hi TK and all,
Would you please stop. The COP>2 report I made was long ago and admittedly in error as I have already acceded to your demand to admit I'm a dumb ass.... OK?
Where exactly did I ever demand that you admit that you are a dumb ass? Reference please. What I HAVE asked you for is an actual acknowledgement that you understand the actual errors you made and won't make them in the future. You have not "admitted" that, beyond your acknowledgement that your "instincts" about dividing by three instead of four for a duty cycle of 25 percent was wrong. But you have not acknowledged the more basic error of using the duty cycle twice in your computations, which should have stood out to you like a sore thumb but somehow did not. So I for one am not convinced that you realize this error yet. Meanwhile your insinuation that I want you to admit that you are a dumb ass is a really dumbass thing to say, since I never said anything like that. But if you like, I will start.
QuoteNow that's over, I'm carrying on with characterizing my circuit variant. I have identified several interesting anomalies that need examining. The SIMPLE graphing technique I'm employing is far more accurate for this type of work. There is no interpreting scope readings or hoping that a dumb DVM can correctly average sharp transients. I'm drawing down a battery, plotting the voltage vs. time of a standard (precision power resistor) AND of the RL & Circuit and plotting THOSE results as well, then following with a fresh calibration of RL vs Differential Temperature at Equilibrium. The analysis is simply comparing the plots, their slopes and that's it.
The methodology you have chosen is flawed and could easily be improved. You frequently cite precision in your results that is far beyond the capability of your instruments and observations, and you have not validated your methodology by using it on a known, non-OU system to obtain correct results checked by a different methodology. You can believe this or not, but it is coming from someone who has a LOT more experience in these matters than you do.
Quote
Now get off my case. I don't have the sort of ego that you obviously do. I don't NEED to "PUBLISH" anything ... not now. In the meantime, I won't be posting any results here.
You are really funny. You post results here, describe what you are doing and then continue to say that you won't. You won't be publishing anything in any real journal and we both know that, and it won't be because you don't NEED to, it will be because you don't have anything of interest to publish, anywhere but on Ainslie's vanity honey-trap blog forum. And my "ego" is of such a sort that I use an alias and keep my own personal identity private.... unlike some others I could mention, who want their actual names associated with their doings.
Quote
On Bryan Little: I have isolated and insulated myself from all of that to the point that I have NOT read a single word on the subject. I didn't even read what you wrote above. I don't care about any of that. I almost don't care that YOU have ripped me so many times ... I just don't give a crap! I care ONLY about this technology that I only recently became aware of through the various internet threads about Rosie's circuit. I simply am not going to give anyone the satisfaction of participating in the character assassination of, from or about ANY camp ... true or false, warranted or not, malicious or otherwise.
GET IT? Regards,
Greg
Again, you say you won't at the same time that you do.
Is my "ripping" of you the moral equivalent of calling someone--- someone Ainslie has incorrectly identified to boot--- a homosexual sociopathic misogynistic criminal psychopath, and accusing him of rifling computers and even instigating physical breakins? Where have I ever "ripped" you by insulting you personally and accusing you of things you haven't done, anyway? Don't you realize that by falsely accusing me of "ripping" you in the same manner as Ainslie does, you are actually engaging in the character assassination that you claim to avoid?
Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that your pet troll Wilby only attacks ME for what he thinks is a logical fallacy, but never bothers to address any of the logical fallacies and ridiculous claims and outright lies from Ainslie.... or you? He never seems to want to correct, for example, your false rephrasing and misrepresentations of what I actually say, nor does he complain about the (nearly empty) Ainslie camp's various claims without support, the conclusions incorrectly drawn from poorly obtained data, nor the egregious libels against people who ARENT EVEN INVOLVED like poor Bryan Little. But he'll snipe at me simply for asking your opinion and pointing out that you aren't answering my questions.
For your information, Gmeast, WilbyInebriated is the very exemplar of an internet troll. Years ago, when I was very much in the same position you are in now with regards to researching Ainslie's circuit and claims.... he deliberately lied to me, and tricked me into giving him a mailing address, by promising to send me a mosfet of the type he wanted me to use in an Ainslie experiment. He offered to send me this mosfet, promised to do so, obtained my mailing address.... then proceeded to mock me and call me a fool-- which I was, for sure, to trust him-- and has since admitted that he NEVER intended to send me anything at all. In short, he ran a game on me, tricked me by LYING TO ME, into revealing confidential information, which he will at some point no doubt try to use in some manner for his own purposes. Nobody that I have ever encountered in all the years I've been using the Internet has ever done such an egregiously WRONG and tricky deed to me.... but it certainly taught me a lesson, about people in general, the internet in particular, and about WilbyInebriated specifically.
What would YOU, Gmeast, think of someone who engaged you in what seemed to be a rational discussion, got your address and other personal information through a false promise and a lie, and then mocked you for being so trusting and then followed you around for YEARS sniping at you? Well, that's how your hero WilbyInebriated behaves.
Sir gmeast has not admitted any of his errors, in particular the one regarding how to compute INPUT power using the average battery voltage and current.
Therefore, we have to assume he still believes (as does Rosemary) that the battery voltage should be reduced by the duty cycle before computing Vavg x Iavg. ::)
That is clearly incorrect.
And one other thing gmeast should realize, is the method I put forward DOES work. However, when working in a noisy environment with 1mV signal levels :o , one experienced in the art SHOULD know that results will be variant. In addition, most DSO's exhibit DC offsets, and unless calibrated out before measurement, will of course skew any measurement involving magnitudes on the same order as the offset.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 27, 2012, 08:33:06 AM
Sir gmeast has not admitted any of his errors, in particular the one regarding how to compute INPUT power using the average battery voltage and current.
Therefore, we have to assume he still believes (as does Rosemary) that the battery voltage should be reduced by the duty cycle before computing Vavg x Iavg. ::)
That is clearly incorrect.
And one other thing gmeast should realize, is the method I put forward DOES work. However, when working in a noisy environment with 1mV signal levels :o , one experienced in the art SHOULD know that results will be variant. In addition, most DSO's exhibit DC offsets, and unless calibrated out before measurement, will of course skew any measurement involving magnitudes on the same order as the offset.
No poynty-head! Your method does NOT work and you have NO standard, accepted measurement method against which to verify your flawed technique. You and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple. And TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form. And poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress? Your ego is enormous! As I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble. Do either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push. This thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type. You both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s). Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.
And while we're on the topic, one also needs to realize that DSO's have a limited resolution, typically 8 bits. Working with signals down in the lower bit range of the scope is of course going to introduce measurement error.
And there is this nugget from Sir gmeast:
QuoteWhat's interesting is I used both the scope method and the poynty-head DVM method which ended up in utter disagreement ... THESE ARE NANO-SECOND TRANSIENTS, NOT SMOOTH ROTATING SINE WAVES FREQUENCIES!
This clearly demonstrates that he does not actually understand the methodology I put forward and that he did not perform the measurement correctly.
When performed correctly, the DMM method can out-perform any DSO.
Quote from: gmeast on October 27, 2012, 09:32:53 AM
You and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple. And TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form. And poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress? Your ego is enormous! As I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble. Do either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push. This thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type. You both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s). Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.
This is where our very own logic guru extraordinaire would normally chime in (if he was fair and equitable that is) and ever-so-politely point out your ginormous red herring. ;D
Quote from: gmeast on October 27, 2012, 09:32:53 AM
No poynty-head! Your method does NOT work and you have NO standard, accepted measurement method against which to verify your flawed technique. You and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple. And TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form. And poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress? Your ego is enormous! As I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble. Do either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push. This thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type. You both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s). Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.
So you choose, as usual, not to refute any of my points, or .99's poynts, by PROVING US WRONG or addressing the various points in our comments. Instead you choose to flame and insult, engaging in the very same things you decry in others. You, GMEAST, have been manipulated by Ainslie's lies and delusional claims, and are wasting your time and money.
NOTHING WE HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT AINSLIE AND HER CIRCUIT HAS BEEN REFUTED BY YOU or anyone else.
You talk about having the "last laugh"..... Well we had the FIRST LAUGH when you started trying to "replicate" Ainslie's mendacious claims.... because you are talking to at least three people here on this thread who did the same thing you did, three and four years ago: we all built that earlier circuit and this circuit and found that Ainslie's claims were bogus, unsupported by her own data and unsupportable by any replicators who used her circuit as published. SHE LIED TO YOU over and over about her circuit and its performance. YOU WERE SUCKERED IN to your current project by her OUTRIGHT LIES. And all that you have been doing for months now is trying to save your own EGO, to save face, trying to find something, anything, to justify your tinkering with some wild derivative of Ainslie's bogus circuitry. But we've been telling you the truth, truths that would have saved you a lot of time and trouble had you researched them and believed them. Remember Ainslie's published 555 timer circuit?
And in another year or two, when you've finally realised that there is nothing happening other than poor measurement in your circuit, will you be laughing then? I will.
You cannot refute anything that I or .99 or MH or FTC have told you. So you don't..... you simply insult and flame, defending an indefensible position and making poor measurements and bad conclusions based on them.
There are plenty of people laughing, GMEAST: they are laughing at you and your heroine Rosemary Ainslie.
Who is going to point out GMEAST's red herring, his non-sequturs, his continual resorting to ad hominem argument, when he cannot muster facts to support his contentions? Not Wilby.... he always disappears whenever I remind him and the other viewers about the lying, tricky, trolling game he played on me back when I was a naive forum poster. But he'll be back, just like a cold sore blister.
The FIRST LAUGH:
Quote from: gmeast on October 27, 2012, 09:32:53 AM
No poynty-head! Your method does NOT work and you have NO standard, accepted measurement method against which to verify your flawed technique.
On the contrary: .99 has researched his technique quite well and has published full descriptions of his methodology including comparisons with other methods. You are either tragically misinformed, or simply lying, like Ainslie does. If you do not think his method is valid IN SPITE OF THE VALIDATIONs that he and others have done, then it is up to YOU to provide evidence that it is not valid by showing that it gives incorrect results when used on a known system. You have not INVALIDATED his technique by doing this but more importantly you have NOT VALIDATED YOUR TECHNIQUE in any accepted manner at all.
QuoteYou and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple.
As far as I am aware, .99 is a man, and so am I. I don't know about where YOU live, Gmeast, but same- s e x marriages are not yet legal in Texas, and besides, he's much too young and handsome for me. So don't worry, Gmeast.... I won't interfere with your courting attempts. But I must admit: I am having trouble trying to figure out what a person's sexuality or preference or gender identification has to do with anything we are discussing here on this thread, except as an element of Ainslie's delusional system.... since SHE is the only one who has made any comments of that nature. But apparently you are also of the opinion that a person's sexual preferences determine whether or not they measure overunity on a switched mosfet.
Maybe YOU and AINSLIE should get married.... you make the perfect couple.
QuoteAnd TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form.
So you say, in your continual responses to me. Too bad your "form" is one of ad hominem argumentation and mud-slinging, rather than one of addressing the issues pointed out and, if you can, refuting them with facts and outside references and properly done demonstrations of your own. But you cannot, so you engage in the kinds of rhetoric that we see here, whining, insulting and abusive but never addressing the actual issues and points raised, like your double duty cycle mistakes and your false precision and utter reliance on numbers in boxes from digital instruments.
QuoteAnd poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress?
You could simply RE-WORK THE PROBLEM using your same input numbers and the correct computation and state the correct result. That would require a single post, shorter than many you've made lately. But you've not seen fit to do that, just as your mentor Ainslie has NEVER CORRECTED the egregious math errors that led her to hold her bogus conclusions in the first place. No, your "100 page dissertation" is something that YOUR EGO has manufactured, when all you really need to do to convince me and .99 that your understanding is now correct is to simply rework the same problem and correct your posted results. Simple, easy, and in fact it's been done FOR YOU several times.
QuoteYour ego is enormous!
And yet he and I both post under pseudonyms and need no official credit for our work. Ainslie though, and you, post under your real names, go back and edit and remove errors and mistakes to cover them up, and seek acknowledgement and reward from official sources for your "work" and your claims. That's "ego" for you. The points we make are factual and you cannot refute them so you descend into these ad-hominem arguments. That is a classic expression of an EGO DEFENSE MECHANISM and shows that you, GMEAST, GREG, are severely invested from an ego viewpoint in this project. I can simply walk away from it whenever I like and let you and Wilby have your trollfest insulting me, certain in the knowledge that you cannot and will not refute me with facts, and certain in the knowledge that you will eventually give up your wasted efforts and move on to something else. Who knows.... when you've accumulated as much experience with your Ainslie circuit variants as Fuzzy or .99 or I have with ours, you too might decide that Ainslie is a mendacious manipulator and that you have been a victim of that vampirish prevaricator as well. Go ahead and laugh then.
QuoteAs I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble.
Really? Does it take a lot more time to TYPE this "babble"..... than it does to read it? But really.... are you admitting here that you are deliberately "getting" us to waste our time by punching our buttons? It certainly seems that way. Where is a corresponding post from any of us, deliberately insulting and trying to get a "rise" from YOU? Don't we always deal with specific points, with facts and references, with defenses against the libels that you and Ainslie sling at us? Isn't your admission rather a DEFINITION of trolling behaviour? Of course it is.
QuoteDo either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push.
Personally, I'm semi-retired and I do spend a lot of time at the computer, doing various things. Often, while I'm processing an advanced astrophotograph on one desktop, I'll look in on a forum thread on another desktop and make a response. When I see a troll trying deliberately to "push my buttons" rather than engage in a real dialog by addressing the points made and either acknowledging them or refuting them.... then I have to agree:
QuoteThis thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type.
And let's go back in the history to see who is the most egregious character assassin, liar, and defamer: it is Rosemary Ainslie, and I have a burgeoning database full of her insults, lies, attacks on character and so on to prove it. Who has threatened to reveal personal information, and has in fact done so? Who is so deluded and off-base that she even persists in insulting and attacking someone who probably isn't even aware that she exists? This thread in this forum has actually been called, by external observers, one of the best and most scientific explorations that has been seen here, and it would be a lot purer in that regard if YOU, Gmeast, and ROSEMARY AINSLIE, could actually discuss and address the actual points made and either refute them with facts and references or acknowledge their correctness. But that is not what happens. Just look back through the thread and compare/contrast. We point out errors and you lot come back with insults. We defend against the insults and support ALL of our counter-attacks with REFERENCES that show our correctness.
QuoteYou both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s). Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.
But Gmeast.... it is YOU who are behaving like that, not us. YOU have been demonstrated objectively to be wrong in your approach, your measurements, your calculations, your conclusions, and your style of discussing, so it is YOU who are pouting (removing your data and posts), stomping your feet (editing away your errors without explanation, removing posts from other people, making posts like your latest ones here) and holding your breath until you are blue in the face (withholding data, refusing to support your methodology by verification, etc.) When someone disagrees with .99 or with me, they are welcome to refute us with facts and references, demonstrations and experiments. But they do not. However when WE disagree with YOU, we provide those things, over and over. My video channel on YT contains literally DOZENS of calmly reasoned, carefully constructed solid REFUTATIONS of various ridiculous claims that Ainslie has made concerning these circuits. All that you and she have presented in return is.... foot stomping and pouting and insults, like you've done above.
Comical entertainment at best? Right, and you are the comedian.
But when Ainslie decides to attempt publication of papers filled with lies and misrepresentations and bad measurements, and applies for three different monetary awards based on her mendacious and discredited and disPROVEN claims, then it's actually not comedy any more, it's attempted fraud, and scientific (or in this case pseudoscientific) misconduct of a serious nature. And you are participating in that fraud by perpetrating her errors and faulty conclusions based on them.
Quote from: gmeast on October 26, 2012, 10:48:53 PM
WilbyInebriated,
Thank you. Regards,
Greg
Hey GM
Here you are thanking the devil himself. He comes to her aid very well knowing that her circuit(s) do not produce the results she claims. He is all about the lies she produces, the negativity and flying spaghetti monsters. Read some of his post in the "probality of God" thread. Theres some comic relief for ya.
What is funny is Rose implies the help of God many times. Yet her verbiage and intent comes from quite a lower level. Wilby defends her, and never comes down on her for using God in her posts. The reason why is he knows that she just 'uses' Gods name to further her lies and deceit. Join the club?
Go ahead an look in that thread to see what the great Wilbert posts when someone even mentions God in a positive way. Just simply nashing. Yet Rose the liar gets a free pass. Because he knows she is just using Gods name for cover of her evil doings.
From your posts, I see you have learned a lot from Rose. Soon you will be just meat with eyes as she loads you up with fallacy.
You use her same attacks without actual cause, so you must be a believer in all she says.
Your posts here. What is the purpose of them? Calling names? Trying to make these guys look bad?
I used to be in your shoes, as I said before. You are ignoring the 'truth' and falling for lies and detriment.
Instead of coming over and proving that Poynts methods are wrong, you just come for name calling and silliness. You have no grounds for any of it other than you following Rose down a path of foolishness.
One day hopefully you will figure it out. Hopefully. ;]
Mags
I think a Rosemary circuit must be transmitting a waveform that induces delusional
behavior in susceptible people that suffer from an acute lack of common sense.
There seems to be no other rational reason for anyone to believe Rosemary circuit
can do what she claims, given the last 10 years of overwhelming evidence against it.
Wait until Gmeast receives this promised email list of all of my and .99's "errors". I wonder if he'll have to wait as long as I've been waiting for the promised transcripts and refutations of my videos, or as long as we've been waiting for her to refute us by reproducing those scopeshots showing the blown or miswired mosfets.
Meanwhile, the deluded idiot continues her libels against "poor little" Bryan Little, in her continuing fantasy that she has figured out who I am. When she discovers, finally, that she has been utterly and foolishly wrong about this, all this time, from the very first time she ever called me "little".... I expect her to simply brush it under the rug like she always does when she's been proven wrong about various absurd things she's said. Like the equinox (or solstice) coming in July, for example, or "PER" not indicating division, or "no such animal" as inductive reactance, or a dozen other absurdities from Ainslie.
Like the present case where she accuses me, or Bryan, or someone, of "seriously proposed to calculate energy without any reference to frequency", and where she accuses .99 of claiming a battery can "deliver a negative current". This, coming from a person who failed math in grade school and doesn't even know or understand what the "dt" in her vaunted "VI dt" parroting actually means. Where are the references for these ridiculous claims that Ainslie makes against us? They do not exist, because she doesn't even understand what she's talking about and continually gets her concepts and terms muddled. The problem is that she then draws conclusions based on her false, muddled misconceptions and misquotes, and when the misconceptions are corrected.... the conclusions aren't. In short, Ainslie is a liar, a fool, and an arrogant idiot, and her forum is full of posts like the one below that PROVE beyond doubt, in her own words, that what I say here is true.
Hi all,
Thanks for the attention. Admittedly, my variation on Rosie's circuit does not, or perhaps can not operate at COP>17 (or whatever). As I have admitted, I got very caught up in the excitement of it all and made some analytical errors, but you can't let it go at that. Fine, that's your problem. Rosie won't share her current evidence or test results with me supporting COP>1. So I'm not on her 'inner circle' or on her 'team' like you all might think. I have only what I'm presently testing and I'm encouraged by what I personally see, not by what I'm told. And that means I'm beholding to NO ONE. It is so easy to clump together like you guys do and argue why something 'won't or can't work'. That is a far easier cowardly task than exploring why something 'will or can work'.
My enthusiasm for this has not diminished in the least.
Question: Why are you guys NOT attacking every other OU endeavor presented on the many forums here on overunity.com?
Oh ... and YES, those delusional energy waves given off by my circuit are quite addicting. That's why I enjoy working on it so much.
Regards
;)
Quote from: gmeast on October 28, 2012, 10:03:59 PM
Hi all,
Question: Why are you guys NOT attacking every other OU endeavor presented on the many forums here on overunity.com?
Oh ... and YES, those delusional energy waves given off by my circuit are quite addicting. That's why I enjoy working on it so much.
Regards
Nobody is making claims. Some do but are found to be fakes. Remember Mylow? The fishing line driven Howard Jonson motor?
Just if you ever feel you have something, dont jump out till your sure. If your interested in showing, then just say you think you might have something interesting. Then as you go along, check and recheck if you are right. We all make mistakes. 'ALL'. "we" 'We all' ;]
Mags
Quote from: gmeast on October 28, 2012, 10:03:59 PM
Hi all,
Thanks for the attention. Admittedly, my variation on Rosie's circuit does not, or perhaps can not operate at COP>17 (or whatever). As I have admitted, I got very caught up in the excitement of it all and made some analytical errors, but you can't let it go at that. Fine, that's your problem. Rosie won't share her current evidence or test results with me supporting COP>1. So I'm not on her 'inner circle' or on her 'team' like you all might think. I have only what I'm presently testing and I'm encouraged by what I personally see, not by what I'm told. And that means I'm beholding to NO ONE. It is so easy to clump together like you guys do and argue why something 'won't or can't work'. That is a far easier cowardly task than exploring why something 'will or can work'.
That's news, that Ainslie isn't sharing with you. It sounded like she intended to.
But really, the reality is probably that she isn't doing any testing at all anyway. That's why she hasn't done the least little bit of what she's been promising for so long. You came in relatively recently so you probably aren't aware that Ainslie has been promising a retest and demonstrations refuting my points for over a YEAR now and hasn't produced a single thing in all that time, not even a photograph. Excuse after excuse has been given... but no testing. Probably because she can't find anyone to help her any more, because anyone with the competencies she needs is also going to be able to see easily that she is full of... herself.
Now..... as to the other, cowardly thing. I suppose you still haven't realised that .99, myself, and most especially FuzzyTomCat have actually spent many dollars and lots of time working on actual hardware and sims and testing Ainslie's various claims. In fact you are repeating almost step by step work that I did in 2009 on Ainslie's circuit, except that I stuck to comprehensive testing of her _actual_ circuit and her _actual_ claims, and when I branched out I started demonstrating what properly switched mosfets could do by making a solid state Tesla coil that, according to the same measurement methodology that Ainslie uses, has a COP of around 3,000. But that's neither here nor there. What is important is that you are calling us "cowards" when in fact..... you are walking the same path that we explored three years ago and more, and you will eventually reach the same dead-end that we reached, and Ainslie will turn against you just like she has against everyone else who has actually worked on her circuits.
But fine.... you need to do what you need to do and that's fine. After all, you are just making slight claims of a tiny bit of OU and you aren't even using an Ainslie circuit or her parameters, and you most especially aren't trying to publish scientific papers full of delusions, lies and made-up data, nor are you applying for monetary prizes based on your conclusions.
Why aren't "we" attacking other claims of OU? Well, again, if you did your homework you'd find that some of us ARE doing so, in areas where we feel competent, and when more egregious or simply ignorant claims are being made. Personally, I've done a lot of work on Steorn's claims, I "busted" Mylow (at the same time others also did, by different methods) and got him to admit on my YT channel that he was using fishing line, I was very critical of Archer Quinn and I am currently very critical of MrWayne's ZED system. And some others. What I object to is outlandish claims without support (Ainslie and many others) , things that are evidently scams trying to profit in some way from false claims (Steorn, MrWayne, Ainslie, etc) , and pure ignorance combined with overweening arrogance (Archer Quinn, Ainslie, etc.) You don't quite fit into any of those categories; let me just say again that you are following the same path others have taken years ago. If Ainslie asks you to collaborate on a paper.... beware.
Quote
My enthusiasm for this has not diminished in the least.
Question: Why are you guys NOT attacking every other OU endeavor presented on the many forums here on overunity.com?
Oh ... and YES, those delusional energy waves given off by my circuit are quite addicting. That's why I enjoy working on it so much.
Regards
It will, it will, when you start having to fend off Ainslie's attacks which will surely come.
Sure, it's fun to work on these things. I built a Bedini motor a couple of days ago and it's fascinating to swap batteries, charging one while running down the other one. Even though I can clearly see the average voltage of the two batteries decreasing, it's still fun to amaze people by showing the thing charging a battery that it was running on a few minutes prior. It's also pretty cool to be able to light a NE-2 neon with a AAA battery with one of my advanced Joule Rattlers. These toys are fun to play with and any spinny, flashy thing is fascinating to terrestrial primates. There is no need for delusion, though. Just have fun, and remember that anomalous results are almost always due to errors of some sort; real discovery is much rarer than some people seem to believe.
lol. Its funny. Mylow is the poster child of free energy fakery. That boy got himself a page in history.
Probably even bigger than Prendev. Also maybe more memorable.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on October 28, 2012, 11:03:01 PM
lol. Its funny. Mylow is the poster child of free energy fakery. That boy got himself a page in history.
Probably even bigger than Prendev. Also maybe more memorable.
Mags
Mylow probably had good intentions in the beginnings of his trying to build a magnet motor. He probably had high hopes and told all his family and friends that he was building a motor that ran on its own and we could get free energy from it. I was that guy some time ago.
Maybe he borrowed money to build it. Investors in the family. Maybe not. But for some reason he decided to post videos of his motor running, of which it became clear later that he was using Mr Hand literally.
He would show the motor in full view, then it would start only when the camera was not in full view. People did tests on the videos that made acceleration charts, the works. There are very very talented people out there. Then when the complaints of Mr Hand got out of hand, Mylow continued by unbalancing the wheel while having only some magnets on a portion of the wheel to try and show getting by the sticky spot. Again, it was clear that there was a balance issue, and his 'scripted' vids were not without tells. Lol, some of it was soo clever but sloppy.
Then once he realized that he needed to give constant full view vids of the motor going, that was when he started using a motor with fishing line, which is nearly invisible to the untrained eye.
Eventually he fully admitted it due to awesome analysis done by Tk and many others showing where the fishing line was in the vids, how Mylow stepped over the lines in one vid, all using video processing to show greater details. He even had the motor under a pillow on the couch in view of the camera.
Mylow had many peoples attention throughout. Even after being busted and admitting, he would erratically come back with a new YT ID and try to get his audience back. He was doomed.
Rose is a tougher cookie. She will never give in. The sky is green and she is stickin to her stories. Well, there are like 4 different stories or so on some details. ;) A flip flopper ;)
Mags
Oh yeah he had the MIB story of them taking his motor for some days the "giving it back to him' saying, "heres your toy" lol, that guy. ;D
Mags
Quote from: gmeast on October 28, 2012, 10:03:59 PM
Question: Why are you guys NOT attacking every other OU endeavor presented on the many forums here on overunity.com?
Oh ... and YES, those delusional energy waves given off by my circuit are quite addicting. That's why I enjoy working on it so much.
Regards
The free energy community has enough problems trying to maintain its credibility,
and the false claims.....misleading information and scamers must be exposed,
luckily most of the other threads on this forum are doing good research
without making claims they can't prove.
"That's news, that Ainslie isn't [color=rgb(0, 0, 255) !important]sharing[/color] with you. It sounded like she intended to."
Your assumptions speak only to your arrogance and stupidity. Rosie has told me a number of times privately that she does NOT care if I choose NOT to associate her name with my investigation. In fact she said it's probably better if I DON'T because of self righteous people like you.
I am NOT out to prove that HER circuit works, because I haven't built HER circuit. I am out to investigate the possibilities that an Inductive Heater and related Circuit(s) can possibly display COP>1 behavior. That's all I'm doing you arrogant, presumptive, venomous TWIT!
If you're accusing me of "fakery", then others will eventually see you and your accomplices for who you are. I feel so sorry for you that you harbor so much hatred for one person that you attack ANYONE that so much as utters that person's name. You have such a small, pitiable, narrow mind.
I hope I see you at the symposium.
Regards
@gmeast
What's your purpose in that reply?
As far as I can see, nobody has accused you of fakery. Can you provide a quote for exactly where you believe that's happened? Quite the reverse, there's a conciliatory tone in most of the recent posts, at least from this side of the fence. But you seem hellbent on provoking an aggressive response for no good reason.
You see every attempt to point out areas where your testing protocol can be improved as a personal attack, and it would be baffling to watch, had it not been for the fact that we've seen this sort of thing from Rosemary herself so many times. Almost without exception, attempts to correct her misapprehensions and mistakes, no matter how patiently and politely they are pointed out at first, are characterised as "attacks".
Hey, GMEAST, you insulting whining asshole idiot lying fool...... TELL THE TRUTH. You aren't building or researching AINSLIE's circuit because FROM THE VERY FIRST you rejected the present NERD circuit as nonsensical and of no possibility for working as she claimed, AND when you started to research AINSLIE's earlier COP>17 circuit claims, FROM THE VERY FIRST you found that the 555 timer didn't work and that other elements of the circuit were problematic... thus you began using gate driver chips.
In other words, GMEAST, you started this affair by rejecting one Ainslie circuit, attempting to replicate another and failing, and now you are whining because you aren't getting fantastic results Ainslie reported and you expected. IN OTHER WORDS, you have been suckered by Ainslie and you choose to express your resentment here instead of to her, where it should be directed, since she lied to you about what her circuits did and could do.
And also recall, you overweeningly arrogant Ainslie sycophant and insulting idiot, that nobody insulted YOU PERSONALLY until YOU STARTED INSULTING ME PERSONALLY.
Now, fuck off, GMEAST, and play with your silly toys until you tire of it. It's your time to waste. Can you do it without BEING SO FUCKING INSULTING, and with a little respect for people who have ALREADY DONE what you are doing now?
Somehow I doubt it.
Here's just a bit of what you can do with properly switched mosfets.
The circuit that produces this nice electric fire, from just two of Tar Baby's batteries, 24 volts input, is almost identical to the CORRECT form of the NERD circuit, configured as a proper feedback oscillator and driving a matched, resonant load. Yes, when scoped it can produce plenty of "negative" power measurements, and it certainly will charge up external batteries until they explode, if you like. What you see is a plasma made of ionised air gases with some coloration from metal ions boiled off of the electrode surfaces. The flame is made by a pulsating DC output; it is not AC. Note the nearly continuous purple line of anode spots on the right electrode, and the much hotter, more widely spaced cathode spots on the left electrode. Every NE-2 bulb that you see glowing brightly only has a single wire connected; the other is just poking up into space. The arc spans 4 inches in a straight line but over six inches if you include the upward looping.
This version uses two IRFP260 mosfets and no gate driver chips. The transistors run cool, because even though the circuit is locked in a self-resonant feedback oscillation, the switching losses are kept low by causing the transistors to switch at the zero-crossings of the oscillation, not at some random voltage. In addition, instead of the two Ohms Rdss of the IRFPG50, these transistors have a much lower on-state resistance of 0.04 Ohm and thus waste much less of the power sent through them.
Quote from: gmeast on October 29, 2012, 09:15:47 AM
"That's news, that Ainslie isn't [color=rgb(0, 0, 255) !important]sharing[/color] with you. It sounded like she intended to."
Your assumptions speak only to your arrogance and stupidity. Rosie has told me a number of times privately that she does NOT care if I choose NOT to associate her name with my investigation. In fact she said it's probably better if I DON'T because of self righteous people like you.
I am NOT out to prove that HER circuit works, because I haven't built HER circuit. I am out to investigate the possibilities that an Inductive Heater and related Circuit(s) can possibly display COP>1 behavior. That's all I'm doing you arrogant, presumptive, venomous TWIT!
If you're accusing me of "fakery", then others will eventually see you and your accomplices for who you are. I feel so sorry for you that you harbor so much hatred for one person that you attack ANYONE that so much as utters that person's name. You have such a small, pitiable, narrow mind.
I hope I see you at the symposium.
Regards
"Rosie has told me a number of times privately that she does NOT care if I choose NOT to associate her name with my investigation. In fact she said it's probably better if I DON'T because of self righteous people like you."
Of coarse she doesnt want your experiments associated with her. Hers doesnt work, and you producing experiments in the same neighborhood doesnt do her agenda any good, especially if yours dont work.
Bah corndogs. lol, she is pushing you away already. ;)
"I am NOT out to prove that HER circuit works, because I haven't built HER circuit. I am out to investigate the possibilities that an Inductive Heater and related Circuit(s) can possibly display COP>1 behavior. That's all I'm doing you arrogant, presumptive, venomous TWIT!"
Hmm. Well if you are investigating "Inductive Heater and related Circuit(s) can possibly display COP>1 behavior." , then why not try her circuit? It claims cop 17. ;)
Or, you have an idea that her claim is not what she says it is and are trying some different things in the same area.
"If you're accusing me of "fakery", then others will eventually see you and your accomplices for who you are. I feel so sorry for you that you harbor so much hatred for one person that you attack ANYONE that so much as utters that person's name. You have such a small, pitiable, narrow mind.
"
Sorry if you think that. I was just showing that others that made claims have faked it. Some were just have no clue claims, maybe thinking that just because they have higher voltage out than in that they are getting OU. Never said you were a faker. But Rose is. Whether its that she didnt know it(have no clue category), but she surely does now. Thats why all the flip floppin, lies, delays, or "no, thats not the circuit" even though we got it from her blogs and other sites where she put them.
Soo, never said you were faking anything. ;) ;D Mylow is just a 'pure' example.
Mags
@tk
Leaving aside @gmeast's, er, excitable nature for a minute, you mentioned a few replies back that his calorimetry wasn't bad for a first pass.
Are there any low-hanging-fruit changes you would make to improve the process he describes?
I can certainly see one pattern repeating itself.
Rosemary heaps irrational amounts of praise on the newcomer:
QuoteYour work is exceptional. Very comforting to see this in your capable hands.
Don't EVER underestimate your achievement here.
VERY well done for all you work
But I don't think that there are any of us who would doubt your competence at measurement.
Anyway Greg - onwards and upwards. You're doing a sterling job.
I'm absolutely happy with how you're going about this. Always have been.
And seeing your competence I also know that I always will be.
Then of course there is the reality. Gmeast is clearly a beginner that only has a basic grasp of electronics. He sometimes struggles and sometimes he recovers and sometimes he is dead wrong. He falls into that classic group that get a multimeter and a scope and then suddenly believe that they are capable of analyzing almost any circuit.
Then we see Gmeast convinced that certain frequencies or some setup is "really special" and he is onto something when in fact he is just your average newbie most likely seeing things that he has never seen before.
And of course we can't forget that Rosemary isn't even remotely qualified enough to make a call about Gmeast's abilities. She is the chef in name only that doesn't even know how to make toast.
So, knowing the pattern, there is that chance that Rosemary will turn on Gmeast and dismiss him as an idiot if he ends up producing results that are not to Rosie's liking.
And the sad sad reality is that all of the pulses and "delicious" oscillations and whatever else the boffins come up with (or regurgitate) is simply the circuit doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. No over unity, nada. Just some pulses reflecting back and forth and inductors reacting to load changes and so on and so on. Something that any engineer would look at and not give it a second thought.
And Rosie has convinced herself that Poynt and company are unable to explain the "magic oscillations" even though he has tried to explain it to Rosie over and over and his simulations faithfully oscillated. Rosemary is also talking to herself when she discusses stuff with "AlienSigns."
It's all so strange, a real doozie for sure. Poor Rosemary and her alter ego AlienSigns are stuck in one of the remotest back alleyways on the Internet like the proverbial Who's of Whoville.
Again, thanks for the attention. Nice light show TK.
I had typed out a nice, long response for all of you, but it's not worth it. Well I need to get back to my fakery.
Yes, there are. I was trying hard to find something nice to say about his work. At least he is trying to achieve consistent results, even if they are relatively meaningless. Precision is not accuracy, and both are required for credibility.
In the first place the measurements should not be done in ambient air. A container with insulated walls and a known quantity of a suitable fluid like mineral oil should be used to completely submerge the load for a first test and then the entire circuit including load for a definitive test. A means for stirring the liquid should be provided as well. Calibration runs on the container/stirrer using a known load dissipating power from a DC supply will indicate the "leak rate" of energy loss from the container and will even indicate the energy imparted by the stirring, by easily performed time and temperature measurements. Then the device is placed in the container and run, using known input power, until the chamber reaches an equilibrium temperature. The time course of the temperature rise and the eventual magnitude of the equilibrium temperature will tell the true power being dissipated by the circuit running submerged in the oil, and the total energy transferred during the time of the test. The entire process can be completely automated and controlled by, for example, an Arduino and the program "processing".
I believe MileHigh gave an excellent description of exactly how to go about doing this kind of calorimetry and calibration of the calorimetry chamber. Mineral oil is easy to get and although its heat capacity is less than that of water it is a good electrical insulator. Its lesser heat capacity is a good thing because that means that a given amount of energy input will cause a greater temperature rise in oil than it will in water: it is more sensitive. And of course operating in a sealed container of known leak rate is far superior to operating in air in the ambience, where drafts and convection currents and load hot spots and radiative transfer can never be adequately controlled.
It is helpful also to recall that power is not a conserved quantity. Power measurements are not the criterion for overunity performance; rather, the instantaneous power integrated over a suitable time period, resulting in a quantity of energy, is what needs to be "greater out than in". Measurements of the air temperature "over" a resistive element in an uncontrolled environment, or by a thermocouple actually in contact with the element, and trying to get a power figure from that, is a very typical Ainslie-style naive error. Nevertheless, even poor data must be correctly calculated; Ainslie's use of her air temperature measurements "over" the load, or in contact with it, are a bad joke, nothing more, and Gmeast shouldn't be emulating them when it is so easy to do it a bit more properly and get real results that actually yield an energy balance.
Quote from: gmeast on October 29, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
Again, thanks for the attention.
I guess that explains why Sir gmeast comes here so much; he's not getting enough attention, and certainly not over at Rose's sandbox.
Quote from: gmeast on October 29, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
Again, thanks for the attention. Nice light show TK.
I had typed out a nice, long response for all of you, but it's not worth it. Well I need to get back to my fakery.
Are you kidding me???? Did you not read my post before this one????? Are you drinking the same water as Rose? Are you Rose?????
Fakery???? Again, I said nothing of the sort that GMeast is involved with fakery. The only way that this could be true, is if GMeast is Rose. YES, I did call Rose a faker.
What is wrong with people? I wonder if he will say it again? Any takers? ;) Unbelievable. ::)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on October 29, 2012, 10:08:54 PM
Are you kidding me? ??? Did you not read my post before this one? ??? ? Are you drinking the same water as Rose? Are you Rose? ??? ?
Fakery? ??? Again, I said nothing of the sort that GMeast is involved with fakery. The only way that this could be true, is if GMeast is Rose. YES, I did call Rose a faker.
What is wrong with people? I wonder if he will say it again? Any takers? ;) Unbelievable. ::)
Mags
Well,
I've removed my primary 'work' computer from the outside world for now. If you were not such an assumptive fool, you'd check the IP's and see that I'm in the US and she's in SA. Talk about delusional?
Yesterday I performed another test providing a second proof that that it works, and works consistently .. albeit not at COP>17, but it works. I believe you guys are fearful that your hateful attacks will soon be moot and you'll have nothing else to do because I have succeeded in proving: IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS. Sorry guys it really is valid. I'm happy to have been a part of this. MAGS ... what in the world happened to you? I remember your participation in the Water Spark Plug, forums, the Bob Boyce-related forums, and others I dropped in on or participated in. I can't believe you have been taken in and turned toward evil by the likes of Turkey Krap and poynty-head. And poynty-head, how dare you DIRTY John Henry Poynting's name by using it as your handle ... poynt99, HA! ... poyntLESS is more like it. Why can I say these things? ... because I have PROOF and TRUTH on my side now. These two things REIGN VICTORIOUS OVER EVIL ... EVERY TIME, EVERY TIME. Oh, by the way, I'm not religious in any way, so don't go down THAT road when next you ASSume you've one-upped me. I think I'll get back to my FAKERY ... I know saying that really pisses you off MAGS. This has been so much fun I can't tell ya'. I now know how to push each and every one of your guys' buttons. "TRUTH" and "PROOF" ... powerful stuff! Learn it.
The only thing that gmeast is actually proving here time and time again, is how utterly immature and insecure he is.
@gmeast,
As an alternate means to confirm your circuit's power consumption, you might consider replacing your batteries with a properly sized capacitor and connecting your DC supply to the capacitor to power the circuit. A diode in the supply's positive leg would ensure that the supply can only provide power to the circuit and not load down any return power to the cap from your circuit.
If you believe the batteries are necessary, you can use the same set up with the batteries. With the circuit powered off, set the supply so that it is just slightly below the battery voltage (plus one Vdrop from the series diode) so that no current flow is observed from the supply. Connect the circuit and let it run until the battery voltage decreases below the DC supply voltage, at which time the supply will provide current to maintain the battery voltage.
With either setup, simply multiplying your power supply DC voltage by its indicated DC current will provide a fairly accurate indication of your circuit's power consumption in watts (within the accuracy of your supply's meters).
Just a suggestion,
PW
QuoteAgain, thanks for the attention. Nice light show TK.
Do you doubt that this "nice light show" device would produce MASSIVE overunity results using the methodology you are using? Let's recap: I am making a _continuous_ 4 to 6 inch arc of burning air plasma, that persists during the "off" times of the output pulsations, using a 24 volt input at under 7 amperes.
I CHALLENGE YOU to come anywhere near that OUTPUT PERFORMANCE using straight DC to your load of any kind.
In other words, comparison to a straight DC situation is inappropriate for my device, because it would give spurious results. And my device is a switched mosfet circuit in self-resonant oscillation, similar to the Ainslie circuit-- so similar, in fact that I have merely made a few alterations and edits to HER OWN PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC-- one of them anyway -- to illustrate my circuit. The main difference is that I am taking advantage of the real inductive properties of the load, properly, instead of thinking that I can use a diode somehow to capture an inductive spike and keep a battery charged, which has been proven false many times.
If you think that your load resistor heating up on plain old DC "less" than it does with the equivalent power to your circuit -- based on thermometry like you are doing -- is a significant result, then you should also agree that my situation with the device I show in that photograph is also significantly "OU", according to your protocols. I'm heating a final resistive (air) load to incandescence and conductivity by turning it into plasma over a distance of six inches on well under 200 watts measured input power. Let's see you do that with straight DC and compare the results using your methods.
But of course we know you won't accept this challenge or any of the others, because they would actually TEST your methodology, and your ego, GMEAST, donkey kisser sycophant, won't be able to handle it.
"IT WORKS IT WORKS IT WORKS".... but what does it do? Do the batteries discharge, or not? Ainslie claims that they do not. Does it boil water , dissipate 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes into under a liter of water.... or not? Ainslie claims that the NERD circuit does. Oh... .that's right, you aren't replicating an Ainslie circuit, are you. You just STARTED to replicate one, shown by your postings in a thread that was called Protocols of NERD and COP>17 Tests. But you soon dropped that project. Why? I know why.
To refresh your memory, some screenshots are included below.
Along with one other, illustrating that Ainslie cares nothing for the truth and blithely makes promises that she never intends to keep, even invoking God's will when she does so.
Since Ainslie claims to be conducting some kind of testing currently, one wonders if she is still so abjectly muddled about the function and purpose and usage of the AC - DC coupling feature of her oscilloscope.
We've tried to explain to her that the "DC coupling" setting is normally used for _ALL_ types of input signals AC or DC when they are within the voltage range determined by the screen height and vertical amp attenuation setting. The "AC coupling" setting is used to block an unwanted, usually large, DC component to allow the viewing of a much smaller "ac" or time varying portion riding on top of that.
Say for example you have a DC power supply producing 250 volts DC from your AC main line input. But this power supply is for a precision instrument and the supplied DC voltage must not be allowed to "ripple" more than 50 milliVolts from its main 250 volt level. How to display that on an oscilloscope? There are two ways. One can set the vertical amplifier to read, say, 10 mV per division..... and then the 250 volt signal level will push the trace VERY far off the screen so that it must be returned by using the trace position or DC offset controls.... not a good idea really but possible in many cases.
-OR-
You can use the "AC Coupling" setting for what it was designed for, to block that 250 volt baseline DC and view only the ripple _AS IF_ it were a true AC signal, varying +/- around a zero volt baseline (which is now actually near the true 250 volt level of the main signal). Then you can use the 10 mV per division vertical setting and make sense of the ripple magnitude without messing up your trace position or offset settings. Simply by flicking the coupling switch or selecting it in the channel setup screen of your DSO. Note that the ripple on top of a 250 volt DC signal is NOT AC. The current never reverses direction, the voltage just rises and falls around some 250 volt reference level.
Ironically, if you use the "AC coupling" setting on a true, symmetrical AC signal.... it will look exactly the same as if you view the same signal using "DC coupling".
I just happened to have my Tektronix RM503 down off the rack for a tune-up so I thought I'd show how this classic, precision low-frequency oscilloscope performs this mysterious function.
The first picture below shows the front panel section of the inputs to the vertical amplifier. Instead of using a polarity invert switch the 503 series allows you to use positive and negative inputs to switch the displayed polarity of a signal, or to add two signals together. But each input has its own "AC DC Ground" coupling setting switch, a three-position slide switch. The "ground" setting grounds that amplifier input but leaves the input signal itself open, not grounded or connected to anything.
And as shown in the second picture below, the AC coupling setting merely switches a precision 0.022 microFarad capacitor IN SERIES with the input signal. That is all it does. In every oscilloscope analog or digital old or new made by any manufacturer, this is how this miracle of signal processing is performed, with perhaps different cap values of course. In a DSO you can sometimes hear the relay clicking as your digital coupling selection is translated to an actual switch inside the instrument, switching the input to the capacitor (or to ground, if that's what you selected). I suppose it's possible to do this digitally as well... but why bother.
Nearly three months ago Ainslie said,
QuoteOK Guys and Girls,
We'll be doing our first video this afternoon - God willing. That's in about 12 hours from now. So, hopefully by supper time - in America - you'll have our first test on line.
Fail Number One. Suppertime came and went, in fact September came and went, and October has come and nearly gone without any video from Ainslie. Therefore one can only conclude that God is not willing. Or... that Ainslie herself is not able.
QuoteOur very first test is to challenge those repeated claims by picowatt at OU.com that sullied my own thread and then meandered through TK's disgusting thread. The claim was that the voltage measured across Q1 had sufficient voltage to ensure that the switch was 'on' and therefore the battery should have delivered current flow.
Was it indeed? Sorry... no. When someone who actually knows what they are doing speaks of the "voltage across" a transistor they will mean the Drain-Source voltage for mosfets or the Collector-Emitter voltage for bipolar transistors. But this is not and never was the issue. We are talking about Q1 receiving a positive 12 volt signal to its GATE wrt source, and yet no current flows in the SOURCE - DRAIN channel, as shown by the scopeshots.
QuoteThe evidence therefore should have been some voltage value across the shunt that was greater than zero. I answered this - REPEATEDLY. I mentioned that the in the first instance the coupling had not been set to AC.
DC coupling is the appropriate setting for all channels of the oscilloscope in this case. This objection of Ainslie's is specious and once again indicates that she does not understand the AC-DC coupling feature of her own instrument.
Quote
And I explained that the voltage was further compromised by the justification of the 'off set' switch on the function generator.
The oscilloscope knows nothing of the function generator's settings. The scope only reads voltages, the voltages it sees at its probe tips wrt their grounds. That is all. The function generator is delivering +12 volts to the gate of Q1, as is shown by the oscilloscope. Whatever settings the function generator is set to, offset and amplitude of output, the unit is still doing just what the oscilloscope is measuring it to do: delivering +12 volts to the gate of a mosfet.... which then does NOT conduct in the drain-source channel as a functioning, properly wired mosfet would do. This set of voltages and events is clearly shown in Ainslie's scope shots, reproduced here and included in her "papers".
Quote
So. Our first video will be to repeat that test. We will show that we can generate that oscillation for a duration of very nearly 3 minutes -
This has never been questioned; it can in fact be generated for any duration desired BY APPLYING A DC BIAS SIGNAL just as the NERD Function Generator does, or a 555 timer will do, or a negative battery supply will do, for as long an interval as desired or even continuously.
Quotewith absolutely NO energy delivered by the battery supply source during the 'on' time of each switching cycle.
This claim has been refuted many times, first in Ainslie's own published scope shot data, then in simulations and actual builds by independent replicators, then by the independent chemical laboratory she sent her system to in the USA, and even by her current set of sycophants.
But our objection to the scopeshots is that when the Q1 transistor is supposed to be
ON it is not conducting, therefore it is miswired or blown. If Ainslie isn't going to address the ACTUAL objections we make, what is the purpose of doing this (nonexistent) video "refutation" at all?
Quote
And we will show the difference between the AC and DC settings on that function generator.
Will you, now? Amazing. My Function Generator has a DC output setting as well. But what does that have to do with anything? Oh... that's right I am supposed to KNOW what Ainslie means when she makes stupid typos or misspeaks like this. OK, then she is referring not to the FUNCTION GENERATOR but to the oscilloscope's AC and DC coupling settings. Great ! I'd like to see what she shows, and see if it corresponds in any way with what LeCroy and Tektronix test engineers tell us about those functions. That will be a real hoot.
QuoteThen. At the conclusion of those tests we'll show you that all those MOSFETS are PERFECTLY in tact.
How? Just how does Ainslie intend to show that all those mosfets are PERFECTLY "in tact" (sic)? The finding that you can provide a PERFECTLY "in tact" N-channel IRFPG50 mosfet with a 12 volt gate signal, with 72 volts potential difference between drain and source and a 10 ohm load, and NOT have it conduct upwards of 5 amperes or more, would definitely be of interest to the designers at International Rectifier. Especially if you can apply those parameters to a mosfet that is improperly heatsunk, for periods of 18 to 20 seconds at a time and not have it heat up and blow out.
Quote
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Ainslie is neither kind, nor does she hold her interlocutors in any "kind regard". In fact her contempt oozes from every word and every hypocritical closure like this one.
Where is the video promised here? Where is the refutation of any of the statements and analyses we've made here? Where is the demonstration that scopeshots like the one attached can be made with "PERFECTLY in tact" mosfets, using any combination of oscilloscope coupling settings and function generator output and offset settings?
Quote from: gmeast on October 30, 2012, 09:58:04 AM
Well,
I've removed my primary 'work' computer from the outside world for now. If you were not such an assumptive fool, you'd check the IP's and see that I'm in the US and she's in SA. Talk about delusional?
Yesterday I performed another test providing a second proof that that it works, and works consistently .. albeit not at COP>17, but it works. I believe you guys are fearful that your hateful attacks will soon be moot and you'll have nothing else to do because I have succeeded in proving: IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS. Sorry guys it really is valid. I'm happy to have been a part of this. MAGS ... what in the world happened to you? I remember your participation in the Water Spark Plug, forums, the Bob Boyce-related forums, and others I dropped in on or participated in. I can't believe you have been taken in and turned toward evil by the likes of Turkey Krap and poynty-head. And poynty-head, how dare you DIRTY John Henry Poynting's name by using it as your handle ... poynt99, HA! ... poyntLESS is more like it. Why can I say these things? ... because I have PROOF and TRUTH on my side now. These two things REIGN VICTORIOUS OVER EVIL ... EVERY TIME, EVERY TIME. Oh, by the way, I'm not religious in any way, so don't go down THAT road when next you ASSume you've one-upped me. I think I'll get back to my FAKERY ... I know saying that really pisses you off MAGS. This has been so much fun I can't tell ya'. I now know how to push each and every one of your guys' buttons. "TRUTH" and "PROOF" ... powerful stuff! Learn it.
"I've removed my primary 'work' computer from the outside world for now. If you were not such an assumptive fool, you'd check the IP's and see that I'm in the US and she's in SA. Talk about delusional?"
lol. Ok. I was just relating you to Rose because she does the same stuff. Reading my post and twisting it for, what ever reasons. Anyone here can attest that I was not associating you with fakery.
"MAGS ... what in the world happened to you? I remember your participation in the Water Spark Plug, forums, the Bob Boyce-related forums, and others I dropped in on or participated in. I can't believe you have been taken in and turned toward evil by the likes of Turkey Krap and poynty-head. And poynty-head, how dare you DIRTY John Henry Poynting's name by using it as your handle ... poynt99, HA! ... poyntLESS is more like it."
Nothing happened to me other than I finally found out how Rose really is. That is 'our' connection here. I am actually trying to help you. But you cant see that in my posts. Somehow you see me attacking you.
As I remember I had only dealt with one thread that involved HHO and that one was a coil around a test tube filled with water highly saturated with sodium hydroxide. Supposedly applying the right freq and power level to the coil causes the reaction to happen in the solution itself without electrical contact, as sodium hydrochloride is a metal.
Ive read on Bob Boyce, but never was in a thread of a forum on that subject. Unless you can prove it. ;) So are you making that up? ;) Why is that?
As I see it, the only reason you have anything against Poynt is because of Roses indoctrination you fell into. Can you prove and show that Poynt has pointed you in the wrong direction at any time? I would 'really' be interested in seeing proof of that. If he did suggest something, did you just do otherwise just for spite? I dont think you can produce such evidence. I do believe Rose is really pissed and is pulling your strings like a puppet. You are her mule. Good luck with all that.
"Why can I say these things? ... because I have PROOF and TRUTH on my side now. These two things REIGN VICTORIOUS OVER EVIL ... EVERY TIME, EVERY TIME. Oh, by the way, I'm not religious in any way, so don't go down THAT road when next you ASSume you've one-upped me. I think I'll get back to my FAKERY ... I know saying that really pisses you off MAGS. This has been so much fun I can't tell ya'. I now know how to push each and every one of your guys' buttons. "TRUTH" and "PROOF" ... powerful stuff! Learn it."
You think Im pissed? I didnt see any >:( in my post, just ??? . ;) And Im the one thats delusional? Go down the religious road? I fight for God just about every day on the Probality Of God thread. Lots of twisted evil over there. But hey, you brought it up. ;)
Well im glad you have fun thinking you are pushing our buttons. lol and you call me a fool.
I may not have put out a YT vid in a while but I am always working on stuff. Just busted apart a pancake motor from a car cooling fan. Will be posting pics here this evening. After laundry. Not saying it and 6 months later still nothing like you know who.
It has a very interesting architecture. A flat armature with windings encased in plastic(with windings visible on the surface of the plastic casting) and commutator on the shaft... Ill be posting it later.
Anyways, be well G. Come back and bash me for nothing some more when ever you get the time. ;) The only person fooling anyone is yourself. ;) The readers here can fact check your posts regarding me. Its simple. Some here can do this amazing thing called 'remembering' also, in case you havnt heard of it. ;) You are making memories. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on October 29, 2012, 10:08:54 PM
Fakery? ??? Again, I said nothing of the sort that GMeast is involved with fakery. The only way that this could be true, is if GMeast is Rose. YES, I did call Rose a faker.
What is wrong with people? I wonder if he will say it again? Any takers? ;) Unbelievable. ::)
Mags
I win. Pay up. ;D I could make an easy living predicting this guy. ;)
Mags
@Mags:
;)
(I used two of these in one of my best Bonetti machines; they allow one to see that the machine will also work as a motor, by turning backwards on its residual charge, because these motors don't "cog" at all when they aren't energised. Very interesting designs indeed.)
Yours sound like they might be a bit different though. This one's commutated on the face of the armature, very odd. But it works great for my purposes.
@AlienSigns.....
OUCH!!
;D
Quote from: picowatt on October 30, 2012, 02:07:28 PM
@gmeast,
As an alternate means to confirm your circuit's power consumption, you might consider replacing your batteries with a properly sized capacitor and connecting your DC supply to the capacitor to power the circuit. A diode in the supply's positive leg would ensure that the supply can only provide power to the circuit and not load down any return power to the cap from your circuit.
If you believe the batteries are necessary, you can use the same set up with the batteries. With the circuit powered off, set the supply so that it is just slightly below the battery voltage (plus one Vdrop from the series diode) so that no current flow is observed from the supply. Connect the circuit and let it run until the battery voltage decreases below the DC supply voltage, at which time the supply will provide current to maintain the battery voltage.
With either setup, simply multiplying your power supply DC voltage by its indicated DC current will provide a fairly accurate indication of your circuit's power consumption in watts (within the accuracy of your supply's meters).
Just a suggestion,
PW
Hi picowatt,
Thanks for your suggestion. I do, as you had noted, believe the batteries are necessary. For the last two days I have been testing what (I think) you suggested above. If you look at the last bunch of stuff I posted on Rosie's site, I show some discharge curves ... one for the batteries over a 6-1/2 hour period (light blue 200Ohm load)) and another is the circuit running the RL (purple curve). The curves have substantially the same slope for much of the run. This simply means that they are discharging the battery at the same rates, the slope is everything in this analysis. The KNOWN power of the battery curve is 3.21Watts at the selected voltage data point. But the circuit is producing 4.21Watts to maintain the equilibrium differential temperature of 34C as evidenced by the differential temperature calibration on RL that IMMEDIATELY followed the circuit test using a precision DC power supply.
As the second test of power consumption, I hooked the DC power supply up to the batteries through protection diodes at B(+) and B(-). I ran the batteries down to the data point on the curves, 25.34V, and then adjusted the power supply to limit voltage and let the current float to whatever load is being put on the supply. The battery voltage was maintained at 25.2V to 25.5V and the load on the power supply remained at 3.3Watts for more than 16 hours before the current began to climb (very slowly). This second test fully supported the first test. I'm using two 12V 7Ah batteries in series for my 24V bank. I chose this size of battery so I could have a measurable discharge rate. That has proven to be a valuable measure in my testing. My testing suggests that there is something fundamentally sound about the technology.
Rosie used big batteries. Her discharge rate was likely undetectable. All I'm doing is exploring the possibility: that for a given electrical wattage 'into' an inductive resistive heater, you can get a greater equivalent wattage 'out' in the form of HEAT. THIS REQUIRES THE BATTERIES TO DISCHARGE! That's what this is all about. Not your agenda or Rosie's agenda or anyone's agenda ... just pure, simple research. NONE of my measurements are made with scopes or poynty-principles any longer, just battery voltages and time. I now have the results that suggest that something just might be valid here.
Just get off of the HATE WAGON. All kidding aside, there's obviously a collective intelligence here. 'HATE' is a poor, ineffective and wasteful way to channel it.
Thanks picowatt for chiming in. Regards,
GME
Battery voltages, time, and.... TEMPERATURE. It is your measurements of temperature vs time and your interpretation of them that are now at issue, since you are choosing to ignore other electrical parameters. That's fine as long as you do proper calorimetry, which you are not yet doing.
Determining the actual wattage your load dissipates using time-temperature profiles can be done accurately with a bit more effort than your simple setup, and you've been told how to do it, and you can find essentially the same methods as we suggest, in other sources for amateur scientists and academic research as well.
Very cool. Same here just about. Yours looks like maybe a better build. Very nice and neat on the armature. Is that a fan motor? This thing is so torquey. ;] I see the casing is the magnet field return. Like it would not work so well if the casing were plastic.
Mine had 2 welds next to the mounting holes which I drilled. The mounting holes provide a good alignment to put it back together. Had a bit of white silicone as a case seal.
Was thinking to try mags on each sector on each side of the rotor then making my own U shaped paths for each pair, and make a casing out of plexi.
Honestly I have been looking at it for 2 days and I dont understand it. lol The brush positions are at near 12 oclock and 2. I wonder if it is to make up for the missing portions of the magnet? ::) And the winding angles, a wire goes outward at an angle then bends at the edge and comes back in at the same angle if you were looking at that side of the plate. So maybe the 12 and 2 positions of the brushes mean that there are only some of the windings active at any certain time. Not like a typical DC motor where all coils are active at all times. Constant torque. But these seem to be constant and torquey too. ;D
Thats interesting that not all the windings are in series but separate. I thinks. Im going to test it after this. Just thought about all this while posting here.
Remember the homopolar motor thread I described using wires outward to replace the copper disk? This reminds me of that a bit. ;]
Mags
I can see what you say about no cog. Theres no core in the armature. ;)
Mags
Hmm. If we were to lock up the rotor to the motor casing, connect an led to the input wires then spin the motor as a whole, would the led light? Like the N machine. It has the ingredients I think. Still checking out the rotor connections.
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 30, 2012, 10:39:15 PM
Battery voltages, time, and.... TEMPERATURE. It is your measurements of temperature vs time and your interpretation of them that are now at issue, since you are choosing to ignore other electrical parameters. That's fine as long as you do proper calorimetry, which you are not yet doing.
Determining the actual wattage your load dissipates using time-temperature profiles can be done accurately with a bit more effort than your simple setup, and you've been told how to do it, and you can find essentially the same methods as we suggest, in other sources for amateur scientists and academic research as well.
And ... of course TEMPERATURE ... you idiot. There's nothing wrong with my interpretation of anything with regards to these tests. Other electrical parameters are irrelevant. Calorimetry is irrelevant. You simply are going to refuse to accept any evidence at all that just might provide some validity for this technology.
I'm presently discussing these results with some seasoned researchers. My initial visits opened my eyes to the realization that real scientists and researchers don't talk, act or react like you do. You are completely devoid of any of the professional qualities that define true scientists and researchers. You are a fraud.
Tell me, because I really don't know, was this thread started for the sole purpose of disproving and discrediting Rosie's research?
Quote from: gmeast on October 31, 2012, 12:53:10 AM
Tell me, because I really don't know, was this thread started for the sole purpose of disproving and discrediting Rosie's research?
This threads beginning is way past disproving of Roses claims. This thread has discovered and 'shown' characteristics and details of functions, cause and effect, way beyond what Rose even 'claims' she knows. Yet she has zippons draining her batteries and is telling everyone the batteries are charging. Ive been looking for a good zippon detector. Maybe you can tell me where she got hers. ;) Can ya do that for me Zippy?
Mags
@TK
Thanks for the explanation. Use of a material that reacts more quickly such as oil would have been counter-intuitive to me - I'd have guessed that the less sensitive it was, the better on a sort of longer-runs-average-the-defects basis.
So for @gmeast's setup, to get results that were consistently misleading in the direction of COP >1, what are the likely causes? The only ones I can think of are:
1) Inadvertent experimenters bias. Even at this stage, I don't doubt he's actually doing experiments and recording results in an honest way within the confirmatory restrictions he prefers. But looking at his overuse of decimal places, there's room for unconscious bias when setting up, taking measurements etc. etc.
2) The way the batteries are discharged during the "active" run leaves them with a misleading impression of the true remaining capacity. Are there any effects that could cause this and make his measurement of voltage and consequent derivation of capacity dubious?
S
Quote from: Magluvin on October 30, 2012, 11:19:47 PM
Very cool. Same here just about. Yours looks like maybe a better build. Very nice and neat on the armature. Is that a fan motor? This thing is so torquey. ;] I see the casing is the magnet field return. Like it would not work so well if the casing were plastic.
Mine had 2 welds next to the mounting holes which I drilled. The mounting holes provide a good alignment to put it back together. Had a bit of white silicone as a case seal.
Yes, radiator fan motor. Unfortunately I don't have these motors here with me now, just the pictures. I got them at Princess Auto, surplus, in Toronto and I think I remember that they were branded AC/Delco. Mine weren't welded together at all, just aligned by the dimples you can see, then sealed with silicone RTV. I resealed the one in the photo several times, you can see some of my blue silicone.
Quote
Was thinking to try mags on each sector on each side of the rotor then making my own U shaped paths for each pair, and make a casing out of plexi.
That's a good idea; it would probably improve the torque, although they seem to work pretty well already.
Quote
Honestly I have been looking at it for 2 days and I dont understand it. lol The brush positions are at near 12 oclock and 2. I wonder if it is to make up for the missing portions of the magnet? ::) And the winding angles, a wire goes outward at an angle then bends at the edge and comes back in at the same angle if you were looking at that side of the plate. So maybe the 12 and 2 positions of the brushes mean that there are only some of the windings active at any certain time. Not like a typical DC motor where all coils are active at all times. Constant torque. But these seem to be constant and torquey too. ;D
I couldn't figure out mine either, especially since the brushes are big enough to span several of the windings at the contact face on the armature. I wish I had it to look at now, but it's elsewhere.
Quote
Thats interesting that not all the windings are in series but separate. I thinks. Im going to test it after this. Just thought about all this while posting here.
Remember the homopolar motor thread I described using wires outward to replace the copper disk? This reminds me of that a bit. ;]
Mags
Tesla designed a homopolar variant that used a disk cut into spiral segments, similar to your radial wires but bent into a spiral form, more like your motor armature. Very interesting indeed..... My motors came with a fairly large capacitor directly across the terminals, did yours?
Quote from: gmeast on October 30, 2012, 09:46:09 PM
Hi picowatt,
Thanks for your suggestion. I do, as you had noted, believe the batteries are necessary. For the last two days I have been testing what (I think) you suggested above. If you look at the last bunch of stuff I posted on Rosie's site, I show some discharge curves ... one for the batteries over a 6-1/2 hour period (light blue 200Ohm load)) and another is the circuit running the RL (purple curve). The curves have substantially the same slope for much of the run. This simply means that they are discharging the battery at the same rates, the slope is everything in this analysis. The KNOWN power of the battery curve is 3.21Watts at the selected voltage data point. But the circuit is producing 4.21Watts to maintain the equilibrium differential temperature of 34C as evidenced by the differential temperature calibration on RL that IMMEDIATELY followed the circuit test using a precision DC power supply.
As the second test of power consumption, I hooked the DC power supply up to the batteries through protection diodes at B(+) and B(-). I ran the batteries down to the data point on the curves, 25.34V, and then adjusted the power supply to limit voltage and let the current float to whatever load is being put on the supply. The battery voltage was maintained at 25.2V to 25.5V and the load on the power supply remained at 3.3Watts for more than 16 hours before the current began to climb (very slowly). This second test fully supported the first test. I'm using two 12V 7Ah batteries in series for my 24V bank. I chose this size of battery so I could have a measurable discharge rate. That has proven to be a valuable measure in my testing. My testing suggests that there is something fundamentally sound about the technology.
Rosie used big batteries. Her discharge rate was likely undetectable. All I'm doing is exploring the possibility: that for a given electrical wattage 'into' an inductive resistive heater, you can get a greater equivalent wattage 'out' in the form of HEAT. THIS REQUIRES THE BATTERIES TO DISCHARGE! That's what this is all about. Not your agenda or Rosie's agenda or anyone's agenda ... just pure, simple research. NONE of my measurements are made with scopes or poynty-principles any longer, just battery voltages and time. I now have the results that suggest that something just might be valid here.
Just get off of the HATE WAGON. All kidding aside, there's obviously a collective intelligence here. 'HATE' is a poor, ineffective and wasteful way to channel it.
Thanks picowatt for chiming in. Regards,
GME
gmeast,
Why do you suppose the current began to rise at the end of your run with the supply connected to the batteries?
The hazard in using the batteries with this method, as opposed to trying a cap in place of them, is ensuring that the batteries have discharged below the supply voltage low enough to be off the diode conduction knees (using just a single diode in the positive leg will reduce the knee issue a bit).
I would charge both batteries and allow time for them to acheive their rest voltage. Connect the supply and carefully advance the voltage adjust on the supply until current flow begins to be observed and then back the voltage control off very slightly until zero current is observed. Allow more time (with the supply still connected) for the batteries to rest from any voltage bump applied during the supply V set and readjust supply if necessary to ensure its voltage is set just below Vbatt at rest. Connect the circuit and let it run.
As the circuit runs, the batteries will discharge slowly and at some point both the supply and batteries will be powering the circuit as the diode(s) in the supply leg(s) begin to conduct. This will slow the battery discharge so additional run time will be required to discharge the batteries below the supply voltage setting. At some point during the run, you should expect to see the current indication on the supply begin to increase. Continue the run until the supply's indicated current reaches its maximum value and stabilizes. Once a stable current value is reached, the observed current should be very close to that required to operate the circuit.
You could do a similar run with your fixed resistors in place of your circuit as a load to confirm this method.
Careful setting of the supply voltage to just below the battery rest voltage prior to the run will decrease the needed run time. Alternately, you could temporarily disconnect the supply during a run to allow the batteries to discharge a bit and then reconnect the supply (without changing its settings) and allow the supply's indicated current to stabilize (up or down depending on the battery state). You could also temporarily add an additional load (one of your fixed resistors) across the batteries to speed their discharge and reduce the required run time to acheive a stable current reading on the supply.
What is the quiescent current of your PWM and driver circuit?
As for looking at your recent runs, only members over there can see those. I have seen very little of your data, mainly just text.
Again, just food for thought,
PW
Quote from: gmeast on October 31, 2012, 12:53:10 AM
And ... of course TEMPERATURE ... you idiot. There's nothing wrong with my interpretation of anything with regards to these tests. Other electrical parameters are irrelevant. Calorimetry is irrelevant. You simply are going to refuse to accept any evidence at all that just might provide some validity for this technology.
Of course... I am supposed to read your mind, just like I am supposed to read Ainslie's mind when she leaves things out or mistypes or misspeaks. Of course TEMPERATURE, you idiot.
Yes, there is something greatly wrong with your interpretation. Anyone with real knowledge and ability in experimentation would see your MEASUREMENTS and your CONCLUSIONS FROM THEM and think, here's an error, BECAUSE the results are in conflict with what is already known and accepted. That is, overunity results are BY DEFAULT assumed to be in error, until and unless they are definitely proven not to be so. This is done by comparing different methods and arriving at the same results, and by proper calibration of instruments and proper experimental technique. Go ahead and take your protocols and measurements, and my suggestions (along with PW's of course), to any qualified third party with experience in researching electronic systems for energy efficiency and see what their opinion is, if you don't believe me.
Quote
I'm presently discussing these results with some seasoned researchers. My initial visits opened my eyes to the realization that real scientists and researchers don't talk, act or react like you do. You are completely devoid of any of the professional qualities that define true scientists and researchers. You are a fraud.
No, I'm not a fraud, you are. I have earned the right and privilege to be called a scientist and have been judged competent by my real peers, and the calumnies that you cast here are meaningless, just like your "research". And I'll stand by everything I've said in this thread as being valid and scientific in approach, and I'm prepared to defend those points in a public discussion with you and as many of your "seasoned researchers" as you can muster.
But do be sure to take all of the information in this thread, and the information that you censored out of your threads, to your seasoned researchers so that they can know the FULL STORY. You can download my Ainslie database for them to look over if you like. You call me a fraud-- without evidence or references to support your accusations. Yet I have evidence to support mine: your math errors, your censorship, your false starts and your coverups, your lack of homework and your lack of familiarity with your topic. So now you are just being silly.
Quote
Tell me, because I really don't know, was this thread started for the sole purpose of disproving and discrediting Rosie's research?
Did you read this thread from the beginning? Did you read all the other threads where Ainslie has been cooperated with, replicated, found faulty, found to be a liar, and where she eventually got herself banned?
This thread was started to do something that nobody else seemed willing to do: build a duplicate of Ainslie's claimed NERD circuit and see what it actually does. That's why it's called "Testing the TK Tar Baby", and that's why I never referred to it as a replication UNTIL Ainslie herself acknowledged that it was. How could it not be, if it uses the same circuit as she claimed, the same component values and produces the same objective data? All of which it does, in spades.
And, just as I was able to do in 2009 with the claimed COP>17 circuit, with the help of .99 and MH and PicoWatt and some others, I was able to find what happened, where Ainslie's errors lie, what they mean and how they were produced, and what the correct story really is. Some of what I learned came from my hardware builds and measurements, but by far the most DISCREDITING AND DISPROVING of Ainslie's "research" came directly from her OWN DATA that she published herself: the 5 or six different circuit diagrams describing the same experimental apparatus, the cartoon in the second paper that even now doesn't correspond to the claimed circuit used; the scopeshots that show current drain when she claims there isn't any, the other scopeshots that DON'T show current drain when there definitely SHOULD be, indicating blown mosfets and totally invalidating both papers; the constant stream of lies and broken promises from Ainslie... all of which I have documented in my database and none of which was "rifled" in any way from Ainslie's computers, as she so often delusionally accuses.
You have helped in this, yourself, GMEAST. Your own work discredits and disproves Ainslie's claims rather soundly, and you've found out just why, too.
Why don't you report honestly what you DID find when you were working with something closer to the Quantum circuit and claims:
You found that the 555 timer did not work as Ainslie claimed, but rather as I explained long ago: inverted duty cycle.
You found that no significant load heating happened at a true ON duty cycle of 3.7 percent.
And you found that when the duty cycle that the original published circuit actually produced was used, 96 percent ON, that substantial load heating in line with Ainslie's data was observed.
And you found that, contrary to Ainslie's claim, the batteries did discharge while this heating occurred.
This didn't take you very long, so you abandoned that circuit, added a diode and a gate driver and some other stuff, you changed the operating frequency and duty cycle until you found some numbers of your own that you liked. That's fine... .but you really should not try to cover up what you DID find with regard to that Ainslie circuit that you started out trying to replicate. But you aren't getting anything like her COP>17 results are you.
The only reason YOU are being discussed AT ALL, gmeast, amateur fraudster and fool, is because of your attempted replication of Ainslie's circuit, which replication attempt showed that her work is so flawed it cannot even be called "work" in a real sense.
@AlienSigns:
I see that Ainslie has referred you to her second "paper" for some theoretical grounding in her "thesis".
This of course is the daft manuscript that was rejected several times when she submitted it for publication, and finally she did manage to get it accepted for "publication" on Andrea Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" vanity blog. The version that she referred you to, though, has been altered from that official publication on Rossi's blog in several ways. If you compare the schematics given in the two versions you will see that they differ in a subtle but very significant manner.
In addition, the cartoon illustrations in that paper, in all versions, which purport to describe the circuit's performance.... do not actually correspond to either of the given schematic diagrams; rather, they correspond to an earlier, misconception that Ainslie had when she believed that all mosfets were wired strictly in parallel as her advisors had suggested, when she was suffering from blowing the single mosfet version due to lack of proper heatsinking and too-high currents. The IRFPG50 has a maximum current and power dissipation rating that would have been exceeded by Ainslie's attempts to use 72 volts, a long duty cycle, and a total circuit resistance of around 14 Ohms with a single mosfet on a bit of aluminum channel, so the "5 parallel" mosfet solution with proper heatsinks was suggested to her by her advisors, but when she (or someone) wired up the board they got the mosfets backwards. Ainslie did not realize this when she drew her cartoon depicting the Q1 and Q2 mosfets in strict parallel. See below. The "explanation" is explaining some different arrangement of transistors than was actually used in ANY of Ainslie's experiments for which we have evidence. It cannot apply to the circuit claimed to have been used in the paper's experiment.
These are things that invalidate the papers, yet Ainslie doesn't seem to realize or care about their significance.
To decode Ainslie's contemptible idiosyncratic squiggles: the tops of both transistors are labelled "D" in her squiggle. The centers are labelled "G" and the bottoms are labelled "Q2 S" and "S Q1". And the little Zener symbol on the "legend" is labelled "BD" for Body Diode. Apparently Ainslie failed printing in school as well as math.
I think I got the wiring of the rotor figured out. Im going to draw it up when I figure out the exact sequence.
There are 23 windings and 23 brush connections. So if we start at 12 oclock, first winding goes outward, at an angle, then comes back in on the other side. Once we do this till it comes back to the starting point, there are 6 loops in series, but at that end, it passes up the first connection of the start winding because of the odd no. of windings and connections. ;] So it passes up 12 oclock and makes another round. I believe 4 times till the final wind is back to 2 oclock. Well you get the idea. Ill be mapping it out to see if all that is correct. There might be some skipping as in after the first 6 winds, the next wind past 12 oclock, might not be the winding right after the start. Its times like these that an ohm meter can read beyond .1 ohm is a beautiful thing.. ;] Also great for finding the shorted part on a supply leg without desoldering much. ;]
Mags
Thanks TK.
Rose's drawing makes a little more sense now that you've identified some of the items.
And by "making sense", I'm not inferring that her understanding of the way things are actually connected is correct.
;)
You are welcome.
I've been pointing this out for some time, but I guess because of her scrawled lettering it was hard to see just how discrepant these cartoons are, when compared to either the _claimed_ circuit or the _actual_ circuit used.
Of course we have no idea of the actual circuit used to make the measurements in the papers; the only circuit that we are sure about is the one shown in the demo video, since we have the actual photos of that device. Not the mendacious one shown by the presenter in the video, but the one ACTUALLY used on the apparatus.
But there is another, astounding discrepancy that has been noted before but is not getting the attention it deserves, because IT ALSO COMPLETELY INVALIDATES both daft manuscripts perpetrated by Ainslie.
I refer, of course, to the positioning of the Black output lead from her Function Generator.
In EVERY actual photograph of the apparatus, both the single mosfet version and the 5-mosfet version, the Black FG lead can clearly be seen to be hooked up to the circuit's common ground point along with the reference leads of all the oscilloscope probes.
Yet in the schematics in the papers, all versions in both papers ...... evidently drawn and published AFTER this was pointed out ...... these schematics all show the FG Black lead (marked " - " ) connected on the transistor side of the current viewing shunt resistor. Schematics published prior to the criticism she received about the FG lead placement in the video do not show the Black FG lead connection at all. Only AFTER it was determined that the placement of the FG Black lead on the common ground allowed a current path to bypass the CVR, did Ainslie claim that the lead was located correctly and only then did the "correct" schematics appear.
Yet it is perfectly plain in the Video Demo that the FG is not connected in this correct manner. And in photos of her single mosfet device, ditto.
There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the data collected for the reports were taken with the FG lead in the position indicated in the schematics; in fact lots of evidence indicate that they were not, and that Ainslie and her cohorts never even considered placing the Black lead correctly until AFTER the error was poynted out.
Ainslie continually refers people to these manuscripts as if they should contain something important or significant. They do not. But what they do contain is a mishmash of error, mendacity, ignorance, and fantastic delusion. The data is incorrectly gathered, improperly analysed, falsified, and the conclusions drawn are not even supported by the data they are based upon. These manuscripts need to be totally retracted, with explanations and apologies from the Ainslie "team" of NERDs. They are blots upon even the _pseudo_scientific landscape, and it is _this fact_ that is important and that must be addressed by Ainslie. If she wants credibility she MUST retract the current set of reports, since they are so full of error and mendacity and unjustified fantasy, and she MUST repeat the experiments correctly and publish her data properly. Or..... she should STFU and fade away.
It's amusing to see her continuing her attacks against Bryan Little. I'd really like to begin corresponding with him, to let him know how his good name is being libelled by the idiot ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie. Can anyone tell me just who this is and how I can contact him?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 01, 2012, 02:12:05 PM
You are welcome.
I've been pointing this out for some time, but I guess because of her scrawled lettering it .........................................................................................
It's amusing to see her continuing her attacks against Bryan Little. I'd really like to begin corresponding with him, to let him know how his good name is being libelled by the idiot ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie. Can anyone tell me just who this is and how I can contact him?
Hi TK,
I'm intending absolutely NO disrespect here, but I was recently told that you and Bryan Little are one-in-the-same person??????
GME
Quote from: gmeast on November 01, 2012, 11:06:29 PM
Hi TK,
I'm intending absolutely NO disrespect here, but I was recently told that you and Bryan Little are one-in-the-same person? ??? ??
GME
Isnt it possible that you heard wrong? Or what you were told is wrong? ;)
Did you know that Rose is actually Barbara Streisand? :-*
Mags
And I am Buck Rogers. ;D
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on November 01, 2012, 11:13:14 PM
Isnt it possible that you heard wrong? Or what you were told is wrong? ;)
Did you know that Rose is actually Barbara Streisand? :-*
Mags
WOW! Ya know, I had a feeling she was ... something about ... oh whatever, I don't recall. The way you put that verifies it. Well, back to my fakery.
G
Quote from: gmeast on November 01, 2012, 11:06:29 PM
Hi TK,
I'm intending absolutely NO disrespect here, but I was recently told that you and Bryan Little are one-in-the-same person? ??? ??
GME
Were you given any actual evidence for that? Of course not.
I've been telling the deluded ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie that I am in no way "little", that I am neither Scott Little nor this Brian or Bryan Little, ever since, months and months ago, she began calling me, in her vile manner, "little TK". I would LOVE to see upon what basis she has made her ridiculously erroneous identification.
I really REALLY DO want to bring all of this to Bryan, or Brian, Little's attention. Perhaps even Ainslie's imaginary lawyers would be interested in her libellous statements about Mr. Little, whoever he might be.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 02, 2012, 12:00:18 AM
Were you given any actual evidence for that? Of course not.
I've been telling the deluded ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie that I am in no way "little", that I am neither Scott Little nor this Brian or Bryan Little, ever since, months and months ago, she began calling me, in her vile manner, "little TK". I would LOVE to see upon what basis she has made her ridiculously erroneous identification.
I really REALLY DO want to bring all of this to Bryan, or Brian, Little's attention. Perhaps even Ainslie's imaginary lawyers would be interested in her libellous statements about Mr. Little, whoever he might be.
WOE dude! You're going to have an aneurysm! Rosie was not the source. I know NOTHING about "little TK" or Scott Little or anything she's said about you or any of that nonsense because I don't read it ... I skip over it and pay NO ATTENTION to it whatsoever. The suggestion that 'you' were 'him' came in a PM from someone on another board ... someone I don't even know and I don't think has ever posted here. Clearly you have gone "off the deep end" over this stuff. Get a grip!
G
Quote from: gmeast on November 01, 2012, 11:38:33 PM
WOW! Ya know, I had a feeling she was ... something about ... oh whatever, I don't recall. The way you put that verifies it. Well, back to my fakery.
G
Whats uP Faker? What are you faking now. Your the best faker. Your the fakiest. You fake.
You do nothing but come here to try and piss people off. You have no OU circuit you faker.
Truth is you got faked and now you have lost your mind. Heck theres nobody over there interesting to talk to, so you burn up some time over here acting all hot shot when your just a faker. You have joined the faker club over there and have too much pride to admit that your with the Big Fake. The Fake Master. And you are her little Egor, the slave of fakery.
BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA faker. Why dont you go fake something. Hows the faking coming? Have you faked lately? You look a little faked. Are you faking it?
lol. You think your coming over here and doing some damage. Well if that was your intent, you must have faked it, cuz were ok fine.
Happy faking faker.
Mags
ive had a search a few times and didnt find anyone called bryan little that was even a broad match for tk
Just another of RAs bloody stupid fantasies
Quote from: Magluvin on November 02, 2012, 01:47:41 AM
Whats uP Faker? What are you faking now. Your the best faker. Your the fakiest. You fake.
You do nothing but come here to try and piss people off. You have no OU circuit you faker.
Truth is you got faked and now you have lost your mind. Heck theres nobody over there interesting to talk to, so you burn up some time over here acting all hot shot when your just a faker. You have joined the faker club over there and have too much pride to admit that your with the Big Fake. The Fake Master. And you are her little Egor, the slave of fakery.
BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA faker. Why dont you go fake something. Hows the faking coming? Have you faked lately? You look a little faked. Are you faking it?
lol. You think your coming over here and doing some damage. Well if that was your intent, you must have faked it, cuz were ok fine.
Happy faking faker.
Mags
This just keeps getting better and better. A neighbor of mine used to have a pet Beagle named Maggie but they always called her "Mags". I think I'm witnessing a total melt down here.
Fantastic! "... cuz were ok fine."??? GOOD GOD MAN! goo goo dah dah. It is "we're" not "were" ... it's a contraction ... gammmmmmar dude, grammar check.
I have never seen such obsession and hatred in my life. I hope some psychologist is documenting this. You guys are the poster children for adult immaturity. You claim to be adults, right?
You can dish it out but you can't take it.
I asked a question and ... KA-BOOM! .... you guys 'go off' ... I guess proving my point.
"cuz were ok fine" ... yeah right.
Quote from: gmeast on November 02, 2012, 05:26:26 AM
This just keeps getting better and better. A neighbor of mine used to have a pet Beagle named Maggie but they always called her "Mags". I think I'm witnessing a total melt down here.
Fantastic! "... cuz were ok fine." ??? GOOD GOD MAN! goo goo dah dah. It is "we're" not "were" ... it's a contraction ... gammmmmmar dude, grammar check.
I have never seen such obsession and hatred in my life. I hope some psychologist is documenting this. You guys are the poster children for adult immaturity. You claim to be adults, right?
You can dish it out but you can't take it.
I asked a question and ... KA-BOOM! .... you guys 'go off' ... I guess proving my point.
"cuz were ok fine" ... yeah right.
Morning Faker ;) lol I can go back and read roses posts and they say just about the same things you say here. It must be a miracle. ::)
Ha! Cant take what exactly?? hmm? Your posts are nill. Nothing. Nada.
Your 'question' had nothing to do with my post.
I just figured since you were 'imagining' that I called you a faker, and rubbing it in(to your self ;) ) that I would help you out with that, and make it feel like you really have something there. ::) ;)
Rose is your puppet master now. lol. She is taking the heat off of her by using here Gmule to come and play her game..
"Yeah Right"? Another Rose card. Acting as if she has won a war or something. She has a big imagination. Too bad her circuits dont work. Too bad she lies all the time. Too bad you got suckered into the depths of her evil doings.
Oooo, you saw my great flaw, "were'. Nice try Rose. From the fake herself. Ooo big attack. Ah, I see. You plan to ruin us by pointing out our grammar errors. I have to tell ya, I never knew grammar was also spelled "gammmmmmar" Oooo, I got ya faker. ::) Some hang time on that M key.
Ok, gota go to work Faker. Keep up the good fakes! ;) Keep on fakin on. lol
Mags
And once again, GMEAST melts down while accusing others of melting down.
GMEAST, you asked, pretending not to intend disrespect, about the Brian Little thing. And I answered you in a quite reasonable manner.
And you resumed your disrespect and all the rest in your response.
So someone else on another forum, who just might be ROSEMARY AINSLIE HERSELF posting under yet another alias as she frequently does, told you I was Bryan or Brian Little? Did THEY give you any proof of that assertion? Of course not.
Like I said before, I would really like to know: the evidence used to "identify" me as Bryan Little;
and WHO IS BRIAN or BRYAN LITTLE and how do I contact him with a heads-up that his name is being sullied by a madwoman on the Internet?
Now. Let's see if you can absorb this: I AM NOT BRIAN or BRYAN LITTLE. I am not related to anyone in any way with the name Little, other than (I hope) being able to call Scott and Marissa Little my somewhat distant friends. I've never even HEARD of anyone named Brian or Bryan Little until ROSEMARY AINSLIE, the ignorant arrogant idiot paranoid madwoman, started referring to me as "little TK" and then straight out as Brian or Bryan Little.
Every time she does so, she libels Little and sticks her own foot further down her mendacious wrinkled old throat.
By the way.... you will have noted that I frequently refer to ROSEMARY AINSLIE as ignorant, an idiot, paranoid, delusional, mendacious, outright liar, and other descriptors.
These are not at all libellous descriptions because they are all TRUE and can be supported by evidence from Ainslie's own postings, which I have preserved in my database.
Anyone who doubts that can look up the dictionary definitions of those terms, post it here, and I will post a statement or set of statements from ROSEMARY AINSLIE herself that proves that she fits the definition.
ignorant: "there is no such animal as inductive reactance", etc.
an idiot: the Solstice (or Equinox) comes in Mid-July in South Africa, the 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes, the other bad math like confusing 0.8 with "one-eighth", etc.
paranoid: the constant accusations of "rifling" her computer or security lapses in her walled compound; her feeling that there is an organized conspiracy to silence her, etc.
delusional: the entire "thesis" that she pretends to expound in her papers; calling me "little TK" thinking that I am Brian Little (or Bryan, whatever), etc.
mendacious: the month-long deliberate deception about the schematics used in the demo video, the "bringing water to boil" claims, the nondischarge claims, etc.
outright liar: "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" .... when she herself in her own blog announced its posting on her YT channel by her, the incorrect schematics posted, etc.
For just a few examples. I have screenshots of the original posts, not just saved text, so what I assert about Ainslie can be unequivocally proven to be true.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 02, 2012, 03:12:56 PM
By the way.... you will have noted that I frequently refer to ROSEMARY AINSLIE as ignorant, an idiot, paranoid, delusional, mendacious, outright liar, and other descriptors.
This, in no way, can be considered an attack.
Ainslie has provided ample evidence of chronic clinical delusion over a 12 year period. All you are doing is simply stating fact,
which fortunately, most people are aware of.
Frequent reminders of this are quite appropriate for the awareness of new people joining various open source forums.
Mags,
I don't think gmeast is Rose, just in case you were inferring that.
gmeast appears to actually have a grasp on basic electronics, although he definitely has some work yet to do before he understands power computations.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 02, 2012, 07:09:23 PM
Mags,
I don't think gmeast is Rose, just in case you were inferring that.
gmeast appears to actually have a grasp on basic electronics, although he definitely has some work yet to do before he understands power computations.
Yeah, I know that. But it sure smells quite familiar. ;) When I say stuff that makes it sound like G is R, Im referring to what I read as if it were her. I feel a bit of coaching going on. ;) The similarities of a lot of his and her statements are fairly apparent. Not much from her lately, so the venting has to come from somewhere. ;) And you know she cant hold it in for long. ;) ;D
By the way, sorry for all that crap I put on you back then. I really didnt know. ;]
Im sure you saw how she turned on me for no apparent reason. And a bit before that she was saying, " I don't know what I did to deserve it" referring to my defending her.
She wasnt lying. ;) Have to chalk that 'one' up on the board. Thing is, I didnt know why she deserved it, when I really think about it. I was fooled by a true faker.
Mags
Oh, that's a good one all right.
ROSEMARY AINSLIE, the consummate idiot hypocrite, rams her own foot so far down her wrinkled old mendacious throat for all the world to see.
WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS you are, Ainslie, and your sock puppets. Do you really think I have the powers you ascribe to me? Would that it were true.
And this continuing ridiculous misidentification of me with Bryan Little has just got to stop.
YOU LOT ARE WRONG, and every time Ainslie refers to Bryan Little, to me as "little TK" or whatever else she can come up with, she makes an EVEN GREATER FOOL of herself for everyone to see.
I find it very amusing.
WHO IS BRYAN LITTLE and how do I contact him to let him know how Ainslie and her sock puppets are libelling him?
When it is proven beyond any doubt that I am NOT this Brian or Bryan Little, what will Ainslie say then? Will she retract EVERY POST she's made using poor Little's name in vain? Will she stop insulting HIM in response to ME? Will she tuck her head in shame and shut up about her stupid mistakes and her ignorant mishmash of a "thesis"?
Of course not. She'll just continue on, find another website and a bunch of new people ... like GMEAST .... who aren't familiar with the full story, and she'll continue lying and insulting and faking and not fulfilling her promises, just as she's been doing for the past twelve years or more.
You think I'm BRYAN LITTLE?
PROVE IT, you bunch of idiots. You cannot..... because, just like your insane "thesis"..... it's a bunch of BS, without foundation in fact, without any empirical evidence, a delusional claim, yet another one, from the addled brain of the ancient troll Rosemary Ainslie.
No problem Mags, you were calling it as you saw it at the time.
It's a friendly reminder that folks in these circles need to be open-minded, both to the possibility of OU, and to the very real possibility that those making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence supporting them, may be mistaken, or worse, purposely-misleading.
Hey, ROSEMARY AINSLIE, lying mendacious deluded troll....
I hereby give you, TO THE EXTENT WHICH I AM ABLE, full and unrestricted permission to publish, wherever and however you like, BRIAN (or Bryan) LITTLE's FULL CONTACT INFORMATION, identity, address, email, phone number, whatever you've got, concerning this BRYAN (or Brian) LITTLE person whom you hate so much.
PUBLISH THE INFORMATION, so that I can contact him.... and his lawyers..... with a heads-up warning that you are continuing to libel him without cause.
Will you do even THIS much to support your blatantly bogus contentions? Let's wait and see.....
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 01:34:15 PM
Hey, ROSEMARY AINSLIE, lying mendacious deluded troll....
I hereby give you, TO THE EXTENT WHICH I AM ABLE, full and unrestricted permission to publish, wherever and however you like, BRIAN (or Bryan) LITTLE's FULL CONTACT INFORMATION, identity, address, email, phone number, whatever you've got, concerning this BRYAN (or Brian) LITTLE person whom you hate so much.
PUBLISH THE INFORMATION, so that I can contact him.... and his lawyers..... with a heads-up warning that you are continuing to libel him without cause.
Will you do even THIS much to support your blatantly bogus contentions? Let's wait and see.....
Excellent argument. ;)
Mags
Quote
Dear Little Bryan - aka TK, Tinsel Koala, The Pickle... and latterly - Little Chicken Licken,
I see that the sky has NOT yet fallen on your head. But it has fallen on almost one third of your countrymen. If I didn't know better I'd put the blame of this squarely on your own little feathered shoulders. And you can share the weight of this burden of guilt with The Boss, Sean, Stefan Hartman and many others who waste their valuable time misdirecting the public.
That's right, gentle reader. The deluded troll, the liar, idiot Rosemary Ainslie is actually BLAMING "if she didn't know better" in one sentence then doing it straight out in the next.... blaming ME, The Boss, Sean and Stefan and others for the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy on the east coast of the USA. This woman is sick in her head and needs psychiatric help. And as usual, her math is a bit off. There are about 360 million people in the USA. She seems to think that 120 million people are disastrously affected by Sandy. Here, where I am, in central USA, Sandy has brought marvellously clear skies from Canadian air, and unseasonably nice weather. The West coast isn't affected at all. Three or four States have been affected temporarily by Sandy... nowhere near "one third" of our population. But of course... South Africa has about 52 million people in it, 80 percent of whom have Black ancestry. No wonder she quails whenever "The Boss" makes a post. In Afrikaans that would be "BAAS" and she knows just exactly what it means.
QuoteWithout the collective catastrophe of your direct interventions, I am entirely satisfied that the validity of our claims together with the validity of free energy - all over the place, would have been established some years back.
Collective catastrophe! Direct Interventions! She must mean our publication of all the ERRORS AND LIES in Ainslie's claims and manuscripts.
This is a ridiculous accusation, just like all the rest of Ainslie's ridiculous accusations and claims. I AM ENTIRELY SATISFIED that if Ainslie or any other claimant ACTUALLY HAD what they claimed, there is nothing I could do... or would want to do.... to prevent it from entering the mainstream of the world's economy. I'm a poster on an internet site!! Yet AINSLIE... who claims not to go in for conspiracy theories.... in her delusion believes that I am at the center of a vast and powerful conspiracy to keep her "discovery" from the public, along with Cold Fusion and Mylow Motors and whatever else she happens to believe in today. What a loon she is!
QuoteAnd we would all by now, have moved over to the use of LENR technologies as well as our own small contribution of solid state switching... as required. Sadly - you have all be way too effective.
Rather, AINSLIE and her sycophants have been WAY TOO EFFECTIVE in demonstrating that they have nothing of importance to contribute to any efforts of any kind, just more mendacity, prevarication, outright lies and NEVER SHOWING ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIMS.
QuoteAnd I say 'sadly' because the result of these efforts will certainly advance the Super Storms that have hit so many of you in America.
And there it is again. According to the idiot liar ROSEMARY AINSLIE, I am responsible for Super Storms that have affected some of the east coast of the United States (just one of many countries in America). This idiot Ainslie wants to blame me... or BRYAN LITTLE... for her own inability to perform as she claims, and further, for any disaster at all. She is manifestly deluded to the point of losing contact with reality altogether. I hope her keepers don't let her out of her home without an escort. I think she's likely to be a danger to herself and others.
QuoteAnd ever sadder - because there is a vast global population who depend on America being both strong and effective. This may not be sustainable if Sandy is simply the first of many more to come.
So - dear readers - in the unlikely event that our Little TK posts this letter on his thread - hear this. I promise you all - by all that I hold holy - that Free Energy is a viable and proven technology.
Promise? By all that you hold HOLY? You utter and complete hypocrite. You cannot provide any evidence for your assertions and your own project is completely bogus, as has been demonstrated by your own data, your own "independent lab" of chemists in the USA, by me, by GMEAST, and by everyone else who has gotten involved with you on an actual level of building and testing.
QuoteAnd any further resistance to this truth is advanced to further the selfish objectives of those who OWN the standard and rather outmoded supplies of this - and who intend to retain that ownership even in the face of the disasters that it brings in its wake.
Kindest regards to you all and even to Little TK and his ilk - who ill deserve such courtesies.
Rosie
And yet another hypocritical close... "kindest regards" cancelled in the same sentence by YET ANOTHER of Ainslie's misidentifications and mendacious calumnies.
Ainslie, you overweeningly arrogant idiot, lying troll, false accuser and libeller .... you cannot provide a smidgen of proof or outside support for ANY of your ridiculous contentions. Let's see you provide some proof, for example, that I am this "BRYAN LITTLE" or "BRIAN LITTLE" who you keep on libelling in your forum.
You cannot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 03, 2012, 08:06:22 AM
Oh, that's a good one all right................................................................
WHO IS BRYAN LITTLE and how ........
[size=78%].................................................................................[/size]
Bryan Little is a former professional baseball player. Your own comments are bordering on libellous as well. And by the way, my question the other day about "who is B---- L-----" was asked in all honesty and pretending nothing. My subsequent responses were fomented by one of your cult members Magluvin. You will assume whatever fits your agenda ... as always.
G
Quote from: gmeast on November 03, 2012, 05:30:52 PM
Bryan Little is a former professional baseball player. Your own comments are bordering on libellous as well. And by the way, my question the other day about "who is B---- L-----" was asked in all honesty and pretending nothing. My subsequent responses were fomented by one of your cult members Magluvin. You will assume whatever fits your agenda ... as always.
G
Lol Cult. It is you and the Big Fake that are the cult. 2 nuts from the same shell.
Us? We are over here with people of many beliefs. And it seems that none of them agree with what your cult is all about.. It is you who are the odd balls, not us. ;)
Look around. Look at each other. lol
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on November 03, 2012, 07:00:24 PM
Lol Cult. It is you and the Big Fake that are the cult. 2 nuts from the same shell.
Us? We are over here with people of many beliefs. And it seems that none of them agree with what your cult is all about.. It is you who are the odd balls, not us. ;)
Look around. Look at each other. lol
Mags
Grrrrrrrr, but no teeth.
G
Quote from: gmeast on November 03, 2012, 05:30:52 PM
Bryan Little is a former professional baseball player.
That tells me a lot. Doesn't it.
QuoteYour own comments are bordering on libellous as well.
I can prove the truth of all my comments, with quotations from Ainslie herself, combined with outside references to sources that anyone can check and that are irrefutable, like various dictionaries, physics texts, and so on. Truth is an absolute defense against allegations of libel. Ainslie, on the other hand, obviously cannot prove anything she says about Brian Little ... because I'm not he, and he has never posted anything in this thread !! In short, I will inform Brian (or Bryan) Little of Ainslie's libels as soon as I REALLY get to know who he is and how to contact him. Meanwhile.... go ahead, tell me which of my statements you think "border on libellous" and I will prove the truth of them, by reference to Ainslie's own comments and the other sources that I have mentioned. GO AHEAD!!
QuoteAnd by the way, my question the other day about "who is B---- L-----" was asked in all honesty and pretending nothing. My subsequent responses were fomented by one of your cult members Magluvin. You will assume whatever fits your agenda ... as always.
G
And I answered you in all honesty and pretending nothing. YOU immediately came back with insults, accusations and your usual whining. Just as you are doing now. Who has an agenda here? Read Ainslie's forum posts, for a change. You will see who has an agenda and what that agenda is.
Quote from: gmeast on November 03, 2012, 10:27:21 PM
Grrrrrrrr, but no teeth.
G
Diarrhea of the mouth, but no truth. ;)
M
The idiot Ainslie is trolling again. Now she wants ME to "prove" that I'm NOT who she thinks I am!! What a deluded idiot she really is.
Look here, AINSLIE, you deluded troll. You make claims about me, YOU PROVE THEM. You think I'm Little.... YOU PROVE IT, you idiot. But you cannot.
Otherwise, it's just another of AINSLIE's many lying claims, without evidence, without proof, without support. Eventually your feet are going to get stuck in your mendacious throat, AINS-LIE, and your lies and libels will be coming back on you. You are a sad joke, a deluded old woman, full of bitter gall and mendacity.
Why don't you contact Brian Little, you ignoramus liar Ainslie, and ask him if he gives a flying fish about you or your idiotic claims. Or better yet... contact your imaginary lawyers and see what they think about your deluded fantasies and your sick perverted need to flaunt them all over the internet.
TK,
You are CORRECT! I DO have an agenda. That agenda is:
... to keep investigating the possibility that 'sharp transient pulses' applied to an Inductive-Resistive heating element can produce excess thermal heating beyond the theoretical Joule heating allowed from the electrical energy applied to it.
That's it! That's my agenda. I never heard of Rosemary Ainslie or anyone else associated with that technology UNTIL I viewed Aaron's videos on the subject over on Energetic Forum.
My efforts toward this end, though not receiving YOUR blessings (as if they are required) will continue unabated and with even more tenacity BECAUSE of the opposition to its very notion that has been expressed by an insignificant few like you and your cult followers.
You are obviously an intelligent person, but sad as it is, you are full of hate and disdain for the views and efforts of others. You are a pitiable individual.
"You have the sanctimonious and rather muddled mouthings of MaGsy the Mediocre"
Not so long ago, I was on your side. All of a sudden you flipped. After that is when I really had seen who and what you really are.
Like the beginning of your post, you talk of Sandy. You speak of it just to lay imaginary guilt on TK, not for the people that were in the storm. You are a user of their demise.
You lay claim that Tk is BL. And you keep on saying it, without a shred of evidence. And you lay it on TK to prove you wrong? lol You are making the claim without facts or proof to back it up. That is the way you do things. And you think your little tricky ways are going to get TK to divvy up his real identity so that you can plaster your nonsense and lies about him all over the net and fill his emails with your sickness. Like you do Harvey. You are a terrible person.
If you cannot prove TK is BL then what is your point? Just like your circuits. You talk talk talk, send it to a lab, they tell you the battery is draining, and soon after you still claim the batteries dont drain, and even worse, still claim that they recharge from the circuit.
You have no 'technology'.
You ask TK for proof that he is not BL, yet you are the accuser with no case. How would that go down in a court of law?
" Your honor, I say TK is Brian Little. I rest my case." lol And all with not a shred of evidence to prove any of what you claim on your table. Do you not think the Judge would ask you for some proof of your claim? Case dismissed. Against your evidence, of which you have none, All TK has to prove is that you have lied many times, not prove he is not BL. That is your responsibility to the court. His evidence of your lies would be stacked high against your empty folder. Again, case dismissed.
His witnesses would be in much greater numbers than your GMeast, of which some of his quotes and statements would work against you. Case dismissed.
It is not up to TK to prove his real identity. In fact, he has put it to you to open your folder to show evidence that he 'is' BL, well knowing that if he is BL, the cat would be out of the bag. But you still have nothing. Case dismissed.
You have the sanctimonious and rather muddled mouthings of your self, and its mediocre. ;)
MaGs
I was going through some old posts looking for a particular username, and came across this one where I believe the flyback diode issue was first mentioned:
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189605/#msg189605
It's pretty ghastly that Rosemary has crossed that line and revealed someone's identity, even if she got it wrong. I am just horrified and I warned her not to do it. She even threatened to reveal someone else's identity.
Her circuit is a very unhealthy obsession for her and it apparently is not abating. This is not a happy story at all and it would seem that there is no ending in sight.
Quote from: gmeast on November 04, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
TK,
You are CORRECT! I DO have an agenda. That agenda is:
You are INCORRECT... because we weren't talking about YOUR agenda, which no one cares about except you.
It is AINSLIE who has the definite AGENDA and it's clear, or should be, or would be if YOU HAD DONE YOUR HOMEWORK just what that agenda of Ainslie's really is.
Quote
... to keep investigating the possibility that 'sharp transient pulses' applied to an Inductive-Resistive heating element can produce excess thermal heating beyond the theoretical Joule heating allowed from the electrical energy applied to it.
As if that issue had not been investigated already, for YEARS, by expert designers of switchmode power supplies and PWM motor control systems and other systems, working in teams and individually, in graduate physics and EE departments in universities and in industry, all around the world. The basic circuit you are using can even be found in the application notes for many mosfets, as one of the mosfet performance parameter test circuits, as FuzzyTomCat has illustrated several times. Have you ever read the application notes for your mosfets? You should, you might learn something. But then again, we know your attitude towards homework and textual research.
Sure.... you, GMEAST, sitting there with a computer-card oscilloscope and a handful of other equipment, are going to be adding to the knowledge that has been gathered in this field for a hundred years or more. When you DO produce a paper that's accepted for publication in an electronics/physics journal.... then we'll know that your research has borne fruit. But do you know how many research papers are submitted WITH ERRORS that doom them.. from people who have complete laboratories, teams of grad students, and a long history of successful research? But of course YOU don't make errors. So when you discover something that isn't already in the books, YOUR paper will be published immediately without question. Right.
Quote
That's it! That's my agenda. I never heard of Rosemary Ainslie or anyone else associated with that technology UNTIL I viewed Aaron's videos on the subject over on Energetic Forum.
My efforts toward this end, though not receiving YOUR blessings (as if they are required) will continue unabated and with even more tenacity BECAUSE of the opposition to its very notion that has been expressed by an insignificant few like you and your cult followers.
SO you are like the little kid, who, when advised not to jump out the window because it will hurt you, does it anyway, BECAUSE of the opposition. Not doing your homework to find that everyone who has done the same thing has broken an ankle......
Insignificant few? Rather, EVERYONE with the tech skill and knowledge who knows about your work has criticised it strongly..... except AINSLIE of course -- but she clearly doesn't have the knowledge to comment coherently. "No such animal as inductive reactance!!" What does THAT do to your "research", GMEAST, since whatever you think is "inductive reactance" must be, according to AINSLIE, something else entirely, involving Zipons at twice the speed of light?
And based on her past record, an "endorsement" from her is a pretty sure sign that you are wasting your time. After all.... she believed MyLOW was genuine, she believes Rossi is genuine...... and the list goes on.
Quote
You are obviously an intelligent person, but sad as it is, you are full of hate and disdain for the views and efforts of others. You are a pitiable individual.
I don't think anyone pities me, GMEAST, and I've never complained about my health, my lack of resources, my age, or anything else except the lies and mendacity from AINSLIE, and your own arrogant attitude when it's poynted out that you are wrong. Why should anyone pity me? They cannot PROVE ME WRONG, after all, so maybe they should pity themselves.
Once again, you do not consider the source of my disdain. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. The post linked by .99 above , going back to my 2009 research ON THE SAME CIRCUIT THAT YOU STARTED WITH, will show you where some of my "disdain" comes from , and why it's directed TOWARD ROSEMARY AINSLIE and those who blindly support her.
I do indeed have disdain for the efforts of others when it's clear that they are blind and will not take advice or learn from their peers and betters, and when they lie about their "research", even to the point of fabricating data or making absurd arithmetic mistakes and treating the results as fact. Like AINSLIE, and like you. I respond with anger and frustration to the ridiculous insane insults and lies and disrespect and accusations from the crazy old uneducated ignorant madwoman ROSEMARY AINSLIE, and after nearly FOUR YEARS of this utter unmitigated CRAP from her..... that's right, I do not consider Ainslie to be worthy of affection, that's for sure. Do I show hatred? Or do I simply give as good as I've been getting?
Remember this, GMEAST: I can PROVE all my assertions with facts, references and even demonstrations, and I'm ready and willing to do so AT ANY TIME. Where's the hatred in that? Is it an expression of hatred to point out the lies and false claims of others who are seeking monetary rewards and prizes based on their false claims, and to defend myself against the ridiculous accusations and libels of an insane person?
On the other hand, AINSLIE has been insulting me, disrespecting me and my work and my equipment, has been spewing nonsense for years, has incontrovertibly lied over and over, hasn't proven a single thing, and in fact has made MANY assertions and claims that CANNOT BE PROVEN AT ALL since they are simply false. I submit to you, GMEAST, that the person who is full of hatred, vitriol, disrespect, self-pity and ignorance around here, is in fact ROSEMARY AINSLIE herself.
You are managing to approach her record, though.
But your work does have some value in this context: Your work has disproven several of Ainslie's claims and assertions, YET AGAIN, about her claimed COP>17 circuit.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 04, 2012, 09:41:41 AM
I was going through some old posts looking for a particular username, and came across this one where I believe the flyback diode issue was first mentioned:
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189605/#msg189605 (http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189605/#msg189605)
Thanks for posting that. There is some interesting reading there, in the pages around that point. For example: Ainslie again publishes, or tries to publish, conflicting circuit diagrams that purport to be describing the same experiment; the published circuits do not make the correct duty cycle; the batteries are claimed to be 20 A-H when as we now know they were 60 A-H batteries........ and it goes on and on. This is when there were concurrent threads here and on Energetic Forum concerning her claims..... and this is when Ainslie started in with her insults, disrespect, continuing lies and false claims, attacking the persons, competences, and equipment of anyone who pointed out the errors and inconsistencies in her claims.
Hey 'Guys',
Hope all is going well, still keeping up with this thread (and others) when I can.
I just wanted to say to Gmeast (Greg?) that TK and Poynt99 and Mags (and FTC and others) don't belong to a 'cult' with an 'agenda'. That is F**CKING RETARDED!! Come on, do you seriously believe that? If you do then how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? How much more 'open source' can you get?!?!?
Rosemary is a liar and a fraud (with textbook D-K syndrome), just ask her to do some math for you. Ask her how a mosfet works LMAO!!! Or go help her catch her zipons, it's your choice dude... No doubt she will be releasing some new data ANY DAY NOW to validate her 'claim' (ouch, I think I hemmoraged something laughing so hard...).
If you want to learn something or have 'help' with an experiment, these guys can help. Well, I'm not sure they would help you anymore at this point because you've been such a dumbass, but they've tried to help Rose (to no avail) several SEVERAL times over.
Take a look at TKs caliometry setups and tell me yours are even half as good? Have you even looked??
PLEASE, GREG (if that is your name...): Back up, do a little reading, do a little more reading, and WAKE UP!!! If there is any 'agenda' at all, it is RA wasting the time of people like TK and 99 who are actually understand electrical theory and are trying to discover new things. (BTW they tried to help 'her' understand for MONTHS and MONTHS and she is STILL clueless about how a mosfet works.) Did you miss that part???
Wicked DC 'flames' there TK... ;)
Happy experimenting all!
PC
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 11:02:00 AM
... and it goes on and on. This is when there were concurrent threads here and on Energetic Forum concerning her claims..... and this is when Ainslie started in with her insults, disrespect, continuing lies and false claims, attacking the persons, competences, and equipment of anyone who pointed out the errors and inconsistencies in her claims.
Let me correct that for the record. For those of you around that may still remember, Ainslie actually started in on these forums almost 13 years ago. She earned that reputation long ago and forever labelled herself as described above.
She was no less a deluded psychotic then, than she is today. Nothing has changed.
As long as I am breathing, I will continue to remind the open source community of that
and no one, much less she, is going to stop me.
Quote from: The Boss on November 04, 2012, 12:49:22 PM
Let me correct that for the record. For those of you around that may still remember, Ainslie actually started in on these forums almost 13 years ago. She earned that reputation long ago and forever labelled herself as described above.
She was no less a deluded psychotic then, than she is today. Nothing has changed.
As long as I am breathing, I will continue to remind the open source community of that
and no one, much less she, is going to stop me.
Thanks for that reminder. My own involvement began only in 2009, near the time of .99's linked post, thanks to a "heads up" from Ramset, IIRC. Before that I was blissfully unaware of Ainslie and her ridiculous claims.
BTW, the threads on Naked Scientists are still viewable, some of them, where she claimed to have a patent and was arguing with PWM and switchmode designers, who actually DID have granted patents, about the functioning of mosfets in general and her circuit claims in particular. Of course she got herself banned quickly there.
In aid of anyone who wants to research Ainslie's past posts and her history and her claims, I'm compiling a list of her usernames and aliases. Please, everyone, help me with this list by letting me know of any I've missed.
witsend
dooziedont
aetherevarising
Rosemary Ainslie
Admin
(Why she doesn't just use "Maria Krebs" as her real name is beyond me. Maybe she's embarrassed about her history in Joburg.)
an abandoned blog:
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
another blog:
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/
her abandoned YT account:
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont?feature=results_main (note the date of her upload of her video about which she later said "I DID NOT UPLOAD THAT VIDEO")
one of the Naked Scientists threads:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=8a7f1c7c086bf47801ccd57c8e3196c9&topic=23243.350
I'm not linking to the Energetic Forum because those threads have been heavily censored. Many comments have been deleted in the various Ainslie threads there by the site admins in an attempt to cover up important information and revealing comments.
If there are any other blog or forum links (besides the heavily censored EF forum) that anyone knows about that are or were controlled by Rosemary Ainslie, please let me know so I can publish them all in one convenient place. Some people charge by the split-second, so let's make it easy and fast for them to find all the inconsistencies, false claims and outright lies of Rosemary Ainslie in her various aliases over the years.
Back on the topic of Testing the TK Tar Baby:
In case there is any doubt, I am happy to send Tar Baby off to the same laboratory that Ainslie used some months ago as an excuse to postpone her own tests. Just let me know who they are and I'll contact them and do it immediately. I want independent evaluation, to illustrate that Tar Baby is functionally identical to Ainslie's circuit (or not as the case may be... ho ho ho).
So all I need is the name and address of this laboratory in the USA, and I'll contact them right away to arrange the Tar Baby testing.
If anyone from that laboratory happens to be reading here, for some strange reason..... please PM me with the contact information. I have always urged, offered and been ready for a side-by-side test, comparing Tar Baby and NERD, but of course that will never happen. So a test of Tar Baby by the same lab, without bothering with Ainslie's involvement at all, will have to do.
As clear as can be... :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAM77oUjNos
Quote from: poynt99 on November 04, 2012, 03:48:44 PM
As clear as can be... :o
And she has the unmitigated gall to complain about my videos!
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 03:27:28 PM
In aid of anyone who wants to research Ainslie's past posts and her history and her claims, I'm compiling a list of her usernames and aliases. Please, everyone, help me with this list by letting me know of any I've missed.
Poynt,
With regard to the history of Ainslie's claims and her vicious personality, are you able to provide links to the 2 archived threads at the OUR Forum from the short period of time during which she was a member there?
Quote from: The Boss on November 04, 2012, 06:16:47 PM
Poynt,
With regard to the history of Ainslie's claims and her vicious personality, are you able to provide links to the 2 archived threads at the OUR Forum from the short period of time during which she was a member there?
There is this one: "The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit "
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.0
What is the other one?
Quote from: poynt99 on November 04, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
What is the other one?
Thank you for the link. I now clearly recall that the other one was deleted.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 04, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
There is this one: "The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit "
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.0)
What is the other one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7aWOh0OZrg
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 05, 2012, 02:29:30 PM
We have a measured negative wattage that is supported with the use of sophisticated and calibrated equipment.
So what?
I have two simulations with a measured "negative wattage", so what?
TK has two operating devices that also exhibit a measured "negative wattage", so what?
It means absolutely nothing in terms of proof that any of these circuits charge their batteries, or supply more heating energy in a load compared to what is supplied.
You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth
Rosemary. The truth is that these measurements are erroneous and most certainly don't represent the actual power being used by the batteries. That I would bet my house on. Would you? No, I doubt very much you would.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 05, 2012, 02:29:30 PM
This technology cannot survive the attack that is currently being launched. Not only is this an abuse of open source - but it we are also now being shown the risk associated in ignoring this information - as shown in the devastation wrought by Super Storm Sandy.
...the product of a diseased mind, completely disconnected from reality.
Quote
Guys,
If any of you need proof of the 'conspiracy' - Poynty (poynt99) has published some private videos of mine that can ONLY have been accessed from the computer that was rifled from my premises.
Sadly I now realise that Poynty is also part of TEAM TROLL. I had rather hoped this was not the case. But be warned.
Kindest regards
Rosie
Facepalm.
QuoteGuys,
If any of you need proof of the 'conspiracy' - Poynty (poynt99) has published some private videos of mine that can ONLY have been accessed from the computer that was rifled from my premises.
Sadly I now realise that Poynty is also part of TEAM TROLL. I had rather hoped this was not the case. But be warned.
Kindest regards
Rosie
This is her response to .99's posting of that video of hers above? The woman is not only classically paranoid, but she's apparently also growing senile.
Remember when she shouted that she "DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO", talking about the video of the demo, where the mendacious circuit diagram and description are given? What an idiot. Now she's outright accusing .99 of burglary and theft and computer hacking to boot.
Ainslie has at least 2 YouTube accounts, both of which are moribund, likely because she has lost or forgotten her password.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG_DtkoV8Wo&list=UUKCHRx4r_7Ozg5qZWN6dtsg&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising?feature=watch
(last activity from her Sep 14, 2010)
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos?flow=grid&view=0
(last activity from her May 1, 2012)
Just as in the case of the collection of scopeshots, the names and numbers, and all the rest of the information she thinks was somehow stolen or "rifled" from her computers...... she posted all these pathetic videos herself, in public, right up front.... and since she's lost her passwords and is generally incompetent, she can't even log on and delete these embarrassing, foot-in-mouth videos that she herself posted, without any need for .99 to do any rifling at all.
This one has taken quite a plot twist indeed.
Soon she will hold you responsible for nuking the whales.
So let me get this straight. For the record. ;)
A video, that Rose says she didnt upload, and claims Poynt stole it from her computer and he published it, but this video is on one of her youtube accounts? :o
Any dates as to when that vid was put on youtube vs when she claimed the vid was stolen? ;) that might clear some things up. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on November 06, 2012, 01:53:23 AM
So let me get this straight. For the record. ;)
A video, that Rose says she didnt upload, and claims Poynt stole it from her computer and he published it, but this video is on one of her youtube accounts? :o
Any dates as to when that vid was put on youtube vs when she claimed the vid was stolen? ;) that might clear some things up. ;)
Mags
The dates of the uploads are there on her channels. Just click the links above and you'll be able to see them all, review them for content and accuracy, and check the dates of upload.And today she claimed .99 "rifled" them from her stolen computer. I think it was some weeks ago that she claimed her home was burglarized and her computer stolen.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 05, 2012, 02:29:30 PM
to add...
"Dear Reader,
Just as a reminder to you all - there are six of us who unequivocally support the evidence of over unity as detailed in our papers - the links given hereunder. Notwithstanding Byran Little (TK) et al's vociferous claims to the contrary there are NO errors in those papers. There are MINOR errors in the published papers and they persist - despite our best efforts at notification of required corrections.
Liar. None, not a SINGLE ONE of your alleged co-authors will now support you in your claims. "Unequivocally" should simply be "unvocally" because nobody but you, Ainslie, is speaking out "supporting" your claims of overunity. There are MANY errors in those daft manuscripts and I have pointed many of them out. The cartoon drawings in the second daft manuscript, for example, were drawn BEFORE Ainslie realized her wiring error and so do not correspond to ANY of the claimed or actually used schematics for the device. But one would have to be able to READ a schematic .... and to read Ainslie's idiosyncratic, egotistic scrawls.... in order to see that, and one would have to understand circuitry to be able to tell the significance of that HOWLING error... which means that the "explanation" given is an explanation of something that didn't exist at all: an apparatus wired differently than ANY we were shown and clearly different from that used in the reported apparatus.
Quote
Those results show proof of measurements that fly in the face of standard prediction.
No they don't, you fool! How could a simulator have gotten the same measurements if that were true? You are sadly deficient in the thinking department if you fall for That lie from Ainslie. The measurements are fully predictable and completely explained, and they have nothing to do with any actual overunity performance. They are mostly _artefacts_ of the way the data were collected.
Quote
We have a measured negative wattage that is supported with the use of sophisticated and calibrated equipment.
And so do I. In fact my measurements of that phenomenon occur in at least three different systems, and they are even better than your own because I actually show the decreasing energy integral right on the DSO screen: My Tar Baby replication of the NERD circuit, the .99-designed Altoid Battery-Less Pocket Negative Power Demonstrator, and my SassyClassE sstc. These measurements cannot be used to support a claim of overunity performance, as they are spurious results of trying to measure a harmonically rich oscillation with cheap, passive probes and ordinary current-sensing resistors, with inadequate low-pass filtering of the spurious induced voltages in the measuring resistor and other inductances.
Quote
Such a measurement defeats Gustav Kirchhoff's unity requirements and points to the evidence of an alternate energy supply source to the conventional supplies vested in the Higgs Boson.
You wouldn't know a Higgs Boson if you woke up next to one. And Kirchhoff is rolling in his grave, laughing at your faulty conclusions based on bad data.
Quote
These results were predicted in terms of a field model that proposes Dark Matter to be the actual material source of energy.
No they weren't. Ainslie's "model" is a mishmash of misconception, entirely divorced from reality, and is refuted daily by the very machine you are staring at right now. Electricity is UNDERSTOOD, far better than you believe, and computers are just one example of how well it is understood. The very existence of the electronic computer proves that Ainslie's "field model" is a pantload of horse hockey.
Quote
A broad brushstroke of that model is included in the second paper. Links to both are given hereunder.
IF THIS WERE TRUE - IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE THESIS THEN THIS IS THE SCOPE OF THAT POTENTIAL IN THE THESIS...
1 - we would be able to defeat gravity
2 - we would be able to generate electric energy at no cost at all
3 - applications would not pollute our atmosphere
4 - we would be able to both halt and REVERSE the effects of global warming
If pigs had wings and a pilot's license, they would be able to defeat gravity too, but you never will. None of your "thesis" is even remotely near being true at all.
Quote
WHAT IS STANDING BETWEEN THIS KNOWLEDGE AND ITS POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS ARE
1 - a dedicated reach by competing energy suppliers to eradicate all knowledge of this
2 - effected largely in their efforts to trash my name and the technology along with it
Nope. The "energy suppliers" don't know anything about you, Ainslie, and would just laugh at you if they did. And if you had any "technology" there's no way that it could or would be suppressed at all. Your name is being trashed because you are a proven liar, an arrogant ignorant fool, and you don't have the sense to shut up about your delusional "model" and your ridiculous "papers".
Quote
These are the facts. Consider - if you will - the cost of some 8 or so trolls - spending ENORMOUS efforts and time at this if - indeed - there were no truths in these claims of ours. We are NONE OF US trying to patent - to solicit funds - nor even to claim a discovery.
Stop right there. Facts? You are a stranger to them entirely. You did too try to patent your claim and you even went for some time claiming you "had a patent" on your "technology". In fact as you may recall, that was where I came in: when I discovered that you did NOT have a patent at all and were simply lying about that. You also applied for and attempted to claim no fewer than THREE Monetary prizes and awards for your "overunity" lie. You've tried to promote your "discovery" by attempting to get papers published, and by blogging and forum posting and your incessant trolling. In addition.... you have no "we" at all. There is just you, Ainslie, just you. Yet Again, you've made a statement that is chock full of lies from start to end.
QuoteWe are all entirely satisfied that the physics is incorporated in the standard model - with a small variation at best. We have done our best to bring this to the academic forum - but have failed.
This technology cannot survive the attack that is currently being launched. Not only is this an abuse of open source - but it we are also now being shown the risk associated in ignoring this information - as shown in the devastation wrought by Super Storm Sandy. I appeal to you all to ignore the manifold protestations by the trolls on OU.com and to pay heed to the simple reality of experimental evidence submitted precisely as required through publication in an academic journal.
Your rejections haven't sunk in, have they. To be REJECTED in your submission to those academic journals means your "work" does not meet the standards of rigor required, your presentation is non-standard and severely flawed, and it's evident that you have no understanding of your topic. You can't even do a simple math problem, when every freshman physics student in the WORLD knows that calculus is a prerequisite for understanding even elementary physics concepts and problems. Your rejections are entirely deserved and indicate just what you don't want to admit: your "work" is bogus, from start to finish, through and through, and belongs in one place only: the recycling bin.
Quote
At the risk of sounding somewhat melodramatic - I believe our survival as a species depends on the advancement of this knowledge, which knowledge in no way belongs to anyone at all. It is knowledge that was forged by our greats and belongs to EVERYONE.
Kindest regards
Rosie"
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2)
At the risk of sounding "somewhat melodramatic".... Ainslie here once again shows her egotism and arrogance, her paranoid delusional system, and her amazing ignorance of reality.
Where was that posted orbut? I could not find it on her site.
Maybe she has deleted it?
Anyway, the youtube user "aetherevarising" clearly uploaded that video, not me. March 19, 2010 actually.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2012, 08:18:47 AM
Where was that posted orbut? I could not find it on her site.
Maybe she has deleted it?
Anyway, the youtube user "aetherevarising" clearly uploaded that video, not me. March 19, 2010 actually.
Yep... now the reasons for my taking screenshots of the problematic Ainslie posts become clear.
Ainslie has a long history of revising history; she will go back months or even years if allowed by the software, and edit posts that have already been responded to, deleting them entirely or substantially changing the meanings. She can make simple quotations "disappear" as above and deny she made them, but she cannot dispute a screenshot image unless she wants to accuse someone of graphics fakery in addition to her lying about what the image shows.
Unfortunately I was too late in this instance; I don't have a screenshot of that post.... but I'd sure like one.
Yes, it seems to be gone. I found it in the 'troll spin'-thread.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 06, 2012, 01:49:55 PM
The ONLY simulations that have been able to replicate these results depend on the addition of copious wattage introduced via the switch from an alternate energy supply source.
No Rose, you are mistaken.
The FG in the one simulation of
your exact circuit contributed no more than 3W when the negative power was on the order of -100W.
In the other two circuits I simulated that exhibited substantial negative power (my variation and the low power design), there is no FG present at all. Aside from the FG, there is no other possible "alternate energy supply source".
So in fact, THIS still stands:
"It means absolutely nothing in terms of proof that any of these circuits charge their batteries, or supply more heating energy in a load compared to what is supplied.
You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth
Rosemary. The truth is that these measurements are erroneous and most certainly don't represent the actual power being used by the batteries. That I would bet my house on. Would you? No, I doubt very much you would."
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 06, 2012, 01:49:55 PM
More of the same...
The perpetual assault on the open source energy research community continues...
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 06, 2012, 01:49:55 PM
Which means that standard assumptions and standard measurement protocols ERR - or there is an alternate energy supply source that has not - heretofore - been factored into the measurement of energy. At its least this question requires a thorough appraisal.
Kindest regards
Rosie"
The illusion of choice in the quotation above fails to mention the evidentially proven third option:
The data set was collected and analysed by untrained and incompetent pseudoscientists. The data set provided as proof of claim in fact falsifies the conclusions at every key point. The data, and the conclusions based upon it, are spurious:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious
Quote from: evolvingape on November 06, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
The data set was collected and analysed by untrained and incompetent pseudoscientists. The data set provided as proof of claim in fact falsifies the conclusions at every key point. The data, and the conclusions based upon it, are spurious:
Indeed, the option 3 you presented is the correct one in this case.
Ainslie, you are so laughably wrong in all of those contentions that you do not even deserve the consideration of a detailed reply. Your after-the-fact rationalization of your cartoons is particularly telling and idiotic. Go ahead and hook all your mosfets in parallel. If they are properly laid out without long interconnecting leads there will be NO OSCILLATIONS. So are you going to claim that the long leads are necessary for overunity performance? What a mendacious and ignorant fool you are.
You cannot provide the raw data from your "experiments". Your scopeshots show traces that could only happen with blown or miswired or missing mosfets. You claim that some trials show no current flow from the battery when the scopeshots for those trials clearly DO show large current drains. The experiments AS SHOWN IN YOUR DEMO VIDEO and in every other confirmed sighting of your apparatus, even the single mosfet version, were done with the Black FG lead hooked to the common circuit ground along with all scope references, but BOTH the conflicting circuit diagrams you mendaciously included in your daft manuscripts show it on the other side of the CVR. This fact alone invalidates ALL your data from the current viewing "shunt" as you erroneously call it. Your batteries UNQUESTIONABLY DO DISCHARGE over the course of several daily trials AS REFLECTED IN YOUR OWN DATA. You claim to have dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes in one, STILL "PUBLISHED" version of one of the manuscripts and removed that bogus claim without comment in another version. The only independent laboratory ever to see your actual apparatus tested it and reproduced your "negative power" measurements, and they also made correct measurements and told you how to do so, and they also found that the batteries DO DISCHARGE, refuting all your overunity claims. And the water "wasn't actually boiling; there were small bubbles" and the temperature was 64 degrees C, in contrast to the impression you try to give in your manuscripts "bringing water to boil"... when you did no such thing at all.
All of these problems completely invalidate the reports of the experiments. You cannot refute any of these problems that I note, because ANYONE can look at the manuscripts and scopeshots and your blog posts made ON THE DAYS OF THE ACTUAL TRIALS and see that I am completely correct. Your "work" is a bunch of bogosity, not even worthy of a tenth-grade science fair project, and the manuscripts are a total waste of everyone's time and MUST be retracted for the reasons I've given above, and many more. Psychologists and physicists around the world are using your case in their classrooms as an example of pathological pseudoscience at its very worst, albeit in a harmless form.
ETA: The screen shot below was taken in August of 2012. Evidently one of your co-authors is a little behind the times.
Hey, FuzzyTomCat .... is that Donovan Martin, narrating the Demo Video that she "DID NOT UPLOAD" here?
Whoever he is, isn't it funny that he lies about the circuit at least twice , showing the old, single mosfet schematic on paper which doesn't even show the Black FG lead at all, and then telling everyone that all the mosfets are in parallel? I mean, since he's an electronics expert... isn't he?.... he must be lying, because the circuit board is right there in front of him and anyone can see by looking closely that the mosfets aren't all in parallel and that the schematic given doesn't correspond to the experimental setup at all.
0:23: "The circuit diagram before you (taptap) is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup; as you can see. (zooming closer) What we have is, um... Five mosfets in parallel...." and so on.
This is either deliberate mendacity (as Ainslie has apparently already claimed) or clear evidence of total incompetence, as even a casual inspection of the actual apparatus (as opposed to blurry screengrabs from a video) would have revealed the wiring "error" immediately... instead of a month later, full of Ainslie discussing the WRONG circuit in the old "locked" thread here.
So have you ever been able to get hold of Donny, er, Donovan Martin, to ask him about these rather, um.... severe discrepancies in his presentation?
If that is in fact him, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp)
Why was one battery removed for the "high heat" demonstration, leaving a 48 volt input supply, done without any explanation or even reference? I know why. It is because the Q1 mosfet would blow out from heat stress if given 72 or probably even 60 volts under the conditions shown. This is the very reason why the 4 additional mosfets, supposed to be in parallel with the first, were added in the first place. But since they aren't in parallel with Q1, the overheating problem persists and so their solution was to drop the input voltage, lessening the current flow and keeping that mosfet within its package limits, during the long fully ON duty cycle times required to obtain high heat in the load.
Rosesaidwhat said...
"IF THIS WERE TRUE - IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE THESIS THEN THIS IS THE SCOPE OF THAT POTENTIAL IN THE THESIS..."
If this were true? YES!! Well some of it. If it were true. :) Sounds like you dont know 'if' its true here.
"IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE THESIS "
But I thought you already had the evidence? Shown by who? So thus far, your 'thesis' is not made of proof shown by sufficient evidence?? Just if's. ::)
Ring around the Rosie.
MaGsY
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 06, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
Hey, FuzzyTomCat .... is that Donovan Martin, narrating the Demo Video that she "DID NOT UPLOAD" here?
Whoever he is, isn't it funny that he lies about the circuit at least twice , showing the old, single mosfet schematic on paper which doesn't even show the Black FG lead at all, and then telling everyone that all the mosfets are in parallel? I mean, since he's an electronics expert... isn't he?.... he must be lying, because the circuit board is right there in front of him and anyone can see by looking closely that the mosfets aren't all in parallel and that the schematic given doesn't correspond to the experimental setup at all.
0:23: "The circuit diagram before you (taptap) is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup; as you can see. (zooming closer) What we have is, um... Five mosfets in parallel...." and so on.
This is either deliberate mendacity (as Ainslie has apparently already claimed) or clear evidence of total incompetence, as even a casual inspection of the actual apparatus (as opposed to blurry screengrabs from a video) would have revealed the wiring "error" immediately... instead of a month later, full of Ainslie discussing the WRONG circuit in the old "locked" thread here.
So have you ever been able to get hold of Donny, er, Donovan Martin, to ask him about these rather, um.... severe discrepancies in his presentation?
If that is in fact him, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp)
Why was one battery removed for the "high heat" demonstration, leaving a 48 volt input supply, done without any explanation or even reference? I know why. It is because the Q1 mosfet would blow out from heat stress if given 72 or probably even 60 volts under the conditions shown. This is the very reason why the 4 additional mosfets, supposed to be in parallel with the first, were added in the first place. But since they aren't in parallel with Q1, the overheating problem persists and so their solution was to drop the input voltage, lessening the current flow and keeping that mosfet within its package limits, during the long fully ON duty cycle times required to obtain high heat in the load.
Hi TK,
As far as I know Donovan Martin is not the person narrating that Demo Video, as from what I'm told is not a person of color .... the camera operator for the video though is a ......
Riaan Theron
Riaan1906@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron?feature=watch (http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron?feature=watch)
http://za.linkedin.com/pub/riaan-theron/3a/a5a/82b (http://za.linkedin.com/pub/riaan-theron/3a/a5a/82b)
http://www.animationsa.org/community/press-releases/liezel/opinion-piece-riaan-theron-developing-your-own-style (http://www.animationsa.org/community/press-releases/liezel/opinion-piece-riaan-theron-developing-your-own-style)
http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron/feed (http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron/feed)
http://www.animationsa.org/users/sae-institute-cape-town (http://www.animationsa.org/users/sae-institute-cape-town)
http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/3D_Animation (http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/3D_Animation)
http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/Animation (http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/Animation)
http://www.filmcrewcentral.com/profile/RiaanTheron (http://www.filmcrewcentral.com/profile/RiaanTheron)
I'm sure the name rings a
GONG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj3Q9l9Ivng) as one of the authors on the last two rags that Rosemary submitted as some kind of scientific nick nack used for a door prop .... remember ::)
Best,
Fuzzy
;)
Ah, thanks, Fuzzy. I know I remember hearing Ainslie refer to "Donny" at some point. I thought the narrator was he. Who, then, is responsible for the outright lies in the video that I have noted and quoted above? Why is the video still allowed to be posted, without any retraction of those manifest lies?
I know you don't know the answer, except that it's a result of Ainslie's own mendacity and disregard for truth and accuracy.
Meanwhile, the statements from the Red Queen of Trolls continue:
QuoteErrors of measurement may be tricky to prove. Essentially one would need to factor in the complexities of reactance. BUT when we do so the problems persist. We are left with the evidence of a negative wattage REGARDLESS of those factors. And a negative wattage is the proof positive that there is EXTRA energy generated away from the supply. At which point - any serious scientist would revisit his ASSUMPTIONS and try and find out what the hell is going on.
But not so - if you belong to TEAM TROLL. Here their scientific solution - strictly in line with the well rehearsed requirements of their Medieval Mind Set - is to scoff - deny - traduce - victimise ... in every possible way - ANYONE WHO PERSISTS IN CLAIMING THAT A NEGATIVE WATTAGE HAS PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE. Well. The sad news that this system of denial works. And that is notwithstanding the dire need of all of mankind - to explore this evidence and its potentials.
Well. It seems Ainslie persists in claiming that "negative wattage is the proof positive that there is EXTRA energy generated away from the supply". Therefore she must agree that my two devices: Tar Baby, and the Altoid pocket demonstrator..... are PROVING POSITIVELY that I am generating extra energy away from the supply.... thus, my two devices are OVERUNITY devices, according to her criteria.
Since MY DEVICES are ready to go anywhere anytime, and they are self contained, and they can demonstrate this negative wattage using AINSLIE'S OWN EXACT "standard" MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, and can do it WITH OR WITHOUT BATTERIES, even........ surely even she must agree that Tar Baby and Altoid qualify, in spades, for the same OverUnity prizes that she tried to claim. Ainslie cannot demonstrate the validity of her claims of battery non-discharge or "no current flow" when there is current flow shown on her scopeshots, or a mosfet not turning on in the conditions shown in her scopeshots.... but I can substantiate EVERY claim I've made about Altoid and Tar Baby, and both Altoid and Tar Baby are complete, stand-alone systems that can be packed up and sent off for side by side testing against ANY OTHER DEVICE ANYWHERE, and most particularly the Ainslie NERD circuit.
Got that, AINSLIE? Your Foot-In-Mouth statement is an acknowledgement that EVERY claim you made depends on your "negative wattage measurement", and since Tar Baby and Altoid make the same "negative wattage" when measured the same way as NERD..... well....
DO THE MATH (tm RA).
Note well what happens if AINSLIE now chooses to deny the "PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE" of Tar Baby's and Altoid's "NEGATIVE WATTAGE". She becomes an honorary member of what she calls so disparagingly her "Team Troll".
Somebody needs to invent a foot extractor and sell one to Rosemary Ainslie. How can she breathe at all, with her foot shoved so far down her own throat?
I read the latest two Rosie rants. It's possible that she has Borderline Personality Disorder. Look it up, I am obviously not qualified to pass judgement. Think about the relentless attack on Harvey as an example and the ups and downs and the idolizing and the demonizing.
Who let that smelly frankfurter dog in .... It crapped all over this room again. What the hell is that thing eating, rotten eggs and pickles. :o
Have a sniff over here...
No battery, No Cap, No power source
Runs a load ..........
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-258.html#post213894 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-258.html#post213894)
Thx
Chet
Yousaidwhatever...... there is nothing in your posts that is anything but spam.
AINSLIE CANNOT REFUTE ANY of my experimentation.
AINSLIE CANNOT SUPPORT HER CONTENTION that I am "Bryan Little" (or Brian).
AINSLIE CANNOT CORRECT her bogus manuscripts because they are terminally flawed.
AINSLIE CANNOT REFUTE ANY OF MY CRITICISMS OF HER DAFT MANUSCRIPTS.
AINSLIE CANNOT SUPPORT ANY OF HER CONTENTIONS re her doggerel about the Higgs Boson.
AINSLIE, in short, is full of lies, errors, and outright fraud, as is illustrated by the story of the CORRECT SCHEMATIC used in the DEMONSTRATION VIDEO and her attempts to cover it up.
And AINSLIE continues her morbid fantasies about Pickles.
What AINSLIE CANNOT DO, in addition to the above failures on her part, is to provide ANY of the testing she's promised for over a year and a half now. She cannot show IN ANY WAY that my experimentation is in any way flawed, while I can and have demonstrated OVER AND OVER AGAIN that Ainslie does not have the knowledge or the ability or the skills or the attitude to carry out valid experimental research or report on it. There is NO RAW DATA from Ainslie. There are CLAIMS that are instantly refuted simply by examining her associated scope traces. There is CONSTANT math error and CONTINUAL garbling of terminology on the part of AINSLIE. Yet she is so overweeningly arrogant that she doesn't even clean up after herself, like a senile old woman that can't even wipe her own.... dishes.
And "Yousaidwhat" is a sock puppet of the worst, smelly kind: one who cannot contribute ANYTHING of her own and so must post nonsense from Ainslie that is spewed forth without a shred of evidence or support.
Here's a pickle for you both, you idiot trolls.
Quote from: ramset on November 09, 2012, 07:39:37 AM
Have a sniff over here...
No battery, No Cap, No power source
Runs a load ..........
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-258.html#post213894 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-258.html#post213894)
Thx
Chet
Well... it's really hard to tell what his circuit is in that video... since he has no schematic for the usual mess of clipleads, the several batteries on the table, the _big_ capacitor with some clipleads going to it (silver cylinder with breadboard on top of it just to the right of the demonstration)...., but in the pages discussing the video, the schematics given for the two "simple induction heaters" and the next one showing the "old" circuit with a bunch of parallel caps on the output side and a transformer driven by an oscillator.... are almost identical to the inductive wireless power transmitter/receiver systems I've shown here several times before.
Until he shows the complete schematic, I don't see what all the excitement is all about. Certainly I could duplicate his exact performance in the video in a few minutes, right down to the meter behaviour, deliberately using my wireless power system.... if I can find all my clipleads, that is.
Howdy everyone,
Maybe someone could tell me if there is a COP>1 on this ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3FpjcOWwiI4#! :o
Fuzzy
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 11:54:57 AM
Well... it's really hard to tell what his circuit is in that video... since he has no schematic for the usual mess of clipleads..........................................................................
............................................ I could duplicate his exact performance in the video in a few minutes, right down to the meter behaviour, deliberately using my wireless power system.... if I can find all my clipleads, that is.
DO IT!
Hows that free energy coming along gmeast? Have you identified the source(s) of your measurement error yet?
Quote from: mrsean2k on November 09, 2012, 05:38:16 PM
Hows that free energy coming along gmeast? Have you identified the source(s) of your measurement error yet?
no errors. Nov. 3 run conclusive. no need to run it by you jokers here. your agendas are clear.
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 02:17:45 PM
DO IT!
Why, just for you? Don't you believe me? What have you done for _me_ lately?
If you check the "preliminary schematic" posted on another thread, you'll see that it suffers from the same problem that ... er.... some other circuits do. You can disconnect it from the batteries... .but what about the function generator? What will happen if you AC-couple the function generator connection, by putting in a capacitor in series?
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 05:50:50 PM
no errors. Nov. 3 run conclusive. no need to run it by you jokers here. your agendas are clear.
Well, I guess we know how you'll be heating your house this winter, don't we.
That's right.... you'll be using the mains power just as always, because there are no electric heaters more efficient than a chunk of resistance wire glowing red hot and hooked directly across the mains supply.
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 05:50:50 PM
no errors. Nov. 3 run conclusive. no need to run it by you jokers here. your agendas are clear.
data and results are being run past folks with actual credentials. I've been advised not to spar with you losers ... waste of time.
Gmeast, no it isn't.
So why are you seagulling over here?
How robust can your results be if merely discussing them is a threat? Pure madness.
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 05:54:38 PM
I've been advised not to spar with you losers ... waste of time.
Then don't. Make yourself scarce.
D'ya suppose he'll take _all_ the information to his "actually credentialled" persons, or just his "positive" results?
How many possible causes for his data has he _ruled out_, to show that there's no other way his data could have arisen _except_ by some kind of overunity performance of his apparatus?
Since he doesn't want to talk about his work here... as he keeps telling us... there's no way that I can tell. But I don't actually recall him reporting on a single test of a null hypothesis when he _does_ talk about his work, here or there; he's just been demonstrating that he can get the data he gets. D'ya think he'll be reporting his tests of null hypotheses to his "actually credentialled" persons?
D'ya think he even understands what a null hypothesis is, how to test one, or the logic of hypothesis testing in general?
Quote from: mrsean2k on November 09, 2012, 06:01:33 PM
So why are you seagulling over here?
How robust can your results be if merely discussing them is a threat? Pure madness.
not worth discussing here
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 08:44:14 PM
D'ya suppose he'll take _all_ the information to his "actually credentialled" persons, or just his "positive" results?
How many possible causes for his data has he _ruled out_, to show that there's no other way his data could have arisen _except_ by some kind of overunity performance of his apparatus?
Since he doesn't want to talk about his work here... as he keeps telling us... there's no way that I can tell. But I don't actually recall him reporting on a single test of a null hypothesis when he _does_ talk about his work, here or there; he's just been demonstrating that he can get the data he gets. D'ya think he'll be reporting his tests of null hypotheses to his "actually credentialled" persons?
D'ya think he even understands what a null hypothesis is, how to test one, or the logic of hypothesis testing in general?
I've shown everyone, that's worth anything, everything. Which is why you haven't seen it all.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 09, 2012, 08:29:12 PM
Then don't. Make yourself scarce.
ban me then, revoke my posting privileges.
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 09:20:46 PM
not worth discussing here
Indeed, I fully agree. Yet you keep coming back posting your insults.
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 09:23:22 PM
ban me then, revoke my posting privileges.
Ask Stefan to ban you, I'm not the admin.
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 09:23:22 PM
ban me then, revoke my posting privileges.
Yes. We shall ban thee. For thou hath not taken heed in thine Advisors words. Now goeth out from the garden of OU, and yee shall go forth and faketh all men. ;D
Gimme a break. ::)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on November 09, 2012, 09:39:12 PM
Yes. We shall ban thee. For thou hath not taken heed in thine Advisors words. Now goeth out from the garden of OU, and yee shall go forth and faketh all men. ;D
Gimme a break. ::)
Mags
;D
Quote from: gmeast on November 09, 2012, 09:22:17 PM
I've shown everyone, that's worth anything, everything. Which is why you haven't seen it all.
So that's three "NOs" then. You won't be showing _all_ the information, because you won't want your credentialed folks to see your earlier math errors and total blunders in calculations, and you have not done proper hypothesis testing to rule out all possible alternative causes for your data, and you don't actually understand what a null hypothesis is nor the logic of hypothesis testing, upon which all experimental science is based.
Odd that you call us worthless, and yet go to the trouble to log in here to do so -- only to be refuted in your every contention. Odd... but typical of your ilk. I believe it's called "trolling", when a person posts comments only to cause some kind of emotional reaction in others, rather than to participate in a real discussion.
Funny, too..... because certainly anyone who behaved as you do HERE, over THERE..... would get banned and censored right away.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 09, 2012, 11:02:07 PM
So that's three "NOs" then. You won't be showing _all_ the information, because you won't want your credentialed folks to see your earlier math errors and total blunders in calculations, and you have not done proper hypothesis testing to rule out all possible alternative causes for your data, and you don't actually understand what a null hypothesis is nor the logic of hypothesis testing, upon which all experimental science is based.
Odd that you call us worthless, and yet go to the trouble to log in here to do so -- only to be refuted in your every contention. Odd... but typical of your ilk. I believe it's called "trolling", when a person posts comments only to cause some kind of emotional reaction in others, rather than to participate in a real discussion.
Funny, too..... because certainly anyone who behaved as you do HERE, over THERE..... would get banned and censored right away.
math errors and all of that stuff is in the past. but the past is what you keep bringing forward and continue to use in the here and now. you have NO idea of what I'm doing, how I'm doing it, the results I've obtained, or who I'm talking to. as far as behavior goes, I've only responded in kind to your unqualified judgments. I've viewed your 'tar baby' videos and one of your Ainslie video showing the ground-loop detail (which was actually enlightening by the way ... I ignore the oscillations and tune for other characteristics) and I have to say you are arrogant, sarcastic, narcissistic and generally full of yourself. you may be intelligent but that is overshadowed by ... read above. I would hate to be you.
Your calculation errors aren't in the past until you demonstrate that you understand why you were in error.
You haven't done that, you've just shoved it to one side in favour of a different method where you think you can't have made any errors.
"When I see omission of comments on my posts at OU.com I KNOW I've hit a home run"
You get virtually no comments on your posts because they are constant repetition of the same contentless shite.
And you've abandoned any attempt to maintain the fiction that you aren't ysw
Barefaced lies, you shameless fraud.
What would benefit the free energy community, and this forum in general, is if gmeast disappeared for good.
Unfortunately, he keeps coming back because he isn't getting enough attention from his imaginary team of "credentialed" individuals.
He should heed Rosemary's advice, and not "spar" with us "losers". I strongly second that advice.
Please bugger off gmeast. The likes of you only do a disservice to this community.
Ainslie once again admits how clueless she actually is. Unable actually to refute ONE SINGLE POINT in all the many videos I've made concerning her idiocy and mistakes, she decides to claim that one of my videos is even "decidedly pornographic".... and again she accuses without reference or citation that something is wrong somehow about some image I've posted. What a continuing and even progressing case of senile idiocy she presents. I certainly hope her doctors are continuing to evaluate her medication... it's possible she's having an adverse reaction, as her delusions are clearly out of control.
Go ahead, AINSLIE, if you dare. Take any one of my videos.... like the ones where I clearly refute your idiotic claims about Function Generators not being able to act as power supplies or to pass current from an external battery through them, or the ones where I show that capacitors do just what you claimed they could not do .... and dissect it, providing a transcript and point-by-point refutation, LIKE YOU PROMISED TO DO, many months ago. Hah.... you will not, because YOU CANNOT.
Even when I post the links for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo)
Remember when you said THIS, AINSLIE?
Quote"What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'. " (sic)
Funny, isn't it, how much of what you KNOW .... just isn't so.
And of course your misunderstanding of the behaviour of mosfets is so amazingly total that you cannot even believe what I show in the following videos, nor can your "zipon thesis" mishmash word salad account for it ... at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbAGWkWFmxM
And as far as "pornography" is concerned.... one would be hard pressed to find anything in my videos even nearly as pornographic and in poor taste as THESE execrable wastes of pixels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_LjNBdSvc8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_LjNBdSvc8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAKwTeoqITU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAKwTeoqITU)
Howdy all,
Well gmeast for having all the excitement and approval ratings has seen a mandate to further his unscientific method of testing and evaluation over at Energetic Forum, posting in a Sub Forum called "INDUCTIVE RESISTORS" (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/) started by that Administration for my modified scientific replication of a COP>17 device after finding out the original circuit didn't work as specified by Rosemary Ainslie the author of a article in October 2002 Quantum Magazine "Transient Energy Enhances Energy Co-Efficients" (http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf)
I hope he will remove his trash and deposit it into his own thread so that there is "NO" association to any work that has already been done in the thread he's presently posted in.
This will give greg (aka gmeast) a opportunity to place "ALL" his schematics, photographs, video films, testing and evaluation data in one place for review by members at Energetic Forum, being he refuses to do it here and has only shown limited details at Rosemary Ainslie's personal forum/blog (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php). This also can and will be compared to what has already been published on greg's "variant" device claiming a COP>1 to a COP>2.
Best,
Fuzzy
;)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 11, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
Howdy all,
Well gmeast for having all the excitement and approval ratings has seen a mandate to further his unscientific method of testing and evaluation over at Energetic Forum, posting in a Sub Forum called "INDUCTIVE RESISTORS" (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/) started by that Administration for my modified scientific replication of a COP>17 device after finding out the original circuit didn't work as specified by Rosemary Ainslie the author of a article in October 2002 Quantum Magazine "Transient Energy Enhances Energy Co-Efficients" (http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf)
I hope he will remove his trash and deposit it into his own thread so that there is "NO" association to any work that has already been done in the thread he's presently posted in.
This will give greg (aka gmeast) a opportunity to place "ALL" his schematics, photographs, video films, testing and evaluation data in one place for review by members at Energetic Forum, being he refuses to do it here and has only shown limited details at Rosemary Ainslie's personal forum/blog (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php). This also can and will be compared to what has already been published on greg's "variant" device claiming a COP>1 to a COP>2.
Best,
Fuzzy
;)
Just checking to see if you made an announcement over here, and you did. Hate is so predictable. I had guessed you were a member of this cult. Fuzzy ... real scientific on your part ... on par with TK's hatred-driven analytics and commentaries. We'll see if you jokers still call my efforts "trash" when it's all said and done. TTFN!
Quote from: gmeast on November 12, 2012, 12:23:43 AM
Just checking to see if you made an announcement over here, and you did. Hate is so predictable. I had guessed you were a member of this cult. Fuzzy ... real scientific on your part ... on par with TK's hatred-driven analytics and commentaries. We'll see if you jokers still call my efforts "trash" when it's all said and done. TTFN!
Well that depends if you fake it or not. ;)
Mags
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 11, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
Howdy all,
Well gmeast for having all the excitement and approval ratings has seen a mandate to further his unscientific method of testing and evaluation over at Energetic Forum, posting in a Sub Forum called "INDUCTIVE RESISTORS" (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/) started by that Administration for my modified scientific replication of a COP>17 device after finding out the original circuit didn't work as specified by Rosemary Ainslie the author of a article in October 2002 Quantum Magazine "Transient Energy Enhances Energy Co-Efficients" (http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf)
Yeah, that is typical of him. He did the same in my thread over at Rose's sandbox.
His nonsense won't last long over there either, because he actually has "nothing worth discussing".
I don't think they are very friendly towards Ainslie or her circuits or claims, over there. I wonder if GMEAST has done sufficient homework to understand the history of Rosemary Ainslie and her one-time sycophants Err-on Burakumin and Ashtwit Melanogaster.
@AlienSigns..... You are really outdoing yourself. I'll bet you get kicks out of stealing pencils from urine-smelling blind old ladies.
:P
Meanwhile, Ainslie.... aka Maria Krebs .... continues to promulgate her lies and distortions.
She fails to realize, or care, that Mister Wayne's claims are not and were never intended to be "open source" at all, as he EXPLICITLY STATES HIMSELF when challenged as to why he does not share all his information and data here.
Nor does she care that all my efforts in that thread were directed EXPLICITLY toward making Mister Wayne share his information.... and to point out, ultimately, that he had NO INFORMATION TO SHARE that supported his claims.
What a fool Ainslie is. Mister Wayne could have silenced me and all his other detractors simply by ACTUALLY RESPECTING THE "OPEN SOURCE" ideal, sharing his data, and demonstrating the veracity of his claims. But.... just like Rosemary Ainslie and her claims... he cannot, and so he blames the skeptics for pointing this out. So HE decides to enter "stealth"... or rather "censorship" mode... just as we have seen Ainslie do and also others of this ilk.... and has removed all pretense of "open source". And for this, the person who only asked him to support his claims with hard data, is blamed. I laugh out loud at the pitiful flailings of Ainslie and Mister Wayne and all of that ilk, who make claims, cannot support them, and then go off whining, like the little piggies that went to market and went weeeeeeeee all the way home.
But at least Mister Wayne doesn't engage in the kind of outright lying that Ainslie does. He's a bit more circumspect in his lies, not making outrageous claims that can be disproven with a few minutes of internet research or reference to his own data.
How can someone who has this much difficulty with reasoning, even find her way to the grocery store to buy food?
Oh.. that's right, I forgot, she has someone else do those things for her, she's confined to her compound for her own safety.
Here's some more "pornography" from the DeepBunker.
Testing the ignition voltage of a NE-2, in case anyone doubts that they need 90 volts to fire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVCXvX-uugA
Addressing the issue of AC coupling vs DC coupling, and LTseung's measurement follies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TKEQwG-2gY
Well Rosemary appears to have gone full circle again with the bartender at her local pub hangout, she should stay away from pole dancing. :o
Why is it that all the damn "FREE ENERGY" devices ALWAYS have or use batteries and NONE of them work as claimed and advertized? The mystic reasoning goes from the components and there unique usage configuration to the mysterious materials inside the battery. ???
GO FISH !! :P
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg3716.html#msg3716
"We believe we have a method whereby we can regenerate electric current WITHOUT the use of a battery supply - required because, notwithstanding the greater efficiency shown in those comparative battery draw down tests - the batteries DEPLETE when, according to the measurements - it SHOULD NOT. This is possibly due to the speed of the electrolytic process that is frustrated by the frequency of the oscillation. We can't comment. We're none of us chemists."
Well, Rosie, thats why someone suggested that a cap should be used as a source. Did the cap drain?
So let me get this straight. You claim you have a method that can regenerate electric current WITHOUT the use of a battery supply, but it doesnt work without a battery?
So you invent a reason why the battery looses charge? A reason you are admittedly not sure of because no chemists are available?
I believe!! ::) Well thats funny right there ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Hi6uf0fiM
Magsy
Quotethe batteries DEPLETE when, according to the measurements - it SHOULD NOT.
What Ainslie...or Maria Krebs or whoever she claims to be now.... actually must realise is this:
QuoteThe batteries DEPLETE when, according to the claims made in the manuscripts, they SHOULD NOT. Thus, the claims made in the manuscripts are WRONG.
Further, since batteries CAN clearly be charged by application of high-frequency currents AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND MAGNITUDE, yet these batteries deplete nevertheless..... we must conclude that the measurements used in the manuscripts ARE IN ERROR.
In fact, as anyone can easily show, and as I proved years ago with the _actual_ COP 17 claimed circuit, one can easily charge up an _external_ battery using exactly the same magic whatever, that Ainslie claims is preventing her _internal_ running battery from discharging. But this is simply transferring charge from one battery to another, incurring significant losses on the way. Neither that system nor the present one can do anything to prevent its own battery from discharging....except perhaps by blowing a mosfet. And this has nothing to do with frequencies and electrolytes and the rest of Ainslie-Krebs's nonsense.
The idiot paranoid delusional ranting of Maria Krebs... or whatever she calls herself this week.... continues apace.
QuoteBut his time is nearing it's end. I'm certain of that. He's dominating the thread posts at OU.com - and trying to imply that he is the ONLY authority available to comment.
This is a lie. I have never implied any such thing, and Krebs... or Ainslie as she likes to be known lately .... cannot provide ANY EVIDENCE for her claim. She lies, once again.
QuoteEventually people will get bored with his rather rampant claims to know all and everything related to matters scientific.
Once again, she lies. Nowhere can she show me claiming " to know all and everything related to matters scientific" or anything like that. Ainslie is a liar and cannot provide support for her libellous accusations against me.
QuoteHe's an amateur - and a tinkerer - and a boaster - and a brutally self interested sociopath.
Now the idiot delusional senile ignoramus dares to call me a sociopath. I can prove that she is an idiot, an ignoramus, senile, delusional and much more. She cannot provide any evidence or proof that I am a sociopath. I doubt seriously if she even knows what one is, and I KNOW that she has no psychological qualifications, other than her experience as a patient, to make any kind of diagnosis of anyone, anywhere.
Quote
The trouble is that - by his own admission - he is the recipient of expert advice in order to guide his comments related to those matters about which he actually knows little - if anything.
What an interesting statement. I wonder where that came from. Would a person not be well advised to take expert advice in such a case? Well, we know Ainslie/Krebs doesn't, there are ample examples of her ignoring expert advice because she, in her ignorance, believes she knows better.
QuoteThe joke is that he freely admits this. He works as a team and he fronts that team.
And again she expresses her delusion of persecution with yet another lie. She cannot provide any evidence for her accusation that there is some kind of organised "team" persecuting her, nor that I am now or ever have been any part of any "team" of any kind. Ainslie/Krebs.. is really worried about "teams", so she sees them around every corner. However, she lies yet again, as she cannot provide any evidence for the veracity of her delusional and libellous accusations.
Quote
This confrontation is NOT limited to TK. There's always that team in the background - that are well orchestrated and well paid. I suspect that Sean and 'The Boss' are the actual authorities in that campaign. And I'm reasonably certain that their funding is from Oil cartels.
Well, I can tell you this much.... my paycheck seems to be a little late. Four years late, in fact.
Hilarious, isn't it, that she thinks that I am "well paid" and funded by Oil Cartels.... Yep, I keep my laboratory full of fancy new digital equipment well out of sight, pretending to be an impoverished amateur... a tinkerer... a boaster .... when in reality I am the high-powered, well paid frontman for a team paid for by the Oil Cartels and headed by MrSean and The Baas. Her paranoid delusions of persecution and grandeur are right out of a textbook. Yep..... Krebs has really outdone herself .... again.
QuoteNow. TK's entire thread related to this subject - relies on the fiction that our papers claim anything at all related to battery performance. This is gross misrepresentation and I challenge him to show where, in our paper - this claim is made.
Oh, really, Krebs-Ainslie? Apparently I'm more familiar with your daft manuscripts than you are. I've highlighted just a few places where you talk about battery performance, and I've even highlighted where you lie about your measurements. As I've shown USING YOUR OWN DATA, your batteries did indeed show a definite and consistent loss of voltage over the course of several days of experimentation, entirely consistent with normal rates of discharge and ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR LIES.
And of course your entire set of claims for the various monetary prizes you tried to claim were ENTIRELY BASED on the fiction that your batteries exceeded their rated performance.... which you never tested at all, but promised to do so.... over and over again. In fact the judging criteria which you agreed to...or were about to... included specific tests of battery performance. Now you claim that you haven't been claiming anything related to battery performance? You are indeed deluded. Or perhaps you just don't remember, due to your creeping senility.
QuoteSome mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.
QuoteThere was no attempt made in these tests to precisely quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element. This was based on the fact that in all tests and, notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as being anomalous.
More astounding lies about the battery performance.
Quote
The question that remains outside the scope of this study, relates to the location of this source of this
energy if it is not, in fact, coming from the battery supply source. This question goes to the heart of a
thesis that was developed around a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. The
relevant aspect of that model is that it requires this oscillation as a result of the exchange of energy that
is supplied by the circuit material. The proposal is that the voltage and the resulting reversing flow of
the induced current from the oscillation itself, is led by an opposite charge to the battery primary supply
and that the material property of charge is from the circuit material itself. These results are measured in
tests that relate to the first part of this two-part paper. What is here intended is to model the current
comprising magnetic dipoles and to show that the circuit paths would then allow that current reversal
without a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source.
Are you going to say, now, that that last passage is NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR CIRCUIT? Not trying to explain where your energy that you think is not coming from your batteries, is coming from? Are you going to try to claim that these passages do not refer to battery performance, or that you are NOT claiming that your batteries exceed their rated performance when running your circuit?
You probably will.... after all, we know already that words mean whatever YOU want them to mean, not what the dictionary says they mean. You are an Astounding piece of work.
From one side of RAs cavernous lying gash:
"It seems that every comment I make on this forum is answered by Bryan Little or TK et al. It's MOST encouraging"
From the other side of her stupid gaping maw, a short while before:
"When I see omission of comments on my posts at OU.com I KNOW I've hit a home run."
Well, which is it Rose, you idiot?
And I see its full steam ahead on your forum - the goto place for CheeseNyts conspiracy theories, or the semi literate sycophancy of AlienWhines.
I command my oil fuelled flying killer monkeys to destroy free energy everywhere.
Yethh, mawthter, right awayyyyyyy.....
But about those late paychecks..... really now, we are supposed to be yer Lerdship's "well-paid" minions, aren't we? You wouldn't want us lot to defect to the other side, where the payoff is supposed to be infinite.... would you? So come on, tell that lazy paymaster of yours to start cutting us some checks.
"When I see omission of comments on my posts at OU.com I KNOW I've hit a home run."
This just might be another little dig..... if what gmeast says is true, that Ainslie/Krebs's "Brian Little" nemesis is a professional baseball player.
Too bad Maria Krebs herself... or Rose "Mary" Ainslie or whoever she claims to be this week.... is definitely playing in her local Little League and can't hope to compete with real players anywhere.
Do you see? It is just as I told you.
The ignorant lying troll Krebs-Ainslie makes words mean whatever she wants them to mean, not what the dictionary says they mean, and we are supposed to read her mind to try to sort out the boldfaced lies from the mere mendacious implications.
Only in the twisted mind of Ainslie nee Krebs could claiming "no measurable discharge" NOT mean claiming that "the batteries do not deplete".
And once again she repeats the lie about her measurements NOT finding any "depletion of potential", when I've clearly shown USING HER OWN MEASUREMENTS that that claim is false.
QuoteThere was no attempt made in these tests to precisely quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element. This was based on the fact that in all tests and, notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as being anomalous.
ZERO DISCHARGE OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY. FACT. IN ALL TESTS.
Now she is claiming that THIS CLAIM is NOT a claim that the batteries do not deplete !! Just what planet is she from, anyway? Did the unhappy events in Joburg addle Ainslie-Krebs's brain so much that she no longer knows what words even MEAN?
Ah..... words mean whatever she wants them to mean, and will change from day to day.
Oh... and before I forget.... Here's still more evidence for Ainslie's ignorance, her arrogance, and her idiocy: She misspells doggerel as "doggeral" on her forum, and when this was pointed out to her THE FIRST DAY of that thread.... she simply ignored her error and continues to make it.
From the Quantum paper. Is this not a claim that the batteries do not deplete? Or is it just a claim that they failed to measure the batteries depleting? Ainslie-Krebs has been reduced to making semantic maneuvers worthy of a two-dollar politician, attempting now to claim that she hasn't been claiming what she's been claiming, all along.
Would you like a fine net, or a coarse net, when you go fishing for eels?
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT BATTERY VOLTAGE REDUCTION .... if this is not a claim that the batteries did not deplete (significantly), then it must be a statement that THE MEASUREMENTS ARE IN ERROR, because if the measurements are correct (and the report is honest, which it is not) then the batteries must not have depleted, otherwise they would not have produced those measurements.
This is a clear claim, in Ainslie-Krebs's first and only _actual_ publication on this matter, that her batteries did not deplete "significantly" during the course of the experiment.
Guys,
NOTA BENE our lexicographers have long thought that there are missing fundamental words, words that violate our standard grammatical protocols, and that can lead to free vocabulary.
AND also - notwithstanding little TKs attempt to use a spellchecker, which he is SAWELY unqualificated to do on that disgustipating thread of his, would end the tirrany of Big Dictionary.
He has not refuted our spelling, indeed he cannot. How else could he explain that measured Negative Verbiage at Scrabble?
And I can ensure everyone that I will be releasing everything through Open Sores after I've addressed my recent gmeast infection.
Dullest and Worst Retards as always
Rose
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ainslie (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ainslie)
You might want to make a few corrections on THIS PAGE describing your "work", Maria. You have the wrong schematic up, YET AGAIN, showing the Q2x4 transistors on the RIGHT SIDE (that is, the WRONG side) as the "latest version" and you also have the Quantum, completely incorrect, schematic up as well.
QuoteThe circuit here is designed to route energy back through the battery supply to ensure that it recharges the supply thereby conserving the charge of the batteries.
In other words, the batteries are recharged by the circuit and do not deplete. That is what it says!!
Ainslie has also lately claimed that she has NOT claimed that the batteries ARE RECHARGED by the circuit, in contradiction to the PESWiki page... and in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to this passage from the second daft manuscript, copied from her forum today:
QuoteThe circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 and inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of CEMF. A reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enable the generation of a "burst oscillation" mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.
QuoteHi lickle TK - our little Bryan Little - our indomitable little Pickle - our 'ickle' chicken licken - all of 72 pickles tall. Golly. That's REALLY big.
Can someone please explain to this ignorant, overweeningly arrogant idiot lying troll Rosemary Ainslie just exactly what a fool she makes of herself when she posts things like this?
That is truly a statement worthy of Maria Krebs.
Here's your big pickle, Krebs. Where are you going to put it?
QuoteSome mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.
The first bolded statement of course refers to the batteries' rated capacity. The second bolded statement is a baldfaced lie, as shown by Ainslie's own data as presented in the scopeshots over the course of the reported experimental trials.
QuoteGuys - I have pointed this out elsewhere - but possibly need to do so again. Our favourite 'ickle little pickle' - is trying his hand at semantics. Bless him. Somehow he manages to read the term recharge and discharge of a battery as 'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'. Not at all bad. Not too shabby... considering. I take it you know that he suffers from a genetically determined handicap, which restricts his intellect to that of your average farmyard goose. Which is possibly why he answers to the name 'Chicken Licken'. This is actually the name of that well known 'ickle little pickle' that he likes to flaunt. Poor sod. He's rather overstating things... here and there.
You are really a piece of work, AINSLIE. You insult me without cause and worse than that, you cannot even support your insults with any factual references. Yet I show beyond possibility of doubt that YOU are a liar, an idiot, a fool, and a bad poet, with references and quotations and images and other support for all of my contentions. I prove that you are a liar, over and over, with quotations and references. You cannot "prove" in any way that I answer to "chicken licken" or that I "like to flaunt" anything at all. Nor can you support any contention that I "suffer from a genetically determined handicap" of any kind, you insulting liar. My goodness, your lawyers are going to love this stuff.
Ainslie forgets that the CAPITALISED PHRASE above is just what she says here, in these places and more:
QuoteNotwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.
Quotethe results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply.
Quotewithout a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source.
Ainslie-Krebs is entangled in her lies. Some time ago she tried to say that she didn't claim that the batteries recharge. Then she tries to claim that she hasn't referred to battery capacity or performance. Then she tries to claim that she hasn't claimed that the batteries don't deplete. Now she apparently is trying to claim that she has not claimed NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY when she herself says:
QuoteNotwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.
That last is of course a lie, as I have proven by showing her data properly all in one place, but also it DEFINITELY DOES CLAIM what she is now claiming it does not claim.
Seriously.... what is the matter with this woman? How can she contradict herself in the same paragraph, continue to lie about things that have been long shown to be false, and carry on with her overweening and incredibly insulting behaviour? I have never seen anything like it. Her utter and abject hypocrisy is only exceeded by her total idiocy and transparent mendacity.
QuoteNow. TK's entire thread related to this subject - relies on the fiction that our papers claim anything at all related to battery performance. This is gross misrepresentation and I challenge him to show where, in our paper - this claim is made.
What an astounding and amazingly incredible fool she is. Literally in-credible, as in completely NON-credible.
Ainslie asserts in her daft manuscript: "Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all."
Allow me to decode:
VOLTAGE is Potential Difference.
"ANY LOSS AT ALL" means no discharge, whatsoever.
ANY means...well, it means ANY.
"they" refers to the BATTERY SUPPLY.
QuoteGuys - I have pointed this out elsewhere - but possibly need to do so again. Our favourite 'ickle little pickle' - is trying his hand at semantics. Bless him. Somehow he manages to read the term recharge and discharge of a battery as 'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'. Not at all bad. Not too shabby... considering. I take it you know that he suffers from a genetically determined handicap, which restricts his intellect to that of your average farmyard goose. Which is possibly why he answers to the name 'Chicken Licken'. This is actually the name of that well known 'ickle little pickle' that he likes to flaunt. Poor sod. He's rather overstating things... here and there.
Not too shabby. She manages to refute herself, stick her foot further down her throat, libel me with insane insults and prove that she is arrogant beyond all imagining.... in one paragraph. Not too shabby at all. Considering.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 16, 2012, 11:42:22 PM
What an astounding and amazingly incredible fool she is. Literally in-credible, as in completely NON-credible.
It would be better for her to just keep talking chicken licken and pickle stories than to even mention her papers, circuit or batteries. Not that any of it is good. ;) Just one is better than the worst. ;D
Mags
Spamming troll, trolling spam. Rose Maria Krebs-Ainslie proves me right again: she is a lousy poet, with her insulting "doggeral" (sic) and her reliance on sycophantic sock puppets to run her little errands. Did she have retainers like that back in the Joburg days? Or were three-in-a-bed quite enough for her then?
Poor slapper... she is really overstating things. Here, there and everywhere.
Oi idiot,
'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'
'they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all'
Both those statements mean the same thing, and have been proven false by your own data, which shows...
BATTERY VOLTAGE REDUCING OVER TIME = DISCHARGE OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE SUPPLY!
:o
Why do you continue to post those lies?
QuoteSome mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day
That is a baldfaced lie, as shown by Ainslie's own scope shots with time stamps and her real-time blogging. The batteries WERE NOT USED at a level of 20 Watts for five hours EACH WORKING DAY (five days a week by normal standards) FOR 10 MONTHS.... they were used intermittently a couple of hours a day, one or two days a week IF THAT MUCH, over the course of a college semester. There is NO EVIDENCE that Ainsile did what she claims, and there is SOLID EVIDENCE that the usage schedule is what I say. Where are scopeshots that indicate five consecutive days of usage? Nowhere. Where are the scopeshots that show such usage, during EACH OF THE TEN MONTHS Ainslie claims to have used them? Nowhere. There ARE, however, solid sequences, consecutively numbered automatically by the oscilloscope, that show highly intermittent usage of a few hours on a few days during a few months. The EVIDENCE does not support the usage schedule Ainslie claims.
Quote, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.
That is ANOTHER BALDFACED LIE, as I have repeatedly shown using AINSLIE's OWN DATA. The data from Ainslie CLEARLY SHOW a steady and normal depletion of the battery voltage over the course of a series of trials. There is no "wild fluctuation" as Ainslie has claimed, there is a perfectly normal discharge curve that can be drawn from her data... and the FACT that the batteries show ANY reduction in voltage is STRONG EVIDENCE that they are in a state of substantial DISCHARGE already... in short, Ainslie has taken the VOLTAGE of nominal 12 volt LEAD ACID BATTERIES of HIGH CAPACITY, and as long as that voltage was above 12 volts each, she believes... or claims to believe.... that they are "still fully charged" and "have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all"..... when they clearly do show this loss, on her own scopetraces. Every time this statement is repeated, SHE LIES AGAIN, and I can prove it, have done so and will continue to do so whenever CREDIBLY challenged by anyone. I will make this PROOF of her lies available to ANY AND EVERY EDITOR of any journal to which Ainslie might submit any documents. When all her scopeshots are gathered together, arranged in chronological order by timestamp, and in numerical sequence by the auto-assigned filename (something Ainslie has resisted with tooth and nail, leaving it to HER DETRACTORS to gather her data into one place for easy reference) it can be clearly seen by ANYONE WITH EYES and a functioning brain that Ainslie's lying claims in this regard are completely spurious and in fact are deliberately designed to deceive and conceal the FACT that her batteries DO IN FACT DISCHARGE NORMALLY DURING THE COURSE OF HER "EXPERIMENTATION". Of course no one has ever accused SheSaidSquat of having a functioning brain.
QuoteNor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire.
Caught fire..... Yes, during the event where you damaged your borrowed oscilloscope by creating a ground loop with the reference leads. But WHERE ARE THESE MIRACLE BATTERIES NOW, that either "did" discharge or "didn't discharge" depending on which claim you are trying to repudiate lately? They are conveniently missing, so their state of charge CAN NEVER BE DETERMINED. This however does not deter you from continuing to LIE about their capacity, their performance, and their depletion.
QuoteHowever there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts.
Why should there have been? Nothing unusual ACTUALLY occurred that would warrant any further investigation of these missing batteries. The laboratory you sent your apparatus off to was a CHEMISTRY LABORATORY and your "chemistry experts" found NOTHING ANOMALOUS and that their batteries discharged normally during use. They even sent you materials so that you could CORRECT your bogus measurements and see for yourself that you had nothing of interest or importance.. but you refused to do the tests they suggested, and nothing more has been heard of this entire program.... which after all was only a delaying tactic, one of many, that enabled you to continue to AVOID DOING THE TESTING YOU HAVE BEEN PROMISING TO DO, for YEARS now.
Quoteresults therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.
You have no idea what "classical measurement protocols" are for this kind of investigation and you couldn't implement them if you tried.
There, is that clear enough for you, lying Rose Marie Krebs Ainslie, and reeking sockpuppet YouSaidSquat?
You find my arguments illogical, when I CLEARLY REFUTE YOU AT EVERY STAGE, with references that show your lies? I laugh at you, Krebs, or whatever you are calling yourself these days.
Let's do a quick review.
Some time ago Ainslie tried to claim that she had never claimed that the batteries recharge or are recharged during use. This claim was refuted by references to the PESWiki page, to her daft manuscripts, and to many statements she herself made in various blogposts and forum threads.
Then, just a few days ago, she tried to claim that she never referred to battery performance at all in her daft manuscripts. This was easily refuted with direct quotations from both of the later versions.
Then she tried to change the meaning of what she said before, by claiming that she actually MEANT to claim that there was no depletion of potential difference, or some such verbiage, while acknowledging that she certainly DID do what she had claimed earlier not to have done.
This most recent claim has also easily been refuted with direct quotes from ALL THREE of her manuscripts, the error-ridden Quantum article and the two many-times-rejected daft manuscripts that STILL DO NOT AGREE with the actual circuit used in the trials.
And now she is entangling herself with her own lies and squiggly squirmings, trying to make her words mean something else yet again. Soon she will try to convince you that she never tried to gain those three monetary awards based on her lying claims of COP>INFINITY.
Ainslie has come to the point where she now realises that NONE of the claims she has made concerning her "experimentation" are valid, with the exception of the "measured negative power", which of course has been independently replicated many times, and has been thoroughly analyzed, simulated in software and constructed in hardware, and is NOT any indication of what she claims it is. So just what is Ainslie-Krebs reduced to claiming? Not much at all, there is nothing left of her mendacious edifice of lies ...... she must content herself with her unsupported canards-- and her morbid sexual fascinations with a giant pickle.
In this video, posted BY AINSLIE HERSELF, on one of her two extant YouTube channels, one can clearly see just what bogus claims are being made by Ainslie and her clueless "team" of NERDS ....things like "more energy returned to the source than was supplied" (which is of course a lie) but there are much more important things that can be clearly seen as well.
(And of course we recall that Ainslie tried ONCE AGAIN and OVER AND OVER to lie about this video, claiming that she did not post it..... a claim easily refuted and shown to be a lie, by looking at the "dooziedont" YT channel, her blog posts on the day of posting, and her forum posts here.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
First, note carefully the position of the BLACK wire from the function generator output cable. It is clearly connected to the COMMON CIRCUIT GROUND POINT along with all of the scope reference leads. This is in CONTRADICTION to the correct (and actually unused) location given on the circuit diagrams in EVERY ONE of the versions of her daft manuscripts. This INCORRECT location of the Black FG output lead can be seen in EVERY PHOTOGRAPH of the 5- mosfet apparatus and EVEN IN THE SINGLE-MOSFET APPARATUS used by Ainslie. Only in the schematics--- prepared and edited WELL AFTER THE VIDEO DEMO -- does the Black FG lead suddenly "appear" in the correct location to enable proper measurement of current in the apparatus. The inescapable conclusion is that this lead was also clipped to this Wrong location as shown in the video, during the trials that are cited in the "experimental" writeups: the daft manuscripts.
This fact of the placement of the Black FG lead not only proves that Ainslie lies about her experiment and circuitry, but also COMPLETELY INVALIDATES ALL CURRENT DATA given in the reports of the "experimental" trials.
Second..... note the lies about the actual schematic used in the video demo. The narrator shows a diagram on paper, saying that this is the circuit used. But the diagram has ONLY A SINGLE MOSFET and does not show the placement of the Black FG output lead AT ALL. It is NOT the circuit used at all. He then gestures to the apparatus itself and says that all five mosfets are in parallel. Which of course THEY ARE NOT.
Third.......... for the "high heat" demonstration, one of the five (not six) batteries used in the "lowheat" portion of the demo WAS REMOVED WITHOUT EXPLANATION, leaving only a 48 volt nominal battery pack for this portion of the demonstration. WHY? I know why: to protect the Q1 mosfet on its tiny heatsink from failing due to overheating and exceeding the maximum drain current, which it would have done FOR SURE had the full 72 volts been used, and likely would have occurred even with only 60 volts. To avoid an embarrassing mosfet failure, they removed a battery, dropping the voltage to a value that would not exceed the mosfet's current and power dissipation ratings. Do the math (tm Ainslie): with a total circuit resistance of 14 ohms, about, what is the current in the system if 72 (or 60) volts are applied? What is the power dissipation of a 2-Ohm Rdss mosfet carrying that current? What does the IRFPG50 data sheet say are the absolute maximum limits for the mosfet ON A GOOD HEATSINK?
We have NEVER had any explanation AT ALL for the removal of that battery... and I am sure than mine is correct.
What do you think of all of that, SheSaidSquat? Care to refute ANY of those points, which each individually prove that the demo is full of lies and together invalidate the claims altogether, while showing clearly just what a liar Ainslie really is, and even how she manipulates other people into lying for her?
Don't forget that Ainslie carried on the fiction about how the circuit was actually wired for nearly a solid MONTH, during which time replication and simulation efforts were underway, all using the WRONG CIRCUIT, and Ainslie continued to lie about it the whole time. And when it was finally revealed by .99, Ainslie actually said that she wanted to continue the deception and was disappointed that .99 revealed the truth.
What do you think of that? How in the world can any of that behaviour on their part, any of those Ains-lie claims, be justified at all?
Below you will find attached screenshots taken TODAY, 17 November 2012, of some of the various versions of the NERD circuit schematic that are still extant:
From the PESWiki article describing Ainslie's "work" and claims;
From the "official publication" on Rossi's vanity blog "Journal of Nuclear Physics", from each of the two daft manuscripts posted there;
From the version of the second manuscript posted on her honeytrap forum right now.
The careful observer will note that there are two different versions given, and that the difference is highly significant when the current-carrying capability of the two circuits under the duty cycles used, is compared. Which circuit version was actually used? NEITHER ONE, because they both show the FG black (-) lead placed not on the common ground where the photos show it was actually placed, but "correctly" on the transistor side of the CVR "shunt".
And of course here is a quote from that last version:
Quote
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 and inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of CEMF. A reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enable the generation of a "burst oscillation" mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.
Does Ainslie here claim that the batteries are recharged by the circuit? Or not?
The words of a deluded psychotic, despised by everyone in the open source community.
Would any one of the thousands of members of this forum care to say otherwise?
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 18, 2012, 10:25:46 AM
"My dearest little Pickle - or TK - or Bryan Little
As I've just explained to a correspondent of mine - I am perpetually challenged to answer your absurd posts - sensibly. Which is clearly beyond my competence. I was hoping that my doggerel would assist the cause and lend it a certain gravitas. But apparently not.
While your rather repetitive references, which are all of them so PERFECTLY 'out of date' - 'out of true' or 'out of context' - while they all of them depend on these MAGNIFICENTLY gross distortions - what actually 'comes through' is a sense that you don't like me? Could this be true? Are you simply using your EXQUISITELY illogical arguments to HIDE this dislike?
I confess to feeling rather hurt. Because try as I might I sense that you really don't feel nearly as much for me as I do for you. I DO hope I'm wrong. Please RUSH to a post and deny these possibilities. My emotional equilibrium - my very sanity - depends on your answer.
MOST earnestly
Rosie Pose"
otherwise... ::)
As usual, Ainslie lies. The images OF HER CLAIMED CIRCUIT were captured yesterday, 18 november 2012, from AINSLIE'S OWN POSTED DAFT MANUSCRIPTS. All the quotations I have cited are from her own PRESENTLY POSTED material. If any of it is "out of date" then it is AINSLIE's OWN RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAN UP HER MESS by posting retractions and corrections that will remove these "out of date" claims and images of hers. Every quotation, every claim of hers, every diagram.... is from material CURRENTLY POSTED RIGHT NOW ON THE INTERNET, and none of it is accompanied by any kind of correction or retraction from AINSLIE. It is all current, not "out of date" at all.
She insults and whines and complains, yet SHE CANNOT REFUTE ONE SINGLE FACT about her or her claims that I have brought to the attention of the public. Not one !!
Yes, Ainslie-Krebs, I do not "like" you. You have maligned and insulted and lied about me for YEARS with your vile putrid mendacity and false claims, you cannot support ANY of your contentions about me with references to evidence, most especially this current idiocy about Brian Little; you have demonstrated over and over that you are not "likeable" at all. You probably chew with your mouth open and smoke at the dinner table. You are overweeningly arrogant, but even worse than that.... you are simply WRONG almost all of the time. I still shake my head in bemusement at things you've claimed, like "THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL AS INDUCTIVE REACTANCE" or that the Solstice (or Equinox) comes in July -- or that I am Brian (or Bryan) Little.
Most especially.... your claim that your batteries do not discharge. And laughably... your present attempt to distance yourself from that MANY TIMES REFUTED claim. But you've made it in too many places and in too many ways for you to back off now and claim that you didn't try to claim that your batteries get RECHARGED by your circuit and that they DO NOT DEPLETE THEIR POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE or several other ways you've made the same claim.
You talk about "publication".... you need to publish retractions of everything: the Quantum article that has a circuit that does not function as you claim, the present daft manuscripts that are full of errors and mendacity and fabricated descriptions of your procedures, the "data" that indicates that you have blown transistors, the lies about the circuit used..... all of the garbage you've strewn about must be retracted, if you have any integrity at all. But we know already that you do not.
And this current fascination with Brian Little's pickle..... makes you look even more incredibly STUPID than ever. You are a laughingstock and you don't even have the wit to realize it.
I challenge you, YET AGAIN Ainslie, liar, failure, fool: Produce EVEN ONE of those great refutations you claimed you would do as soon as you got your scope back, or as soon as you got your apparatus back, or as soon as your batteries arrived, or as soon as your guests leave, or as soon as the funeral is over, or as soon as you feel better, or as soon as your computer is recovered...... POST YOUR DEMONSTRATION THAT REFUTES OUR ANALYSIS OF YOUR FIGURE 2 SCOPESHOT, which shows ZERO CURRENT, yet shows the Q1 mosfet getting +12 volts at its gate. YOU CANNOT.
This kind of data cannot be obtained if the mosfets are intact and your circuit is wired as you claim. YOU MUST ADDRESS THIS ISSUE by either refuting our analysis with a SOLID DEMONSTRATION, or you must retract your bogus daft manuscripts altogether, as they are based on INCORRECT and IMPROPER DATA, false claims about schematics used, and bogus conclusions drawn from imaginary experimental results.... like your "bringing water to boil".... when you did no such thing.
YOU HAVE PROMISED OVER AND OVER TO REFUTE OUR ANALYSYS OF THIS SCOPESHOT. Among many other promises you've made and failed to keep.
But you cannot.... because we are correct. Your "papers" are completely invalid. AND ALL THIS INFORMATION IS CURRENT, and will be until you post retractions and corrections.
Taken out of context? NO, Ainslie, it is YOU who now are attempting to back off from the outrageous claims you've been making very clearly FOR YEARS. You provide all the context needed to understand that you are a liar, an ignoramus, and you cannot produce what you claim. You are incapable, you are incompetent, you are uneducated, you are a liar, and .... you are WRONG.
For example.... show some evidence that your Black FG lead was positioned as in your schematics for the experimental trials.... instead of at the common ground point AS SHOWN IN THE STILL PHOTOS OF EVERY APPARATUS YOU HAVE EVER PHOTOGRAPHED, including the single mosfet versions. YOU CANNOT.... because the experiment was IN FACT performed just as in your video demo.... with the FG Black lead at the common ground point.... which makes your "published" schematics.... ALL OF THEM.... lies, and which completely invalidates all of the data you try to use to support your claims in both of your daft manuscripts.
(NOTE ALSO: the scopeshots below show a CLEAR AND DEFINITE DECREASE in "battery potential difference"... that is, battery VOLTAGE, battery STATE OF CHARGE.... during the day that the shots were taken. ONCE AGAIN, one of Ainslie's major claims is soundly refuted by HER OWN DATA.)
Note well: the scopeshots I posted above show the BLUE trace which is the Function Generator output signal, which is applied to the Gate of Q1 IF THE CLAIMED SCHEMATICS ARE VALID. This transistor is receiving +12 volts according to the oscilloscope trace during the non-oscillating portions of the duty cycle. The supplied battery voltage is over 72 volts. A functioning mosfet should be FULLY ON if it is getting a gate signal of +12 volts, or even six volts and sometimes even as little as 4 volts.... but the scopetrace clearly shows +12 volts gate signal to the Q1 mosfet.
The total circuit resistance IF THE CLAIMED SCHEMATICS ARE VALID is around 14 Ohms when the Q1 mosfet is on and conducting power to the load. Ohm's Law tells us that the CURRENT flowing in that Q1 mosfet IF IT IS TURNED ON, FUNCTIONAL, and WIRED AS CLAIMED, will be AT LEAST 72/14 = 5.14 Amperes. And yet the golden trace, which is the voltage drop across the current-viewing "shunt" resistor.... shows ABSOLUTELY NO CURRENT during these times, as anyone with eyes can see.
This mosfet, as anyone can see from the still photos and the video demo, is on a small bit of aluminum U-channel, not a proper heatsink for a TO-247 device at all. Anyone with familiarity with the operation and use of mosfets will be shuddering at these numbers. In the scopeshot above, used as evidence for Ainslie's claims in her manuscripts, the Q1 mosfet is clearly failed open, and the reasons are clear: it was operated beyond its maximum performance parameters. All the more ironically, because if the schematic in the First Version of the Second Manuscript... the version that is STILL POSTED AS AN "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION" on Rossi's JNP vanity blog.... if that version had actually been used the 4 paralleled mosfets acting as Q1 would have been adequate and would not have failed. THE VERY REASON FOR THESE EXTRA MOSFETS IN THE FIRST PLACE is that she was blowing the lone Q1 mosfets with the 72 volt applied voltage and the long on-time duty cycles! But due to her miswiring mistake, and her prevarication and mendacity about the actual schematic used, she is now locked into the lone Q1 configuration. And thus.... the continuing problem with blowing the Q1 mosfet whenever 72 volts... or even 60 volts.... and long on-times are used.
The Video Demonstration even proves this: ONE BATTERY WAS REMOVED, leaving only 48 volts input, for the long-on-time second part of the video demo.... and Ainslie and her sycophants have NEVER explained why.
But I have explained why ... it was because she didn't want to have a failure of her apparatus right there in public.
Below, for comparison, I show one of Ainslie's scopeshots that have this mosfet still functioning and passing current. It even gets less than the +12 volt gate drive signals in the shots above, it's getting more like a bit over six volts apparently, well sufficient to turn it on .... and the golden Current trace clearly shows a high current flow, as it should. Even at a supply voltage of just over 48 volts.... FOUR batteries.
I believe that this Video Demo, which uses NOT the 72 volts advertised but starts out with only nominally 60 volts (5 batteries), contains the "smoking gun" that shows that Ainslie is a conscious fraud, not just a fool making freshman EE errors. This smoking gun is the REMOVAL OF THE FIFTH BATTERY in the second half of the demo, leaving only a nominal 48 volts supply. Ainslie and her sycophants have never explained OR EVEN ADDRESSED this issue at all. Every time I mention it, it is simply ignored by Ainslie. Why was it done in the first place? It was done to lower the current through the lone Q1 mosfet during the long ON times required for the apparatus to produce significant heating in the load. This shows very clearly two things: first, the "off time" oscillations do not and cannot produce the high heat claimed by Ainslie, so the ON time must be increased for the load to heat substantially. And second.... and more importantly.... the demonstrators-- some of them at least-- KNEW that the use of the full 72 volts, and perhaps even the less-than-full 60 volts, would likely blow the Q1 mosfet from overheating.... and they wanted to conceal that fact.
In short, I believe that the Video Demo, taken along with the other data from Ainslie, demonstrated a CONSCIOUS DELIBERATE FRAUD, an attempt to deceive by omission and outright lies. (The description of the circuit used, showing the paper diagram of the single mosfet, and the narrator's statement of "5 mosfets in parallel" are not errors.... they are deliberate lies in an attempt to cover up the true state of affairs.)
Ainslie was so proud of this video demo that, immediately on posting it, she notified everyone on the OU thread and also her blog readers with ecstatic announcements. Yet... when we started discussing it in the locked thread and in this one .... she claimed, in all caps yet, that she "DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO".... when it is manifestly true that she did. She made a deliberate attempt to hide and cover up her attempts at deliberate deception and fraud contained in that video. Her tangled webs of lies and deceit are worthy of a Batman movie plot.... and nothing else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
.
Proof of ROSEMARY AINSLIE's lies about posting the video:
First, three posts where she announces the downloading and posting of the video ON HER YOUTUBE CHANNEL and presents it as support for her claims.
Next, two forum posts where she DENIES POSTING IT, denies having anything to do with posting it or making it public, or that it has anything to do with her claims.
QED.
Note well this fact: her blog post 96 is titled THE PROOF. She is here presenting the VIDEO DEMO as proof.... of what? Why, of her claims of course, in clear contradiction to her later claims that the video only "relates" to her claims....whatever that prevarication might mean in straight English.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 17, 2012, 01:02:56 PM
This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. .
Kindest regards
Rosie"
Umm, didnt she just say the other day that she didnt have "chemistry experts"? ;)
Magzy
And... last in this series, but very much not least.... her clear statement that she deliberately engaged in fraud concerning the schematics presented in the video and the verbal description of the circuit.... and even more remarkably, the statement that she wished to continue that fraud even longer !!
Quote from: Magluvin on November 18, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
Umm, didnt she just say the other day that she didnt have "chemistry experts"? ;)
Magzy
She says whatever pops into her mendacious, deluded mind. It need have no relationship to reality or to anything she's said before. In just the past days we've seen her redefine her own words, claim that she hasn't claimed what she claims, and even just make stuff up out of her head.
The laboratory in the USA that she sent her apparatus off to a few months ago (minus the original, miracle batteries) , as an excuse to avoid doing any testing of her own, is a chemical laboratory full of chemists. And they confirmed that batteries powered by her circuit DO IN FACT DISCHARGE NORMALLY, which, remarkably, she actually reported. This lab also explained to her how her own measurements were in error, and even gave her some alternative resistors to use in the CVR "shunt" position and perhaps in the load position, and told her how to make accurate measurements and how to interpret them properly. None of this, did she actually deign to do. Or, if she did, she has kept silent about the results, and won't even tell anyone what components the lab sent her to use.
A heads up: Ainslie has apparently remembered her password for her "dooziedont" YT account, and has changed the name of that account to her own name Rosemary Ainslie. YouTube has been encouraging account holders to do this for a couple of weeks or so.
I expect this is a move on her part to try to distance herself from the "dooziedont" username ..... the account username that DID post the video of the demo.
Funny, though, that the URL still has her original "dooziedont" username in it, thus tying her Ainslie moniker to the dooziedont username hard and fast and irrefutably.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont?feature=watch (http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont?feature=watch)
And she's posted her own email address for the world to see. I hope she's got a better spam filter than her honeytrap forum has !!
It appears that our friend GMEAST is challenged by the Truth, for he says that he has sent email to our good host Stefan protesting his allowing me to post it.
Yet no one emails forum hosts about the utter and abject mendacity of the insulting and arrogant Rosemary Ainslie, which I have documented with her own words and data, references and screenshots. I am not allowed to tell the truth, and it's just fine to allow her to lie.
Gmeast, you can post here. Why don't you REFUTE me, with references, about some particular bit of Truth I've posted concerning Ainslie? Because you cannot, that's why. So you complain, behind my back, to my host, clearly in an attempt to damage me, and to prevent the Truth about Ainslie and her claims from being known.
It is indeed astounding. On March 22, 2011, Ainslie posts a video, announces it in this forum and on her blog with great pride as PROOF of her claims. Thirteen short days later, on April 4, 2011, she denies not only posting it, but also that it represents her claims. And it is this kind of thing that Gmeast apparently objects to... not AINSLIE doing it, but me recording it, providing references and proof of the actions, and pointing it out as proof of her mendacity.
:-X
.
Hey, yeah. Didnt she just say the other day that she never contested for prizes? lol
Have you been reading GMeast? Do you see it yet? ;)
Mags
Whao, Ainslie pulls a double reversal!!! :o :o ;)
Magsy
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 19, 2012, 02:05:42 AM
Did you see this?
"Dear Bryan Little - better known as 'ickle pickle'
Many thanks for re-posting that challenge for the OVER UNITY prizes offered by Prof Jones, Poynty Point and Stefan Hartman. THAT OFFER or THE CHALLENGE - STILL STANDS. Any takers?
Rosie Pose"
Thanks, sock puppet. Maybe you are good for something after all: like a motheaten sock that's lost its partner, it can still be useful for cleanups and spills.
You have saved me the trouble of documenting _yet another_ of Rosemary Ainslie's transparent duplicities.
However, it of course goes into the database, for the amusement of imaginary lawyers everywhere.
If anyone knows who Bryan (or Brian) Little is, please tell him he's got messages waiting... a whole slew of them..... which, when he reads them all at once, will likely make him ill at the evidence of Ainslie's sick and wrothful soul.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 19, 2012, 12:52:12 AM
It appears that our friend GMEAST is challenged by the Truth, for he says that he has sent email to our good host Stefan protesting his allowing me to post it.
Yet no one emails forum hosts about the utter and abject mendacity of the insulting and arrogant Rosemary Ainslie, which I have documented with her own words and data, references and screenshots. I am not allowed to tell the truth, and it's just fine to allow her to lie.
Gmeast, you can post here. Why don't you REFUTE me, with references, about some particular bit of Truth I've posted concerning Ainslie? Because you cannot, that's why. So you complain, behind my back, to my host, clearly in an attempt to damage me, and to prevent the Truth about Ainslie and her claims from being known.
It is indeed astounding. On March 22, 2011, Ainslie posts a video, announces it in this forum and on her blog with great pride as PROOF of her claims. Thirteen short days later, on April 4, 2011, she denies not only posting it, but also that it represents her claims. And it is this kind of thing that Gmeast apparently objects to... not AINSLIE doing it, but me recording it, providing references and proof of the actions, and pointing it out as proof of her mendacity.
You are one sick jerk! How much time do you spend daily nurturing your hate? Spend your time productively. You won't win, in fact your continual, senseless diarrhea of the mouth proves you are on a self-destructive spiral. You're going to pop like a ripe zit. No one will clean up the mess?
Quote from: gmeast on November 19, 2012, 09:30:37 AM
You are one sick jerk! How much time do you spend daily nurturing your hate? Spend your time productively. You won't win, in fact your continual, senseless diarrhea of the mouth proves you are on a self-destructive spiral. You're going to pop like a ripe zit. No one will clean up the mess?
Preserved for posterity.
And again we note that GMEAST chooses not to refute me.... for he cannot.... but chooses instead to insult me, once again, in a vile and disgusting manner.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 19, 2012, 10:08:26 AM
Preserved for posterity.
And again we note that GMEAST chooses not to refute me.... for he cannot.... but chooses instead to insult me, once again, in a vile and disgusting manner.
I was wrong in calling you a "jerk". I'm sorry.
As far as 'refuting' you goes, that will take care of itself in due course. In fact, it's already happened, you're just not paying attention.
As far as this Bryan Little stuff goes, anyone by that name knows that it would be stupid to try and claim any defamation or damages whatsoever. Why, because there has to be exposure to legitimize any claim of damage as well as intent to defame the 'real' Bryan Little ... and that intent ain't there. The exposure here is zero, zip, nada, etc. Ask 100 people on the street if they've ever heard of free energy, alternative energy, radiant energy, magnetic vortices, Overunity.com or, least of all, TK or TinselKoala. Ask that question and you'll only get an answer of "HUH ?*%#$@". No one's listening because no one cares.
Found this:
"Tinsel: something superficially attractive or glamorous but of little real worth ......."
You should think more of yourself ... oh! that's right you already do.
Oh well, back to my 'fakery' of proving the heater actually works.
Quote from: gmeast on November 19, 2012, 03:15:11 PM
I was wrong in calling you a "jerk". I'm sorry.
Apology noted. Will change in behaviour result? What about the "verbal diarrhoea", the "pop like a zit".... still feeling like those are appropriate responses to me?
Quote
As far as 'refuting' you goes, that will take care of itself in due course. In fact, it's already happened, you're just not paying attention.
You are right... I did not notice the publication of your astounding results in a scientific journal, or the reports of replication by qualified laboratories that understand calorimetry. Link please?
And I didn't find, anywhere, anything that refutes my contention and proofs that Ainslie is a liar. Link?
Quote
As far as this Bryan Little stuff goes, anyone by that name knows that it would be stupid to try and claim any defamation or damages whatsoever. Why, because there has to be exposure to legitimize any claim of damage as well as intent to defame the 'real' Bryan Little ... and that intent ain't there. The exposure here is zero, zip, nada, etc. Ask 100 people on the street if they've ever heard of free energy, alternative energy, radiant energy, magnetic vortices, Overunity.com or, least of all, TK or TinselKoala. Ask that question and you'll only get an answer of "HUH ?*%#$@". No one's listening because no one cares.
Rosemary Ainslie obviously cares, and is obviously trying to damage that particular Bryan (or Brian) Little in whatever way she can. Why do you think she went through the rigamarole of "revealing" that as her deluded identification of my identity, including the imaginary "fact" that I'm in Kentucky (or was it Tennessee) at the University there? And do you seriously think that these forums are the only places Ainslie emits out her vile canards? Just like you are, she's a great emailer, and has tried to identify people's employers and families, for her email campaigns. I think I understand Ainslie's motivations better than you do.... after all she's been attacking me for pointing out her false claims, lies, ignorance of her topic, and bad writing for around four years now.... and for some others here, for over TWELVE years. You are a freshman, a noob, when it comes to understanding the psychology of Rosemary Ainslie. Speaking of psychology.... I wonder how many professional baseball players moonlight as psychologists? Or is it the other way around.....
Quote
Found this:
"Tinsel: something superficially attractive or glamorous but of little real worth ......."
You should think more of yourself ... oh! that's right you already do.
Well... I do, or I don't... which is it? Unlike some people, I know where my limitations lie, I know that I can always learn something and that I don't know everything about most things.... and I also know that I do know just about everything about one or two things that you know nothing at all about. I'm always ready to revise my knowledge when confronted with facts and references, and I certainly am NOT arrogant enough to believe that I've got an overunity device on my workbench.... four, right now in fact, all using different principles.... because I get some kind of result that looks anomalous to me. My very FIRST and usually correct assumption is that I've made a mistake somewhere.
I'd explain the history of my alias to you - as if you cared - but that would require you to understand the story of Archer Quinn, and the literary use of irony to make a point. The story of Quinn and his "Sword of God" is long gone, but my username here remains. I kind of like it.... I always watch for when my impotent enemies quote a dictionary definition of "tinsel" to me. I could have used "silent".... but I have no intention of being silent when I see the kinds of abuse that people like Quinn, and Ainslie, and Mylow, and others wreak on the whole program of alternate energy research. You really should strive to avoid joining that group, by cleaning up your experimental act and doing your homework a bit more thoroughly.
Quote
Oh well, back to my 'fakery' of proving the heater actually works.
Here I will point out that "fakery" is your term and that no one that I know of has ever accused _you_ of data falsification or of faking anything. Can you provide a link to something I've missed?
You have, though, made a lot of errors, caused by simple ignorance, made extravagant claims based on those errors, (some of which, not all, have been corrected) and you've avoided taking good advice, caused by your arrogance. You really should submit a paper on your work to a legitimate journal, just to see what feedback you get from the editors.
"You are right... I did not notice the publication of your astounding results in a scientific journal, or the reports of replication by qualified laboratories that understand calorimetry. Link please?And I didn't find, anywhere, anything that refutes my contention and proofs that Ainslie is a liar. Link?"
Oh... you are referring to your notion that Rosie is a liar. I don't know anything about that and don't care either. I thought you were referring to the notion that the heater doesn't actually work. Well, the heater DOES actually work and produces more energy (and power) OUT in the form of equivalent Heat than is INPUT in electrical energy (and power), albeit not at COP Infinity or COP>17, or 10, or 5, but it does perform a COP>1 as hard as that is for you to accept. And this is for my hardware, not the same as hers, or yours, etc.
So I made many mistakes at the onset of these investigations. And saying it right here and now, is AGAIN an admission of that AND still goes UNACKNOWLEDGED by you guys (as if I need your approval in the first place). Speaking of arrogance, you and your band of self righteous slammed me to the mat hard and viciously, so I shut you out. But I do thank you for pointing out the 'oscillation / scope ground loop' thing. I don't tune for the oscillations anyway.
I'm NOT aligned with Rosie in any way, and, in fact, she recommends that I distance myself from her for my own good so I don't end up on the receiving end of the kind of treatment you have hurled her way (her words). Well, if I do distance myself, I won't be employing YOUR insensitive and inhumane tactics.
BUT ... in spite of EVERYTHING, I'm still glad I invested in this research because what I have seen from the last few experiments tells me this technology is real, viable, valid and practical ... worthy of further investigation and perhaps even worthy of a preliminary effort aimed at some sort of product development.
Quoteperhaps even worthy of a preliminary effort aimed at some sort of product development.
How about a personal wireless hotspot and cellphone jammer that is also a coffee cup heater? lol
There should be no 'us' and 'them', no hurt egos. Only facts, measurements, math and a grain of common sense. Otherwise, it's COP>insanity.
If something doesn't add up, I would first look, very hard, for the error in my calculation instead of declaring math obsolete.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on November 19, 2012, 09:35:36 PM
There should be no 'us' and 'them', no hurt egos. Only facts, measurements, math and a grain of common sense. Otherwise, it's COP>insanity.
If something doesn't add up, I would first look, very hard, for the error in my calculation instead of declaring math obsolete.
Who declared math obsolete?
Quote from: gmeast on November 19, 2012, 09:45:08 PM
Who declared math obsolete?
It is an analogy. You implied that your experimental results defy CoE but you reject criticism. You deleted comments on your experiment that raised valid questions. Instead of triple-checking and peer reviewing your results, you chose to enjoy Ainslie stroking your ego.
This may sound like an insult, but it is a honest opinion and an invitation to participate in an open and truthful discourse with the regular posters in this thread, something Ainslie can't offer. Read this thread from beginning to end, if you don't believe it.
@gmeast:
Well, there, that was a reasonable and considered response on your part, thank you for that.
Yes, I am most concerned about Ainslie's claims, and I'm happy to let you off the hook on those, even though I think you should write up and post the complete story of how you got started: the initial examination of the NERD circuit and your rejection of it as unworkable, but your consideration of the Quantum circuit as something you might try; your initial response at finding that the 555 timer "didn't work", and what you actually found that it did do and how the circuit behaved; the story of the recirculation diode that was or was not supposed to be in the circuit but definitely was not in the Quantum schematic, the results of testing the circuit with your own clock and finding the results of the application of the duty cycles claimed by Ainslie in the article .... and the reasons why you branched out of the more exact replication of Ainslie's Quantum circuit and claims, and went on to your completely different mosfet switching circuit. This story deserves to be told; it is important and you worked hard on it. It would not be intellectually honest for you to not report your attempts to replicate the Quantum claims.
The issue of your mistakes comes up because just saying "I made a mistake, I won't do it again" doesn't reassure us that you actually understand. If you only would say "yes, I see and understand .99's and TK's analysis of the problem and I see that I applied the duty cycle twice, here and here, and now I understand that the problem has to be worked like this and so, and this here is the result I get when I do it correctly, and I retract my earlier conclusion of COP 4" .... that would put the matter entirely to rest, and would have done so at the very beginning. But that's not how you approached the matter.
You are indeed right to distance yourself from Ainslie. It's difficult to see how you can do that though, since your "home forum" appears to be her honeytrap, and you are in back-channel communication with her, that isn't public, unless I miss my guess. There is no way that you should fear any treatment like Ainslie gets.... unless you start fabricating data, lying about your claims, insulting people over and over who are only trying to help you, censoring threads (oops... be careful), seeking monetary awards based on false claims, redefining common words to suit your changing purposes, and making crazy and fundamental errors like "One Joule is One Watt Per Second" and clinging to them in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary..... if you do those kinds of things... you might need to fear somebody calling you on them.
However if you continue to engage in reasonable discussion, avoid the egregious insult, do your work honestly and report positive as well as negative results..... take instruction where you are ignorant, share your own specialized knowledge.... what have you to fear from anyone?
And as far as "treatment being hurled her way"..... again, you haven't done your homework, I think. Read the pages in the locked thread before and after I came into this project, and you will see just how insulting and dismissive of others she really is, and you will begin to see the source of some of my ire. She can sure dish it out... but she cannot take it without whining and escalating and getting _really really_ nasty. Treatment hurled her way? Just read her "doggeral" (sic) thread for some hurling treatments. Ainslie is the Red Queen of the insult, the smarmy snide comment, the disrespect of others, the misquote, the bogus attribution. See for yourself, look up the old thread and read it. It's a real hoot, especially now that you know the story of the "demo video" and its various claimed schematics.
Now... as to the issue of whether or not your results "refute" me or not.... I don't think they do, and here's why. In the first place I have criticised your experimental methodology and the suitability of the apparatus you are using to make the kinds of determinations you are attempting. Secondly, because of the similarity of your basic concept to the long-discredited and soundly disproven antics of YouKnowWho.... you must expect to be tarred by the same brush, at least initially, and your work to receive extra intense scrutiny.... especially considering where and how you choose to release your results. The fact that you made those early errors, and clung to them so vehemently, didn't help your cause in this regard, either.
So at this point we have your reported results, that indicate to you a slight degree of overunity performance. That's great, it gives you a solid target; many researchers are not nearly as fortunate as that. But these results are simply not "believable"... not in the sense that they could be fabricated; I saw your raw data notebook photo and I can't tell you how important that was and how much I respect you for showing it. But unbelievable in the sense that they go against the textbooks, if you want to put it that way, and as such, require very stringent proofs. And your work, as reported, is tantalizing and fascinating but sadly does not rise to the necessary standard of rigor and stringency. It is, however, a great starting point, as I have said. Now you should actively seek outside help, confirmation or disconfirmation as the case may be from other researchers _using different methods for data gathering_ as well as the same ones you are using. When these different methods agree, in different laboratories, then you have gone one more small step towards "refuting" me and all the textbooks too. When you've gotten a paper published, that's another small step. When the paper survives the incredibly intense attacks it will get from the entire scientific community who reads it in a peer reviewed journal.... then _perhaps_ it's time to start rewriting the textbooks, or at least adding some footnotes.
Get it, gmeast? Nobody is interested in attacking you, because you haven't done anything to be attacked for, and you aren't hurting anyone but yourself, and as long as you are having fun or keeping interested, that's OK with me. But when you insult me and .99 and MH and PW and others for trying to help you, and when you act as pigheaded as Ainslie does... my perfect Zen composure will break down and I'll give back what I think I'm getting. And when you make extraordinary claims of performance.... I expect you to be able to back up your claims with solid, repeatable, publicly available evidence. With the math checked already!!
There is certainly no law that requires this... or certain people would be in a lot of trouble... but it's the decent and proper thing to do, and I hope we can agree on that much at least.
Why don't you open a thread here, or over on Energetic Forum or even on .99's forum to inform others and discuss your work? I'm sure there will be a lot of interest, some overboard enthusiastic and some deadly skeptical. But as long as your technique is good and your reports are honest, what have you to fear from skeptics? You should be able to meet any and all objections with reasoned responses, outside references for your assertions, and data which support your claims. If you can't.... then maybe your skeptics have a point and you should pay attention. Ainslie is in the latter category, very much so, but she doesn't have the proper attitude to proceed; she rejects proper analysis and expert advice, and clings to her faulty conclusions. She is stuck solid trying to prove her "thesis" but cannot even muster experimental evidence that supports her basic claims. You aren't like that, I believe. I hope you don't prove me wrong on that point!!
I have a screenshot this time.
I am not a bastard, and turning it off won't help.
Hah....!!
What do you think of THAT, gmeast? Are you sure that you are in the right place?
Myself, I'm laughing so hard I'm about to.... "hurl".......
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:-* :-*
kiss kiss, babydoll........ Ainslie's "magnetic field model" has no connection whatsoever with reality, makes no quantitative predictions, contradicts itself, expresses a profound ignorance of ordinary physics, can't explain present experimental findings, cannot even explain correctly already understood phenomena, and makes all kinds of conclusions and claims for which there is no support whatsoever. It's a word salad, well past its sell-by date and rapidly wilting into slime. Yet she pretends it supersedes quantum electrodynamics and that she is more brilliant than Richard Feynman.... having learned her physics from "The Dancing WuLi Masters", after all. She thinks magnetic field lines are real!! Well, sure they are, just as real as the lines of latitude and longitude that keep the Earth from flying apart due to centrifugal force.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on November 19, 2012, 10:18:35 PM
It is an analogy. You implied that your experimental results defy CoE but you reject criticism. You deleted comments on your experiment that raised valid questions. Instead of triple-checking and peer reviewing your results, you chose to enjoy Ainslie stroking your ego.
This may sound like an insult, but it is a honest opinion and an invitation to participate in an open and truthful discourse with the regular posters in this thread, something Ainslie can't offer. Read this thread from beginning to end, if you don't believe it.
OOOH ... you told me.
TK,
I HAVE opened a thread, but not here and not on EF either. I'm not interested in debunking this technology. I'm interested in proving it valid because it is. You're NOT interested in attacking me? Bull ... on the contrary .... you promote that behavior ... just look at newbie butt 3000. He jumped right on your band wagon. I have to give it to you. Your campaign of hate is powerful and alluring to the weak-minded. Yes, I am in the wrong place. Goodbye
Ah well. A brief glimmer of rationality and now, back into full character for GMEAST. OK, fellow, why don't you just bugger on off then, and quit polluting this thread with your insults and your bogus claims of overunity. When you've got some real proof of something from your playthings, let us know so we can worship you alongside your Red Queen, Rosemary Ainsile.
I tried to treat you reasonably, GMEAST, but you will have none of it. Fine. The truth is that you too are wrong, and years from now, when you are huddled over your mains-powered heater some winter, you will remember these days, and you will fume to yourself in anger and frustration.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 20, 2012, 04:59:18 AM
Ah well. A brief glimmer of rationality and now, back into full character for GMEAST. OK, fellow, why don't you just bugger on off then, and quit polluting this thread with your insults and your bogus claims of overunity. When you've got some real proof of something from your playthings, let us know so we can worship you alongside your Red Queen, Rosemary Ainsile.
I tried to treat you reasonably, GMEAST, but you will have none of it. Fine. The truth is that you too are wrong, and years from now, when you are huddled over your mains-powered heater some winter, you will remember these days, and you will fume to yourself in anger and frustration.
What a pathetic and childish response that was. I can feel the ground shake from you pouting, stomping feet. I have good evidence, and I have never claimed "proof" 'per 'se. I'm just not going to show it to you ... here. Why? Because you want me to. And THAT is a source of "anger and frustration" YOU are feeling NOW. This is an illegitimate forum. Go and continue to hone your hate agenda and tactics.
Quote from: gmeast on November 20, 2012, 01:59:23 AM
I'm not interested in debunking this technology. I'm interested in proving it valid because it is.
That there is the entire root of your problem gmeast, and why you are hurtling headlong down the road to failure.
Any researcher worth his salt will attempt to refute himself at every opportunity, what he will not do is set out to prove something he has already decided is true.
I myself completely junked the design for the superheated electrolysis cell after 10 years of work on it. Three short months later I had completely redesigned it and released it so that my peers can tell me if it works or not, not the other way around.
Your attitude stinks, your skills in this area of research are questionable from what I have seen, and it is likely any success you have will hinge on a modern version of this:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin.htm
I wish you luck, your going to need it!
Polly Parrot squawks again. Look at all the terms she uses!!
Conversion of electrical to mechanical energy...... from a person who doesn't understand the difference between a Joule and a Watt...
Einstein Equivalence Principle.... quick, take away her internet access and then ask her to define this principle, with examples... she cannot. She has no idea what she's talking about!!
The Standard Model.... she uses this phrase over and over again without understanding at all what the Standard Model really is. Same with her use of "standard measurement protocols".... which she does not understand and doesn't use, even though we have given her plenty of information and references as to what those actually are!
Counter Electromotive force..... again, a parroted phrase with absolutely no understanding whatsoever!
And the claim of "our numbers prove it"...... is just silly. Her numbers prove that she has lied about her experiment over and over again. Her numbers prove that her batteries do discharge. Her numbers prove that she did not "bring water to boil". Her numbers prove that the schematics presented in the demo video and in the daft manuscripts were not the actual circuit used for the experiments reported. Her numbers.... the five rejections, the five different schematics, the four different versions of the same documents all with differing information and no explanations, the four forum bannings that I know of ...... her numbers prove her mendacity and prevarication, nothing more.
Squawking up a Blue Streak, that parrot is.
Quote from: evolvingape on November 20, 2012, 12:29:19 PM
That there is the entire root of your problem gmeast, and why you are hurtling headlong down the road to failure.
Any researcher worth his salt will attempt to refute himself at every opportunity, what he will not do is set out to prove something he has already decided is true.
I myself completely junked the design for the superheated electrolysis cell after 10 years of work on it. Three short months later I had completely redesigned it and released it so that my peers can tell me if it works or not, not the other way around.
Your attitude stinks, your skills in this area of research are questionable from what I have seen, and it is likely any success you have will hinge on a modern version of this:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin.htm (http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin.htm)
I wish you luck, your going to need it!
Ha! this forum is not a group of my peers. You haven't seen anything more because I've stopped showing. Anyway, to all Americans, Happy Thanksgiving.
Why do you post here then, troll? Just trying to get a reaction? Things kind of dull at the honeytrap?
If Ainslie claims to have used "standard measurement protocols" she lies, because she has not done so.
Standard measurement protocols for measuring battery performance are contained in various ASTM and IEEE documents which have been referred to her attention... and she has ignored them completely, substituting her use of the simple, no-load voltage reading as an indicator of battery state of charge... when it is no such thing.
Standard measurement protocols for measuring current flows in oscillating systems involve much more sophisticated procedures and techniques and instrumentation than Ainslie has ever used. This too has been pointed out to her and she has been referred to documentation from LeCroy, Tektronix, Agilent, and other publishers explaining the ACTUAL standard protocols for this determination.... which, again, she has either ignored completely or merely paid lip service to. In addition, her failures and the results of them on her measurements and conclusions derived from them have been explained, analyzed, illustrated and duplicated.... and she rejects all such REAL standard analysis as being inapplicable, wrong, or simply far over her head.
Standard measurement protocols for ENERGY and POWER include such arcane things as ENERGY INTEGRALS computed by oscilloscopes receiving proper data from their probes, properly programmed and properly interpreted. Ainslie knows how to turn a scope on... and she does so before every measurement, then turns the scope off. (Standard measurement protocols call for even digital scopes to warm up for at least 30 minutes to stabilize and they should not be turned on and off every ten or fifteen minutes. That is just silly.)
Standard measurement protocols of heat produced in a load include such things as controlled environments, proper heat transfer materials, calibrated sensors, correct measurement points, and more. Ainslie tapes a thermocouple to a load hanging in air, then when it's really hot, she dunks it into a jug of water, and calls the resulting numbers "temperature data". Ainslie has no clue at all about standard calorimetry protocols or even standard physical power measurement protocols, and once again, this is deliberate, carefully protected ignorance on her part.
In short, Ainslie is ignorant of REAL standard measurement protocols, deliberately and egregiously so, and has never used them in any way in any of her reported "experiments". Whenever she claims to have done so, she lies.
In addition, she is FAR from being the "first" to do these things and to make these claims based on them. Her only distinction, besides being allegedly female, is that she is by far the most snidely and openly insulting, ignorant, and overweeningly arrogant of all the people who have made overunity claims, even surpassing Joe Newman in obnoxiousness. To claim to be the "first" is again simply another Ains-lie.
You do not need scopes or any sophisticated instruments or equipment to analyze the heater technology. The more sophisticated instruments you use, the greater the number of possible interpretations of the readings. "Simple" is better in most cases.
Quote from: gmeast on November 21, 2012, 09:57:28 PM
Ha! this forum is not a group of my peers.
When you put it like that gmeast, I have no choice but to agree with you.
The serious researchers on this forum would never dream of announcing an overunity result without a rigorous, replicable proof. It would be professionally embarrassing to do so. The revision of your initial COP 4 result down to COP 1.2 tells it's own story as your measurement techniques and analysis improved, soon you may get accurate results which will be COP < 1.
Here's some links for you:
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-electric-kettles-work.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating
If you have any problems with the math ask your mentor to assist you ;)
Quote from: evolvingape on November 23, 2012, 12:06:27 PM
When you put it like that gmeast, I have no choice but to agree with you.
The serious researchers on this forum would never dream of announcing an overunity result without a rigorous, replicable proof. It would be professionally embarrassing to do so. The revision of your initial COP 4 result down to COP 1.2 tells it's own story as your measurement techniques and analysis improved, soon you may get accurate results which will be COP < 1.
Here's some links for you:
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-electric-kettles-work.html (http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-electric-kettles-work.html)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating)
If you have any problems with the math ask your mentor to assist you ;)
You are NOT professionals. This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals. You buy some scopes, throw around some big words, think you are technically competent, criticize everyone and everything that does not fit your hate agenda, and reek of narcissism. Thank goodness you all only congregate in one place ... here at TK's tea room for self-strokers.
Do you have any idea of how you guys have been played. I can choose just the right words, and BANG! it's guaranteed that at least one of you will puke forth the type of crap you just did evolvingape.
By the way, you need to evolve just a little more before you can join the rest of the human race, because you still haven't evolved past the feces flinging stage. There's an opening at the San Diego Zoo. They're waiting for you.
Quote from: gmeast on November 24, 2012, 02:52:59 AM
You are NOT professionals.
And you ARE?
Quote
This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals.
It is acutely obvious that every time you post this type of nonsense, you are quite accurately describing yourself.
Quote
Do you have any idea of how you guys have been played.
Good to see that you are finally admitting to some of your shortcomings. It's unfortunate that
you choose trolling over being a scientifically-honest researcher.
I'll not be responding to any more of gmeast's rhetoric, and I would encourage others here not to either. Feed the troll, and he will just keep coming back with more of the same.
"You are NOT professionals. This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals"
Well that's something that can be put to the test, isn't it, although it's presumptious to describe everyone on "a forum" with a blanket term.
So, if we're looking at what constitutes a "professional" in these matters, let's see what written qualifications everyone claims to have that they believe is pertinent to the matter at hand. And lets see how many years people claim to have made a living as a professional in a related discipline.
Leave out identifying details if you need to of course.
Me first:
Relevant qualifications: none, with the exception of O level electronics and A level maths, physics and computer science. No idea what that means to you foreigners, but it's pre-university stuff.
Relevant work experience: none that I consider relevant for the purposes of the discussion,
Right, @gmeast, you next?
Quote from: mrsean2k on November 24, 2012, 08:50:01 AM
"You are NOT professionals. This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals"
Well that's something that can be put to the test, isn't it, although it's presumptious to describe everyone on "a forum" with a blanket term.
So, if we're looking at what constitutes a "professional" in these matters, let's see what written qualifications everyone claims to have that they believe is pertinent to the matter at hand. And lets see how many years people claim to have made a living as a professional in a related discipline.
Leave out identifying details if you need to of course.
Me first:
Relevant qualifications: none, with the exception of O level electronics and A level maths, physics and computer science. No idea what that means to you foreigners, but it's pre-university stuff.
Relevant work experience: none that I consider relevant for the purposes of the discussion,
Right, @gmeast, you next?
As I said .... push the right buttons and worms like you bust wide open ... In other words, what you just said above:
" ... but I AM a professional ... I AM, I Am, I Am ... my mommy said I was good and she said I was smart ... and mine is bigger than yours ... and, and, and ... mommy, me want more pablum, me hungry but me good and smart ... mommy, mommy, mommy ..."
" ... A level maths ... " ???math(s)??? goo goo dah dah
This is fun!
So let me see about this tea room of TK's. You keep an archive so you can keep posting things that refer to ONLY past events regarding the work of others. And on occasion, when you have nothing better to do, or a new puppet joins your cult, you reach BACK into your trusty bag of archives and TRY to keep discrediting other people who are hoping to better mankind's plight. What a noble purpose you have carved out for yourselves. What you don't know is what is going on "behind the scenes".
There are folks who apparently know much more about anomalous energy than you characters. You're not aware enough to consider that your scopes and other sophisticated instruments, that you rely on so heavily for you bias and hate, might not be detecting EVERYTHING that's going on. GOOD! More for me when it's all said and done. You are actually doing those of us who DO CARE a service by staying in you own little corner, stroking each other (figuratively).
I've noticed that you 'gentlemen' make frequent reference to this "archive" of yours. It seems to be something very significant. TK, are you going to take your archive and write a book some day? You better hurry ... it's about to be rendered irrelevant ... like you.
" ... but I AM a professional ... I AM, I Am, I Am ... my mommy said I was good and she said I was smart ... and mine is bigger than yours ... and, and, and ... mommy, me want more pablum, me hungry but me good and smart ... mommy, mommy, mommy ..."
When have I ever claimed to be a professional in any of these exchanges, in this subject? Cite your references. I am unashamedly not a professional. I don't believe that excludes me from the discussion or being right on occasion. But you raised the subject of professionalism.
So what are you claiming as a professional qualification, and / or professional experience as we'd commonly understand the term?
Finally we have positive confirmation of what I have suspected for some time, a war of attrition being waged upon this open source energy research community in the form of perpetual assault. This sucks up time and resources in defense of the community that could be otherwise better spent and inevitably damages the individuals who step up to meet the onslaught.
Quote from: gmeast on November 24, 2012, 02:52:59 AM
Do you have any idea of how you guys have been played. I can choose just the right words, and BANG!
Occasionally an admission of error is made to attempt the perception of credibility, which is followed up with a new can of worms to decipher. This can be incredibly hard to do as the "open source" material is in reality heavily censored.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 24, 2012, 01:59:27 AM
The reality is that the batteries DO discharge
Kindest regards"
The enemies of this community have positively identified themselves, and from this point on I will follow .99's wise advice, and shun them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy
"The Fabian strategy is a military strategy where pitched battles and frontal assaults are avoided in favor of wearing down an opponent through a war of attrition and indirection. While avoiding decisive battles, the side employing this strategy harasses its enemy through skirmishes to cause attrition, disrupt supply and affect morale. Employment of this strategy implies that the side adopting this strategy believes time is on its side, but it may also be adopted when no feasible alternative strategy can be devised."
Quote from: gmeast on November 24, 2012, 10:53:47 AM
.....goo goo dah dah......
This is fun!
lol
I tell ya, if I had a real OU circuit, I certainly wouldnt be wasting my time here writing that garbage.
Either that or being around a battery draining into a heater causes one to digress. googoo? ;)
Mags
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 24, 2012, 01:59:27 AM
"Guys - this is an OPEN LETTER for Mark Dansie. It seems he's FINALLY supporting some evidence of over unity. Nice to see. I'm now more than ready to talk to him.
lol, what a nut case. Mark has always been in support of OU.
Thing is, you dont have OU. ;) Nothing there to support. ;)
Magsy
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 24, 2012, 01:59:27 AM
Dear Mark,
I assure you that we have NOTHING that is more significant than any one of the multiple claims that are happening all over the place.
Oooo, a drop of truth in the bucket. ;) If this is true, then why have him waste the trip? ;)
Magsy
What's the matter, Ainslie? Not so sure of your identification of me as Brian (or Byran) Little any more? Couldn't quite bring yourself to make that silly claim in your letter to Dansie?
Every time the mendacious deluded old woman makes reference to me as "little TK" or as Brian, or Bryan Little, she reveals YET AGAIN that she has no regard for truth, cannot support her assertions with proof or even outside references, has no respect for the wishes of others to remain anonymous or private, and even actively seeks to harm people whose identities she has "ferreted"... or rather RATTED out.
@MrSean2k:
The only professional qualifications I need mention in this context, out of the many I hold, are that I know how to use and read and interpret an oscilloscope, and I have many years of experience doing so; and that I can do the necessary maths: simple arithmetic, algebra and some basic calculus.
And anyone else who shares that competence can see for themselves from Ainslie's own data -- and the interpretations and claims -- that she does not know how to use and read and interpret oscilloscopes. And she cannot even add and subtract, multiply or divide. Or read technical information with comprehension.
Quote from: Magluvin on November 24, 2012, 12:34:28 PM
lol, what a nut case. Mark has always been in support of OU.
Thing is, you dont have OU. ;) Nothing there to support. ;)
Magsy
Mark is a bright fellow. He'll see right away that Ainslie has no clue, if he hasn't already. The text of the letter is hilarious! I'd like to see Ainslie stand at a whiteboard in front of a couple of bright physics grad students and derive some result, using her "thesis".... while they try to keep from snickering at the silly old woman squawking terms she's read in a popular novel but cannot even begin truly to understand.
He knows better than to bite at the bait, too. The last person I know about that Ainslie tried to contact took her at her word at first.... and wound up with several reams of correspondence, wasted time, and clogged email accounts, and finally chucked it all into the recycling bin as the pile of garbage it actually was.
An open letter to Mark Dansie:
Hi Mark
It was good to hear from you again. As you may recall, I have assembled quite a large database of Ainslie material, all in one place. I have screenshot images of many of her forum posts wherein she makes crazy "calculations", contradicts herself from one day to the next, insults people who are trying to help her understand her circuit, and simply and outrageously lies about her "experiment" and the results therefrom.
I've gathered together all of the scopeshots that I can find into one place, and MrSean2k has graciously hosted many of these scopeshots at
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/
Please note that Ainslie herself posted all of these shots at different times in various places.... and has fought tooth and nail to try to prevent them from being gathered together, because when they are, and are examined wrt her claims, they clearly do not support the claims and in some cases even refute them soundly. In addition , several of the scopeshots simply indicate operation with blown or disconnected mosfets, and ALL of Ainslie's current data -- obtained by voltage drop across current viewing resistors -- is invalid because of the location of the "black" output lead of the Function Generator. All available pictures and videos of every Ainslie apparatus extant show this lead attached to the common ground reference at the negative battery terminal.... a location which allows a current path to bypass the CVR altogether. The published schematics, prepared by Ainslie's "team" only _after_ this fact was pointed out, mendaciously give the location as being in the technically "correct" location on the transistor side of the CVR.... not the "wrong" location that was actually used.
There are many many more discrepancies, misrepresentations, and outright mendacities committed by Ainslie. It's all there in black and white and "purple"..... and mostly in her own words and published images.
Of course I know that you won't fall for Ainslie's bait, so there is really no need for you to waste your time, but should you be curious as to the true nature of this particular episode of pathological pseudoscience, just let me know and I'll send you the whole database of Ainslie material.... over 7 gigabytes, because it includes a lot of the reference material from scope manufacturers explaining points that Ainslie has denied or garbled, such as AC-DC coupling, function generator offset, current paths thru FGs, mosfet parasitic oscillations, power measurement protocols, battery measurement protocols, etc. as pdf files. In addition, it contains several videos, including the mendacious "DEMO" video which she lied about not posting, which contains several outright lies and coverups, and for which at least FIVE different schematics have been presented.
That is, my Ainslie database not only includes the lies, misrepresentations and errors committed by Ainslie, but also the refutations and correct interpretations and the reference material she so blithely ignores and refuses to absorb.
Thanks, and good luck, keep in touch.
Sincerely--
--TK
Here are a few representative quote from Rosemary Ainslie, included in my database by uneditable screengrabs as images:
QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.
QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
So... DO THE MATH. Yes, please do... I did. Do you come up with numbers like Ainslie does? Her batteries were 60 A-H, 12 volt nominal silver-calcium lead acid batteries. Please note, Mark, that her entire "proof" of her "thesis" is based on conclusions drawn from this calculation right here, and others just as egregiously bogus.
QuoteLet's first deal with some pertinent issues. What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your 'lessons'.
(sic)
I wonder if the insane madwoman realises that whenever she refers to Brian (or Bryan) Little's "pickle" she is making both a sexual slur and revealing her own perverted fantasies.
Here is her latest bit of drunken trolling. What a slapper she is!
And after that, I show the original reference to "pickle" in the locked thread .... very clearly a reference to a man's sexual organ. (can't spell it right because of the forum software) . No doubt about it.
This goes along with her original "identification" of me as cheeseburger/humbugger. I laugh and laugh at the idiot madwoman, swilling sherry in the morning and typing out her nonsense and her sexual fantasies of Brian (or Bryan) Little's itty bitty pickle.
AN OPEN LETTER TO ROSEMARY AINSLIE:
Provide some proof for your assertions, idiot madwoman, or bugger off and shut up.
Sincerely, I remain
Your contemptuous correspondent,
TinselKoala
This is just too easy. The idiot madwoman insists on stuffing her feet further down her throat, and continues to provide me with more material to illustrate how mendacious, evil, and probably even drunk the withered old crone actually is. She cannot provide ANY EVIDENCE for her absurd claims and so she resorts to the kind of .... lunacy she exhibits so well.
Can you imagine the reaction of any professional scientist or journal editor when he is presented with the sum total of the damning material I have on Rosemary Ainslie? Especially if I put THIS on the top of the stack.
What an idiot she is! Doesn't she have any keepers to hold her back and prevent her from harming herself further? Perhaps it's time for another registered letter to her lawyers.
Anyway, here's something she can contemplate while she's trying to work up some real arguments and refutations of ANY of the points we've made here about her alleged "work" and her bogus "thesis" and her mendacious, fabricated "papers".
Ainslie cannot explain, nor can she even duplicate, the scopeshot included in her mendacious daft manuscripts as "Paper1 Figure3".
There is no way this scopeshot can be produced with her claimed schematic, operating conditions and INTACT MOSFETS.
She has promised OVER AND OVER to produce an explanation that accounts for these features, even promising that test to be video recorded and presented MONTHS AGO.
But the lying mendacious ignorant arrogant wench cannot produce any evidence for her ridiculous claims and she absolutely cannot reproduce this scopeshot with intact mosfets and the schematic presented as "correct".
The inclusion of this scopeshot, and the claims made from it, in the Ainslie "papers", completely and utterly invalidate them and the conclusions and claims contained within them. She has promised to address this issue but CANNOT provide any evidence. And she certainly can't reproduce this scopeshot.... with all mosfets intact and installed as shown on the claimed schematic.
This is a separate issue from another one which also COMPLETELY invalidates all of Ainslie's reported current data, and that is the location of the Black lead from the Function Generator. She has lied about its placement in the "correct" circuit diagram she has mendaciously posted. In the two images below the analysis of the Figure 3 scopeshot, it can clearly be seen that the BLACK Lead from the FG, labelled " - " on the schematic, is attached directly to the common circuit ground point along with all the scope probe references. This is an improper location and she did NOT know that it was, until well after the video was analyzed.... and only then did the schematics appear with the FG lead in the more correct location on the transistor side of the CVR. This little bit of "insignificant" (to Ainslie) mendacity completely invalidates the current data.
For Ainslie to be able to assert that the Black FG lead was positioned as claimed in the daft manuscripts, she has to explain why and how
1) the single mosfet version was always tested AS SHOWN, with the FG lead in the mistaken, wrong position;
2) the "mistake" was somehow corrected for the "experimental" trials reported in the manucripts;
3) the mistake was then made AGAIN when the 5 mosfet version in the demo was shown and explained with the FG lead in the wrong position;
4) the mistake was somehow corrected AGAIN when the schematics came out, AFTER the video was analyzed.
In short, examination of the FACTS and the TIMELINE reveal a totally implausible sequence of events must have happened if Ainslie's account is true. It is much simpler, and much more in keeping with Ainslie's lack of character and her rampant disregard for Truth, to believe that all the reported trials in the manuscripts were conducted just as all the rest of the trials were: with the FG Black lead misplaced, and that the corrected schematics, prepared much later, showing it in the correct place are simply more Ains-lies.
More spam?
We already know that you are using your honeytrap forum to harvest IP addresses of anyone who clicks thru your links, you lying sock puppet.
YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE FOR YOUR MENDACIOUS ASSERTIONS. So you choose instead to continue with this insane "Little" and "pickle" stuff. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?
Every time I present the INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that Ainslie and her "papers" are full of lies..... she and her sock puppet begin a campaign of bloviation, insult and more mendacity in an attempt to bury the evidence which incriminates her in this egregious act of pseudoscientific fakery and fraud that she calls a "thesis" and "papers". Do not forget that this lying and arrogant old woman has attempted to claim THREE different monetary awards based on her mendacious reports of her so-called "experiments" which were no such thing.
Who is Bryan, or Brian Little, and why is ROSEMARY AINSLIE libelling him so much? Why can she not produce a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE supporting her claim that I am he, or he is me? Because there is none, that is why. She cannot support her lies with facts or outside references or demonstrations. She is completely clueless, even, of just how much is revealed by analysing that single scopeshot from her daft manuscript that I've reproduced above.
Go ahead, sock puppet YouSaidNonsense, continue posting links to Ainslie's insane rants, bad "doggeral" (sic) and idiotic insults. Any that I missed will of course be included in my comprehensive database of Ains-lies.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 26, 2012, 03:35:28 PM
@TK
Have you seen this?
Yes, I have. And I've seen a lot more that you cannot even fathom.
Quote
"Guys
Our darling little 'ickle Pickle' - that charming little troll - who also answers to the name of 'chiken licken' - and Bryan little -
That is at least three lies in half a sentence. She cannot provide ANY SUPPORT for her assertion that I have ever "answered" to any of those names or appellations.
Quoteand even TK - has written a rather desperate appeal to MARK DANSIE to IGNORE my request that he investigate our claim
Again, a lie, or several. I have not asked anyone anything in "desperation" and I didn't appeal to Dansie to IGNORE her request, I simply provided him with some TRUE background information that he would not be getting from the lying mendacious claimant ROSEMARY AINSLIE, and offered him a lot more if he was still interested after considering her blunders, outright lies and complete mathematical incompetence.
Quote- and that he simply rely on 'ickle Pickle's representations.
Another lie. You will note that I constantly referred to AINSLIE's OWN WORDS, and I even gave a link to a compilation of AINSLIE's OWN DATA.... the only such link available anywhere, since she has tried to erase the record and cover up the revealing data, and has not and never will make the raw spreadsheet data available for inspection. The evidence speaks for itself, when it's all gathered together and collated...again, something which Ainslie has never done, never will do, and resists with tooth and nail and terrible poetry.... because it reveals the TRUTH about her and her claims.
Quote
Sweet little man. His stature is PERFECTLY reflected in his diminutive and general spitefulness of spirit. But I appreciate his dilemma. If Mark were to endorse our findings - then 'ickle Pickle' will be shown up for the troll that he is. God forbid.
Kindest regards
Rosie
And may I add - it seems that our little Little is also not able to answer the question in my post 'above'. lol. Who would have thought?"
THIS refers to this link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=post;quote=3778;topic=3.70;last_msg=3780 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=post;quote=3778;topic=3.70;last_msg=3780)
The rest is unworthy of comment....except for this: when Ainslie SUCCESSFULLY PUBLISHES any report whatsoever in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I will be happy to PUBLISH MY COMPLETE REBUTTAL and make her look fully as stupid as she is, right in front of everybody. Until then... until never, that is.... .she can claim whatever she likes, but if it's not the Truth.... then she lies, and I have proven it over and over again, and she has never, not a SINGLE TIME, been able to refute my proofs, assertions, demonstrations, explanations or analyses.
Now that Ainslie has reactivated and renamed her YouTube account, using her "Rosemary Ainslie" alias instead of Maria Krebs... for obvious reasons..... I expect her to remove the famous video that "she did not post" at any time. She constantly claims... lately.... that it doesn't "represent" her claims but only "relates" to them..... whatever that means in Ainslie-speak. She will no doubt remove it since it clearly contains many lies, misrepresentations and the "smoking gun".... or perhaps I should say "smoking mosfet"... of the battery that wasn't there: the removal of one battery, leaving only 4 at a nominal 48 volts input, for the High Heat part of the demonstration. This was done, of course, to prevent having the Q1 mosfet fail in public. Yet Ainslie presents the scopeshot I reproduced above as an example: 72 volts input, 12 volts to the gate.... long on-times..... and ZERO CURRENT, proving the mosfet is blown.
Five different claimed schematics for the video: 1) the single mosfet schematic shown in the video; 2) the narrator saying that all five mosfets are in parallel; 3) and 4) the two different "published" schematics showing the mosfets switched left for right, making a MAJOR change in the circuit's heat and current handling capacity; and 5) the TRUE schematic derived from the video stills, showing the FG black lead in a different place than in the "official" published schematics 3 and 4.
So she'll probably be taking down that mendacious video which does more to prove her as a liar than it does to support her "thesis".
Nevertheless.... I have a copy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont (http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont)
When is Ainslie going to address any of the many points I've made? The discrepancies in the data and the descriptions, the bad calculations, the crazy muddling of terms and quantities, the misrepresentations... the outright LIES like I've shown her committing time and time again as above?
Never, that's when. She cannot, without admitting that she has been wrong, entirely and utterly, for many years of her life, about her ridiculous obsession.
Still, you'd think that she would at least be too embarrassed to continue lying. But she isn't! The woman has no conscience at all. She blithely lies left and right, and when she's caught out.... like above.... she just carries on and never mentions it further, not to apologise, not to correct her lying statements..... but she WILL try to go back and edit them away if she can. Hence..... the screenshots, rather than simple quotations.
:-* :-*
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2012, 05:54:34 PM
Now that Ainslie has reactivated and renamed her YouTube account, using her "Rosemary Ainslie" alias instead of Maria Krebs... for obvious reasons..... I expect her to remove the famous video that "she did not post" at any time. She constantly claims... lately.... that it doesn't "represent" her claims but only "relates" to them..... whatever that means in Ainslie-speak. She will no doubt remove it since it clearly contains many lies, misrepresentations and the "smoking gun".... or perhaps I should say "smoking mosfet"... of the battery that wasn't there: the removal of one battery, leaving only 4 at a nominal 48 volts input, for the High Heat part of the demonstration. This was done, of course, to prevent having the Q1 mosfet fail in public. Yet Ainslie presents the scopeshot I reproduced above as an example: 72 volts input, 12 volts to the gate.... long on-times..... and ZERO CURRENT, proving the mosfet is blown.
Five different claimed schematics for the video: 1) the single mosfet schematic shown in the video; 2) the narrator saying that all five mosfets are in parallel; 3) and 4) the two different "published" schematics showing the mosfets switched left for right, making a MAJOR change in the circuit's heat and current handling capacity; and 5) the TRUE schematic derived from the video stills, showing the FG black lead in a different place than in the "official" published schematics 3 and 4.
So she'll probably be taking down that mendacious video which does more to prove her as a liar than it does to support her "thesis".
Nevertheless.... I have a copy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont (http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont)
Hey TK,
Don't forget the top billed clan member Evan Robinson who's name appears on both document transcripts that the tribe leader Rosemary submitted for peer review to possibly be published in accredited journals or magazines on her experimental device with a operating claim of COP>INFINITY. I also highlighted the attached image with the magic mosfets IRFPG50 "in parallel" which also shows the incorrect wiring diagram that was used in the demonstration video "Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 March 2011" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fyOmoGluMCc) and later several additional connection diagrams all now under question.
As you also noted "NOTHING" that was published by Rosemary Ainslie and her NERD RAT team, has been revised or removed because from the total lack of accuracy on any and all the subject matter that was shown for this magical COP>INFINITY device. ::)
http://mygeni.org/view/weblink.mygeni?wid=1590&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923 :o
http://mygeni.org/view/video.mygeni?vid=407&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923 :P
;)
Once again Ainslie proves her mendacity with her own words. I can only shake my head in amazement. How can one person be so very stupid? She has enough stupidity for three or four normal people.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Ainslie tries to explain this scopeshot to Mark Dansie. Ainslie is so ignorant of her topic that she can't even see or understand what is wrong with this shot, much less explain it.... or reproduce it, with intact mosfets and the claimed schematic.
@Fuzzy: Yep, that Evan Robinson. What a stickler for the truth, what a great website designer he is. Here's the front page from his website, taken on August 13. I haven't checked lately... maybe he's gotten caught up. But somehow I doubt it.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 30, 2012, 05:13:35 AM
Guys, and Poynty Point,
I also need to put this on record. When Mark Dansie finally accredits our results - which is due for January of next year - then I will be claiming prizes from OU.COM and Overunity research.com. So. Poynty, Stefan and Prof Jones - be warned. I'll be calling on you to pay up. And since we don't want anything to do with that money - I'll be proposing that the prize money go to lasersaber or some such to be nominated by the members of your forums. ACTUALLY - on second thoughts - I think we should give this to Greg. He can then buy himself a decent oscilloscope. Sorry to press home this fact. And I'm fully aware of the fact that my being banned from your respective forums was intended to prevent this eventuality. They'll likely be grossly disappointed and somewhat impoverished. As will you be, Poynty Point. Sorry about that...
Meanwhile - and as it relates to our sweet little Pickle - or Bryan Little - I'd STRONGLY recommend that he try and IGNORE my challenges to his absurdly irrelevant posts - and just let his thread DIE. That's assuming that Stefan Hartman doesn't first go to the trouble of 'locking' it in some hopes of hiding his rather gross collusion in this exercise. For those of you who don't know this, Stefan rather desperately TRIED to prevent the emergence of our unassailable proof to the unity barrier breach through the simple expediency of banning me and allowing the trolls free reign in their multiple abuses of 'free speech'. Alternatively they'll all need to work very hard on Mark Dansie to persuade him NOT to see our evidence. But so far their best efforts have just not 'cut it'. Not as far as I can tell.
I see that our ickle chicken licken - asa that rather combative and opinionated little 'pickle' - has already started on this path. He no longer makes selective reference to my posts. Golly. Hopefully you know who will come to its rescue. It would be outrageously unjust if we were not given this opportunity to vindicate ourselves. Sadly this will FINALLY prove which of the two of us has been 'duping' those poor members at OU.com. WHAT will our little Pickle do thereafter? To keep himself busy - and more importantly - EARN HIS LIVELIHOOD? Who knows? But actually it's not my problem.
And Poynty Point - you'll need to clarify that argument of yours that you're trying hard not to reference. If you have no explanation for the continual evidence of a negative wattage - THEN OWN UP. Your simulation of 'offended dignity' doesn't cut it as an excuse not to address the issue. If you don't want to argue it here - then why not post on your own forum? That would be a welcome change. Otherwise I take it that you've 'thrown in the towel?' In which case - let me know how I make application for that monetary award.
Kindest and ever
Rosie
I have preserved this idiotic and inane libel for posterity.
Note the lie upon lie, compounded by lie after lie. Particularly egregious is the accusation against Stefan.... when she was given chance after chance here, WE EVEN TRIED TO PREVENT HER FROM BEING BANNED, but she blew it, deliberately by her actions and words. Perhaps she forgets, like the senile old biddy she is.... it is all recorded here in this very thread, the history of how we fought AGAINST her banning, knowing that she would turn it into some kind of claim of suppression.... just as she has now done.
Note once again the intent to claim monetary prizes: it is this that moves Ainslie beyond simple pseudoscientific misconduct, into the realm of genuine fraud. Fortunately none of the people offering the prizes she has already fraudulently claimed, is stupid enough to fall for Ainslie's line of verbiage and logorrhea.
Not only that... but I have two different devices right here that do EVERYTHING Ainslie claims as "evidence" for her claim, can do it at any time on demand, are ready to travel RIGHT NOW, and one of them fits in a shirt pocket and doesn't even need batteries... it runs on a capacitor.
I have repeatedly offered Tar Baby for side-by-side comparison with Ainslie's breadboard of wires, and will gladly allow Mark Dansie to do the comparison testing at any time. If Ainslie intends to pursue any prizes based on her "measured negative wattage" she will be competing with ME, and she can't compete because my devices are better, are proven, are smaller, don't blow mosfets, run on capacitors, and DO EVERY THING THAT AINSLIE CLAIMS IS EVIDENCE FOR OVERUNITY PERFORMANCE. And I've proved it already and I can prove it again at any time.
I've made my entire Ainslie database available to Mark should he want it, in stark contrast to Ainslie's lying claim that we somehow don't want him to know the full story. The TRUTH, as usual, is just the opposite of what AINSLIE claims. I want Mark to be completely fully informed about Ainslie and her history and her data and all the rest of it, because when he sees the sum total he cannot but come to the same conclusion that _everyone_ else has, who is both rational and in possession of the data. This database of mine contains ALL of the posted DATA from Ainslie, in one place, something she fought against and still fights against. It contains many forum posts in her own words demonstrating her ignorance, arrogance and mendacity. It contains much critical analysis, it contains documentation from LeCroy, Tektronix, Agilent and others explaining the operation of the apparatus which Ainslie does not understand; it contains many examples of the ridiculous scratching she calls "math" and it contains many of the different contradictory versions of her daft manuscripts. It even contains the video "that she did not post" and also many of my own videos refuting Ainslie's ridiculous claims like "a function generator cannot pass current from a battery to a load". All of this and more.... over seven Gigabytes worth.... is available to whomever asks for it. Including Mark Dansie. We here have NEVER sought to hide or cover up any of Ainslie's data or claims or any of it, and she lies most assuredly when she makes that claim. We demand the retraction of the papers and the claims and we've listed many reasons why they are invalid... and Ainslie cannot refute a single point we've made with data, facts, or demonstrations of her own. All she can do is insult, write bad doggerel, and spit on the floor in her impotent wheedling anger.
The mendacity of this person Ainslie is literally... beyond belief. She cannot make a post without lying about something, and often, every sentence in her posts contains yet another Ains-lie.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 30, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
Also this one...
ANOTHER LOVE LETTER FOR BRYAN LITTLE
My sweet little 'ickle pickle',
That link you provided to 'teach' us how to 'harvest IP addresses' is just NOT going to work. It only teaches all and sundry how to 'hide' their internet identities. Unless I'm just not reading it right. But my eyes have never been that good. You need to give me a 'step by step' explanation. Then only is there any chance that I can understand you. As it is - I'm almost inclined to think that you're trying your hardest to dissuade anyone from linking to our forum. God forbid. I'm sure that you would NEVER be so devious. But our hit rate is on the up and up. So those efforts of yours are hardly likely to help.
Meanwhile - I trust you're getting to grips with that long argument of yours rooted in your obsession about your size. Just as a word of advice. If and when you're feeling particularly vertically challenged - just STOP thinking in terms of 'pickles'. They're not the best standard for measurement. Think rather in terms of Plank's constant. Against that even YOU'd possibly seem quite big. It may help relieve you of your anxiety. Did I tell you I'm 5ft.10 inches tall - less a smudge? But don't be jealous. My GRE is nowhere near the 72 pickles squared that yours measures. It's far, far bigger. That MIGHT make you feel better? Or possibly not. I know how fragile is your self esteem. With good reason... I might add.
Rosie Pose
Preserved for posterity. The idiot Ainslie just cannot stop being insulting and arrogant... and nonsensical. And it's PLANCK, you idiot.
Hey, Mark.... do you see what you are up against? The arrogant idiot thinks my real name is Bryan (or Brian) Little, and she has been doing this kind of idiotic childish whining for months now. Every post in which she mentions Little, "Little TK", a pickle, or any of the rest of it simply continues to show what an utter and abject fool that woman is.
KEEP IT UP, AINSLIE. You have no credibility at all and you continue to show it. YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR IDIOTIC CLAIM THAT I AM SOMEONE NAMED BRIAN or BRYAN LITTLE but I'd love to see you try. You don't know how much you are being laughed at, by the people who do know my name, you fool.
And here's your pickle, once again, you deviant. This is what you really want, you know... that is why you keep bringing it up.
The "GRE" to which you refer, ignorant fool, is the Graduate Record Examination. Something that you have NEVER experienced, so you have no business claiming that yours is "bigger" than mine.... .because you HAVE NONE. Once again you lie, you express your ignorance, and your overweening arrogance all in the same sentence. Look up what a GRE of 1560 means. You cannot compete with me in any academic sense at all. You cannot even add two numbers together and get the right answer using a calculator. But you do like your pickle, don't you.
"Rosie Rose", "Poynty Point" here;
I have never avoided referencing my argument as to the cause of your erroneous "negative wattage".
Here it is again in great detail:
The trouble you're having is understanding it.
You seriously think that Mark Dansie is going to pay you a visit? I highly doubt that. ::)
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 30, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
Also this one...
ANOTHER LOVE LETTER FOR BRYAN LITTLE
My sweet little 'ickle pickle',
That link you provided to 'teach' us how to 'harvest IP addresses' is just NOT going to work. It only teaches all and sundry how to 'hide' their internet identities. Unless I'm just not reading it right. But my eyes have never been that good. You need to give me a 'step by step' explanation. Then only is there any chance that I can understand you. As it is - I'm almost inclined to think that you're trying your hardest to dissuade anyone from linking to our forum. God forbid. I'm sure that you would NEVER be so devious. But our hit rate is on the up and up. So those efforts of yours are hardly likely to help.
Meanwhile - I trust you're getting to grips with that long argument of yours rooted in your obsession about your size. Just as a word of advice. If and when you're feeling particularly vertically challenged - just STOP thinking in terms of 'pickles'. They're not the best standard for measurement. Think rather in terms of Plank's constant. Against that even YOU'd possibly seem quite big. It may help relieve you of your anxiety. Did I tell you I'm 5ft.10 inches tall - less a smudge? But don't be jealous. My GRE is nowhere near the 72 pickles squared that yours measures. It's far, far bigger. That MIGHT make you feel better? Or possibly not. I know how fragile is your self esteem. With good reason... I might add.
Rosie Pose
If you would have posted all this 'pickle' dialog a while back, instead of what I thought were real arguments on your claims, I would have been gone back then. ;)
You should clean up your act missy. It aint pretty. Get a grip.
From what I see, you spend most of your time writing garbage. None of it does any good, for you!! But I guess you think so. ::)
The only way to show that TK, Poynt, etc, are wrong about your claims is to DO IT!! PROVE IT!! Not this crap. Cant you see that? It all really makes it look like you are dodging. Keep it up, and you will be knowing 'these days' for a long time sweety. ;)
Magsy
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on November 30, 2012, 11:11:09 PM
@magluvin
Rose writes about many things. You just cant understand it. For instance.
I just cant understand it? I never read it. So how would you know if I cant understand it?
I was refering to the Pickle talk and such. Do you think people are laughing at TK because of what you write?
That, is something you just cant understand. ;)
Mags
More spam, off topic trolling, and "colored crayons"? What's the matter, sock puppet.... have you discovered that your member database is full of worms and spammers?
[
Quote(snip)
My dear sweet little 'ickle Pickle' or TinselKoala - Bryan Little - whichever you prefer,
I am so, SO sorry that you've got this insatiable fixation on your average pickled gherkin. I'm not actually a botanist - but I'm reasonably certain that the most of your genetic makeup is NOT based on plant life. And if you're a mutation - of sorts - then FEEL PROUD. There's always merit in individuality.
And I'm MORE than happy to pretend that you're big. ACTUALLY. 1560 pickles squared is CERTAINLY bigger than the 72 squared - that you claimed previously. So. Take comfort in that thought.
Rosie Pose
Added the 'square'. Gross oversight - and resulting in GROSS UNDERSTATEMENT. But I've corrected it.
You've corrected nothing, lying arrogant idiot Ainslie. You have not corrected your absurd misidentification of me. The "72" figure to which you refer is my height in inches... :Vertical dimension: as we referred to it at the time it was posted. Nobody except YOU has CLAIMED OTHERWISE and where did this "squared" come from? From your sick deluded remnant of a mind, that is where. Once again you make lying, and insulting, claims without a shred of support.
The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is one of three standardized admission tests for graduate schools in the USA, the other two being the MCAT and the LSAT. At the time I sat for the test the maximum score for the combined mathematical and verbal portions was 800 each, or 1600 total. My score was 1560. That is very good indeed and was good enough for me to gain admission invitations from many graduate schools in the USA, some of whose names even YOU might recognize. When you mock my very real achievement on the GRE with your ignorant nonsense..... college dropout, undeducated waitress, idiot Ainslie..... you denigrate both me and the teachers who taught me and enabled me to learn what I needed to learn. You are indeed beneath contempt even, lower than a snake, a fool.... and you are wrong.
Leaving your fraud and lies to one side, Ainslie, you really are the most colossal fucking bore.
Whatever thin humour your observations / naming convention may have had months ago has been utterly drained by mindless repetition.
Do you see?
The idiot troll Rosemary Ainslie and her stinking dirty sock puppet YouSaidShite DO NOT EVEN BOTHER TO READ, they simply post spam, lies and bloviation OVER AND OVER again.
Doing it once makes you look really stupid. Doing it twice, AINSLIE..... makes you an insane bloviating fool. And you don't even care who knows it!
Its as if her lies need to be carefully documented and publicised somewhere neither she nor any of her sock-puppets can drown them in the usual diversionary cack.
The PICKLE thing is particularly hilarious. I have shown where this reference originated.
NEVER have I brought it up initially myself...... it is ROSEMARY AINSLIE who repeatedly references some PICKLE out of her own perverted insane fantasies about the size of my...or rather Cheeseburger's.... sexual organs, and the only time that I "refer" to any PICKLES is when the idiot troll pervert AINSLIE makes some insane sexual slur as she has done above.
EVERY TIME she refers to a "Pickle" she is referring not to anything I said, ever, but to the post in the image below. EVERY TIME she refers to a "Pickle" she sticks her foot further down her own throat.
EVERY TIME she refers to me as "Brian (or Bryan) Little" she makes a bigger fool of herself. She can't even check her own "facts" and get the DATE OF THE SUMMER SOLSTICE right, much less her identification of me as Mr. Little. He is really going to be amazed when he finds out what the lying idiot troll Rosemary Ainslie has said about him, in her deluded insane lying fantasy that I am he.
Don't you realize, AINSLIE and SOCK PUPPET, that all of this is going into a public database, which will be made available to ANY and EVERYONE who has an interest in AINSLIE or her idiotic fooling around with electronic components?
Ainslie has not a shred of evidence or support for her accusations and claims. But I have proof of everything I say, in my Rosemary Ainslie database, almost 10 GB at this point, and growing daily. I am still in the process of uploading it to my filesharing site, but much of it is there already, as a series of zipfiles.
http://www.mediafire.com/?b43c5te5tq5xx
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on December 01, 2012, 01:59:45 PM
@Mrsean
:D
"Guys,
I see that Magsy the munificent - that member at OU.com who is excessively endowed with copious quantities of mediocrity - is concerned that anyone at all is laughing at our 'ickle pickle' and any such references. I see his point. Most UNFAIR of me. I need to revise my standards.
Here's my best effort.
My dear sweet little 'ickle Pickle' or TinselKoala - Bryan Little - whichever you prefer,
I am so, SO sorry that you've got this insatiable fixation on your average pickled gherkin. I'm not actually a botanist - but I'm reasonably certain that the most of your genetic makeup is NOT based on plant life. And if you're a mutation - of sorts - then FEEL PROUD. There's always merit in individuality.
And I'm MORE than happy to pretend that you're big. ACTUALLY. 1560 pickles squared is CERTAINLY bigger than the 72 squared - that you claimed previously. So. Take comfort in that thought.
Rosie Pose
Added the 'square'. Gross oversight - and resulting in GROSS UNDERSTATEMENT. But I've corrected it."
::)
Maybe you should use that as your cover letter for your 'papers'. ;)
Im sure that everyone that you present your papers and claims to will become much more interested in your papers and claims using this as a cover.. ;)
Use it to show your maturity and professionalism. ;)
It would be good to show them this side of you. ;)
Always just be yourself. ;)
So they know what to expect later on if they get involved with you. ::)
Magsy
:o ;D ;)
For your amusement: The Great Nebula in Orion, imaged in early November from my backyard observatory.
Telescope: Celestron EdgeHD 9.25" on CGEM mount, guided with Orion SSAG/Stark Labs PhD. Imager: imaged through Meade RGBL filters with the Orion Parsec 8300M monochrome CCD imager. Software: acquired and processed in Stark Labs Nebulosity, further processed in PixInsight LE. Exposure: about an hour in each of the RGB and L subframes for around 4 hours total, not including the necessary dark frames. This is a small .png of the original .tiff file.
This is a star formation zone where the new stars have blown away the surrounding dust and gas. Shock waves from ionized hydrogen emit the reds, doubly-ionized Oxygen fluoresces green from the UV emitted by the new stars, and the rest of the colors emerge from the interplay of the emission from the ions and the stars themselves, and the reflections from the cold dust and gas.
This nebula is the slightly fuzzy "star" that is the middle point of light in the "sword" dangling from the Belt of the great hunter Orion.
Here's a wide-angle context shot showing all three "stars" in the Sword. The "running man" nebula, the Great Nebula, and the beautiful multiple system Nair al-Saif.
Same imaging system and processing, different telescope: the Megrez 90 apochromatic refractor.
Wow! :o
Another post full of lies from Ainslie and her sock puppet.
In the first place, I have made my entire, nearly 10 GB database available not only to Mark Dansie, but to anyone else who is interested in this topic. It contains all versions I could find of the Ainslie daft manuscripts, hundreds of her forum and blog postings, all of the screenshots she's posted, her crazy math, her wildly insulting rhetoric, her bad poetry, her videos, and her continuing series of lies and their refutations and much more, like my entire Tar Baby replication. This entire thread is archived in there as is much of the old "locked' thread, along with my videos which point by point refute the mendacious claims of Rosemary Ainslie. I also include some of my more critical analyses, along with reference material on battery capacity measurement, scope coupling, function generator offset usage and function, power measurement, pulse power measurement and more, from scope and FG manufacturers and IEEE and ASTM and other reliable sources. Much of the refutation of Ainslie's claims comes, in fact, from her own words at various times, and it's all preserved in my database. .99 has a section all to himself with .pdf files and more, showing how Ainslie is mistaken in her claims of overunity performance.
Due to the limitations of my filesharing site I have had to break it up into zipfiles of under 200 MB each and some of them I have not yet uploaded.... but they are and will be here for anyone to see and examine.
http://www.mediafire.com/?b43c5te5tq5xx (http://www.mediafire.com/?b43c5te5tq5xx)
The conclusions to be drawn from all of this data are clear and inevitable: Ainslie is a fraud, and a mendacious, vindictive one to boot. Anyone who gets entangled with her does so at their peril... as history has shown. One may simply locate and ask ANY of her "collaborators" like FuzzyTomCat, Harvey, Ashtweth and Aaron, .99 and many others. One may NOT, however, locate any of the co-authors, any of the "vetting" alphabet agencies or their personnel.... because they either refuse to talk about Ainslie or they simply do not exist.
QuoteDear ******,
I had NOT seen that thread. Have now gone through it in its entirety. MOST interested in TK's presentations. My suspicions are that he's rooting through these forums to come up with a viable technology that he, personally, can exploit. But that's merely a suspicion. I keep saying it. WHY would a grown man spend every waking hour over a period of nearly 8 months - on a thread dedicated to trashing my name and our work - if there was any sincere effort in exploring anything at all. Surely? If there's nothing in my empty claims - then? ... Move on.
Because you are engaging in a continuing fraud, that is why. You are attempting to gain monetary prizes for your compendium of lies and bad math. Your miserable tactics and fake research gives a bad name to the whole FE community and you should be ashamed of yourself... but you have neither shame nor conscience nor respect for truth or accuracy. The FIVE different schematics presented for your demonstration device are a case in point, as is your deliberate attempt to cover up the true circuit used, and that is just one single event of many in your history, Ainslie. You are a scourge and you should be severely chastened for it.
QuoteWhy would he also take the trouble to intervene and PREVENT Mark Dansie from looking at our work? Surely the trick would be to encourage engagement? That way Mark would be able to see our claims for the nonsense that TK proposes?
Again, you lie through your toothless mouth. I have NEVER ATTEMPTED TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM EXAMINING ALL YOUR DATA, least of all Mark Dansie.... I've sent him the link to all of your scopeshots, for example... Have YOU? No, of course not because you know what they reveal.... I want everyone who is interested to see ALL of your data, all of the various versions of your daft lying manuscripts, all of your video demo and the protestations that you "did not upload that video"... because when they do it becomes plain to anyone what a lying fool you are, just as you are showing here and now.
QuoteWHY does he ALWAYS and EVER recommend that his OWN presentations are taken in preference to ours? Unless it's to ensure that he's in the fore running of a new technology. Why does he propose to advance ALL work under his guidance? Except that he's harvesting new ideas. And WHEN has there been any evidence of his promoting any kind of ou anywhere at all? His posts speak for themselves. There is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE of his own contributions. Just 'hints' at best.
What a LIAR you are! It's unbelievable that you can be so very mendacious. My very real contributions are all around you and you refuse to see them. You wouldn't understand them anyway, but you could at least DO SOME RESEARCH before you accuse me of your libels. There is plenty of evidence of my very real and solid contributions. Just trying to teach YOU how to read your own oscilloscope has helped many people, both in their own work and to understand what a sheer idiot you are. Function generators not passing current! AC vs DC offset ! You are astounding in your ignorance and your mendacity. Had I never encountered you and someone described you to me, I would not have believed that anyone could be so blithely ignorant, overweeningly arrogant and mendacious all at the same time. You take the cake, truly. You deserve an award all right... .and I know that you will eventually get exactly what you deserve.
QuoteYet he DEMANDS that everyone play their cards so openly? For his personal edification and inspection? And his 'ruling' on that device is then to be regarded as ABSOLUTE? It's laughable. Absurd.
You are absurd indeed. Yes, I demand that people who claim excess energy play their cards openly, especially when they try to claim prize money or pretend to publish papers. You get no apology from me for that, for sure. For my personal edification and inspection? How about for that of the community instead. And I think you are now confusing me with the Pope of Skeptics, Mark Dansie, who apparently is the only person on Earth who can read a multimeter and give an ABSOLUTE ruling on your absurd "device".
QuoteHe CLAIMS to be a consultant to some well funded companies looking into eccentric claims.
Would you care to refute that "CLAIM" with some facts of your own? Of course not, you cannot.
Quote
He then talks about how 'WE' funded ... this and that - implying that he's got significant clout. The guy is a windbag of pure pretension. He has a tenuous grasp on particle physics - NO idea of chemistry - and he hides his identity from everyone so that he can continue with that DEVIOUS intention to steal ideas and then claim it ALL as his own work. Unscrupulous is still too tame as a description.
Lie after lie after lie along with continuing libels. Ainslie, you have no idea of my influence or lack of it, but I can tell you this much: I have been directly responsible for saving my various employers a _lot_ of money that they otherwise might have disbursed to fraudulent claimants. You can believe that or not as you wish... but you cannot disprove it.
I will put my knowledge of chemistry and particle physics up against Ainslie's any day of the week. She dare not engage in a discussion of either of those topics with me because she has neither the education nor the experience nor the WIT to hold her own and cannot even follow the simplest bit of mathematics. She adds 80 + 22 and arrives at 104 !! And the rest of that accusation is libel plain and simple and I sincerely hope that her lawyers will check the database for more egregious acts of libel from this mendacious, overweeningly arrogant Rosemary Ainslie.
Quote
In any event. I've said it before. It takes courage to 'dance with the devil'. Was greatly amused at this statement...
First, never NEVER take your working prototype apart for any reason whatsoever.
Second, once you have a working prototype that you think is capable of making free energy or consistent OU performance, _immediately_ construct another identical one, make sure it works, and lock it away somewhere.
Then make a _third_ one and send it to me. If it still works when it gets to me and I take it out of the box, I'll refund your shipping costs.
You don't think that's good advice? You take that statement completely out of context and then you say the following lie:
Quote
My personal experience of this Little ploy - is that he then modifies the circuit and then CLAIMS THAT IT IS UNIQUELY HIS OWN.
YOU ARE A LIAR. You cannot provide any evidence for that lying and libellous claim, and not only that but you have no "experience" at all from which to speak.
Quote Just how PREDICTABLE is that? Hopefully others will be alert. And this is the BEST. He dismisses theory in preference to 'saussages'? Golly. The guy is either calling for hamburgers, pickles or saussages. Does he ever think or talk SCIENCE? EVIDENTLY NOT.
YOU ARE A BOLDFACED, COLORED CRAYON LIAR, AINSLIE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. YOU KNOW NOTHING OF SCIENCE AND EVEN LESS OF THE TRUTH. YOU CANNOT SUPPORT ANY OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME WITH REFERENCES AND FACTS. And you do not grasp the reference to "sausages" at all... because you have not done your homework AGAIN, little lady. What are we to do with you. Maybe a special school.... (sound familiar Ainslie? I know more about you than you think I do.)
Quote
He's playing you all for fools. I have NEVER come across a person so entirely bereft of courtesy, decency or integrity. You will notice that he NOWHERE undertakes to evaluate anything fairly.
You dirty filthy liar. Over and over again you persist in the same tired and easily refuted lies, and you cannot EVER provide any evidence for those libels against me. Give some evidence for my lack of "fairness". You cannot. You have had plenty of completely fair chances to prove your claims, for instance... and you have failed outright and refused further testing.
QuoteJust a ruling according to 'our ickle pickle'. And you must remember that the ONLY viable technology on OU that is currently being researched is LENR. Ask him - sometime - what exactly is being done about advancing this subject on overunity.com? He ACTIVELY engaged to close down that thread as well.
Lies again, more lies from the liar Ainslie. There is no evidence ANYWHERE of me trying in any way to close down ANY THREAD. In fact I am against such activity because it is censorship. Once again AINSLIE LIES and she cannot provide any support for her lying allegations. "Ickle Pickle"? Once again the incredible troll mentions "Pickles" .... when she clearly knows that the origin of that little meme was in reference to Cheeseburger's male sexual apparatus. Her pornographic delusions continue unabated.
QuoteYou really need to read between the lines. His last victim was MrWayne. There will be many more. And he seems to think he deserves some kind of approbation for his efforts. God help us all.
Anyway - enough on such a tedious subject. I got an apology from Mark as he 'overslept'. I can understand it. The guy seems to travel 24.7 - and I expect that takes it toll. Hopefully I'll hear from him tonight...
Kindest as ever
Rosie
Victim? Look close, lying Ainslie troll. Mister Wayne _won_ that little battle: it was HIS REQUEST that the thread be closed, and he did it because he could not answer my questions and challenges honestly. Unlike YOU, Ainslie, he seems unable to lie straight out, he just is the master of prevarication and dissimulation. YOU however have no compunctions at all... you simply make stuff up out of whole cloth and trumpet it about as if nobody knew any better. But they do.
Quote from: Yousaidwhat on December 04, 2012, 12:02:30 AM
@TK
Here is the latest just to get back on topic
"Guys,
I've still not heard back from Mark. Here's my last email to him...
Mark - this is getting a little bit repetitive. I've now spent the best part of Sunday as well the most of Monday anticipating a call. If you do intend reaching me - then let me know.
Here's what we can show you
A variety of different switching circuits that measure COP >1 and COP INFINITY - depending on small circuit variations
That can dissipate varying and/or fixed levels of wattage as required
That results in a battery that outperforms its watt hour rating by upwards of a factor of 6
Here's what we want to discuss with you
The thesis that predicted this result
Which is consistent with the Standard Model
Subject to the eccentric inclusion of a material property in a magnetic field
Some proposed alternatives to the use of a battery supply
Which, in turn would involve research and development and the funding for this
Some development for anti gravitational technologies that are begged in terms of that thesis
That we propose goes some way to explaining LENR an other over unity effects.
Here's what it will cost you
NOTHING
except that development costs will be to your account
And because some of this technology is probably still patentable - the attendant patent costs
But you can probably then enjoy the exclusive benefit of any financial rewards IF you bring this to the market first
In return for
Public acknowledgement and accreditation of our results relating to the switched circuit apparatus and tests
As well as the accreditation of the applied measurement protocols
That relate EXCLUSIVELY to those tests that have already been put in the public domain
Which is required for the accreditation of our papers that open source can further this thesis
And the promising technologies that we contend will result from that increased understanding
Here's what we guarantee
That the measurements will be consistent with tests recorded in ALL our papers
That they are more dependable as our current sensing resistors are now non-inductive and calibrated
That more stringent thermodynamic tests support these claims
Failing which we will REFUND YOU YOUR TRAVEL EXPENSES.
We trust that you have NOT been duped by that absurd thread by your colleague who prefers, for reasons best understood by himself - to be known as Tinsel Koala. He relies on the poor and comically unscholarly presentation of a series of replications, which he contends discounts these claims of ours - on rather thin and embarrassingly inadequate evidence. And he seems to have duped the most of those poor members into believing that there is NO significance to any of these claims - notwithstanding his clumsy attempts at replication.
Our measurement protocols have been APPROVED by a number of HIGHLY PROFICIENT ACADEMICS. We will disclose their identities privately - subject to agreement that they are never to have this association with our tests made public - except if and when and as they, themselves, require. On that basis I suspect that you will be able to refer to their expertise.
Surely this is all reason enough to contact me?
Rosemary"
You are libelling me in that letter, if you actually sent it at all. There will be consequences for you, Ainslie. You cannot provide any support for your lying allegations against me, and I will happily present my material to anyone and I can discuss it and demonstrate just exactly where and how you are completely and utterly WRONG in your claims about your "work" as well as in your claims about my analysis of it.
Mark is completely welcome to test and examine my Tar Baby apparatus to see whether or not it duplicates your measurements; he is free to examine all those video presentations of mine WHICH YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN but somehow feel qualified to comment on; and I am ready and able to defend my points in public whenever called upon BY LEGITIMATE INTERESTS to do so. I can't wait to see YOU try to explain the scope shots in your papers to Dansie, or to anyone who knows how to read a scope. You are going to fall flat on your mendacious wrinkled old face.
Witness below: three scopeshots showing a blown mosfet. One of these figures appears in Ainslie's manuscript as "evidence" for her claim. In fact, a mosfet getting +12 volts to its gate either TURNS ON AND PASSES CURRENT.... or it is defective or missing or miswired. Yet we here have three scopeshots (and there are more) that show NO CURRENT in the CVR when the Q1 mosfet is getting +12 volts to the gate. Ainslie has never explained these shots, she has promised to duplicate them MONTHS AGO as her very first video demonstration of her new testing.... and she has not deigned to do so... because she simply cannot, not with functioning and properly wired mosfets.
Here is what a current trace DOES look like when the mosfet is functioning and turned on by a gate signal. Ironically... and stupidly... Ainslie claims that shots like this show no power coming from the battery .... when in fact they clearly do show current being supplied by the battery to the circuit.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 04, 2012, 02:33:16 AM
the origin of that little meme was in reference to Cheeseburger's male sexual apparatus.
wrong. that was not my intent whatsoever. but go on with your bad ass self and assume whatever you wish... ::)
and i wonder why cheesy never answered my question...
Care to explain, then, what you REALLY meant? Here's the post, if you can't recall. You might have been talking about his "probes" but are you really going to tell me that this exchange ISN'T meant to refer to a male sexual organ and its size? Sure. Sometimes a pickle is just a pickle, right. Why then does Ainslie continue to bring it up in such an insulting manner, first talking about how big "my" pickle is, then how small it is? Especially when it isn't even my pickle at all.
Grasping at straw men again, are you, jibguy?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 04, 2012, 03:20:35 AM
Care to explain, then, what you REALLY meant? Here's the post, if you can't recall. You might have been talking about his "probes" but are you really going to tell me that this exchange ISN'T meant to refer to a male sexual organ and its size? Sure. Sometimes a pickle is just a pickle, right. Why then does Ainslie continue to bring it up in such an insulting manner, first talking about how big "my" pickle is, then how small it is? Especially when it isn't even my pickle at all.
Grasping at straw men again, are you, jibguy?
sure i'll explain... since you're so perverted and retarded as to not be able to grasp that your despicable thoughts are not the only possibility. no need to spam post the image AGAIN, i can recall just fine... far better than your debilitated mind can. ::) how many times have you posted that image in the last month? your obsessive mental problems are showing.
go review the prior posts by cheesy... where he signs off with 'extra fries' please, and something about tomatoes, etc...
SO... are fries to be taken as a phallic symbol now? ::)
have you ever heard the expression 'hold your horses'? and... do you remember the old burgerking jingle 'hold the pickles, hold the lettuce... special order don't forget us'?
so now with those things before you, you should be able to see it was a play on words... CHEESY'S words and i simply decided to combine an old saying with part of an old commercial jingle. it wasn't me that implied any sexual innuendo WHATSOEVER.
i'll accept your mea culpa now... you mendacious fraud. ::)
eta: you wouldn't know a strawman even if it bent you over and treated you like an altar boy... ::)
Wilby, a long time ago when I first joined this forum you tricked me into giving you a mailing address by LYING TO ME, promising to send me a particular mosfet when YOU IN FACT NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF DOING SO. In other words, you deliberately scammed me and now you have information that you did not come by legitimately, by lying to me and taking deliberate advantage of my naivete at that point.
So none of your protestations mean anything to me, because YOU have pulled off the most egregious fraud against me by making me a promise, then lying to me, failing to fulfil the promise that you actually never intended to keep, obtaining information, then threatening to use it to harm me.
So go stick your French Fries into your lying troll mouth, since you cannot refute anything I say here. Nobody reading that post and the comedy that results from it will deny that it is funny only _because_ it is a sexual innuendo and slur. It would be utterly meaningless otherwise.
Continue flailing about, WILBY, you are insignificant, meaningless, and possibly the most universally ignored troll on this forum. NOBODY has lied to me the way you have, NOBODY has tricked me and attempted to use the information against me like you have. You taught me a real lesson all right, troll. Why you are allowed to persist here I have no idea, but you certainly have no credibility with me.
::)
Another mess of lies from that utterly PROFESSIONAL troll Rosemary Ainslie and her impotent sock puppet WhoSaidShite.
Quote
For Bryan Little
You bloody idiot. You still have NO IDEA to whom you are talking. Continue, you are making a fool of yourself with EVERY WORD.
Quote
Golly little TK. I see an obsessive requirement to uncover the 'source' of your nickname 'Ickle Pickle'. I'm not sure of your own understandings on the issue. Mine are based on a rather 'reckless' claim you made that you were 72 pickles long.
That is another
BALDFACED LIE. Your gash of a lying mouth should heal up from uttering such mendacities. You accused me of being "little" and I responded by saying that I was 72 inches tall, or of "linear dimension". The rest of your nonsense garbage follows from that. Care to refute me with support for your baldfaced lie, with a link to where I ever claimed I was "72 pickles long"? Of course you cannot, you lying troll.
QuoteYou don't seem to realise that a 'pickle' is not USUALLY considered as a unit of length. It can be arbitrary. It could be as long as a small pumpkin and as short as the smallest curve on my little finger when I wave it at you. You see the problem? It's an ARBITRARY unit of length. In science one needs to use standardised references. You're basing your ENTIRE identity on a number that - in strictly scientific terms - is IRRELEVANT.
I realize how ridiculous you are making yourself look, in front of everyone who reads both of these forums, that's for sure. Do you? Apparently not. You really had better lay off the sherry before noon.
Quote
So. Let's look at this again. IF you are indeed 72 pickles long - then are those pickles 'long' or 'short'? Are they young or old? Are they green and turgid - or grey and flaccid? Are they stacked up one on top of the other? Or have you laid them down flat and then used a ruler? Again? WHAT reference are you using? Are they measured when you're standing on a ladder? Or are you in high heels? Are you looking 'down' at that column of gherkins? Or are you holding it up and WAVING it - as you claimed? Have you got your pickles 'crossed' in the way that people 'cross their fingers' when they're hoping to dupe God or their public? And MOST importantly. Do you suffer from vertigo when you climb up SO HIGH to gauge the LENGTH of those pickles? Any sense of 'dizziness'? A weakness at the knees? Anything at ALL that could substantiate - justify - that physical reaction?
Can you BELIEVE this? I am astounded. This is the most utterly absurd thing I have read, even from Ainslie the mistress of absurdity herself.
Let her hang herself by her own petard. I will be putting this little bit of verbal diarrhoea at the very head of my database.... which has already begun being _downloaded_ by various interested parties.
Quote
We ALL need clarification. But for the record. I personally ADMIRE your insistence on being identified with pickles. It shows a remarkable strength of purpose. More than ANYTHING it shows that you are WELL able to fight your corner - stand on your merits - HOLD YOUR OWN. God knows. It's HUGELY important. Far more so than any idle claims that any old women may be making. So. It's a good thing that you do - in monopolising your thread with a discussion on your size. We're MORE than happy - ALL OF US - to allow you to ramble on about this. It's a subject that you clearly hold near and dear to your heart.
By the way - DOES YOUR PICKLE SPORT A MOUSTACHE? I've long considered this option. And I suspect that IF it does - it probably is confusing that size even further. SHAVE IT OFF and then MAKE A MEASUREMENT. But use GRE as a standard - which stands for Grandiose and Ridiculous Exaggeration. THAT is a measure that we KNOW you to REQUIRE.
With much love and in the forlorn hopes that you'll heed my advices
Rosie Pose
Ainslie certainly speaks for herself, doesn't she. There is nothing that can be said that is sufficiently descriptive of her lack of all personal dignity, conscience, sense of propriety or shame. "Idiot" isn't nearly strong enough. I am just shaking my head in amazement. I've never ever encountered anything like this. She is utterly flmping NUTSO!
I had to check for myself. She really _DID_ post that nonsensical screed. And she expects people like Dansie to respect her, treat her like a human being with skills and knowledge? I am flabbergasted.
Preserved for posterity.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 04, 2012, 12:20:54 PM
Wilby, a long time ago when I first joined this forum you tricked me into giving you a mailing address by LYING TO ME, promising to send me a particular mosfet when YOU IN FACT NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF DOING SO. In other words, you deliberately scammed me and now you have information that you did not come by legitimately, by lying to me and taking deliberate advantage of my naivete at that point.
So none of your protestations mean anything to me, because YOU have pulled off the most egregious fraud against me by making me a promise, then lying to me, failing to fulfil the promise that you actually never intended to keep, obtaining information, then threatening to use it to harm me.
everytime you open your mouth stupid dribbles down your chin and all over your shirt... you should wipe that up.
hey jibguy, grasping at strawmen and vomiting red herrings serves to demonstrate your stupidity... and your hypocrisy... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 04, 2012, 12:20:54 PM
since you cannot refute anything I say here.
i just did... bitch. ::) you're the one who has problems with responding cogently... ::)
that's
two mea culpas you owe me now... ::) but you're not man enough to offer them up. nor will you ever be. you are proof positive that you can only be young once but you can be immature forever.
I hear a little buzzing noise... but I hear no disputing of the FACTS of the lying scam that Wilby pulled on me those years ago. As far as I can determine, the only thing that is OWED is one mosfet, by him, to me. Other than that, the Wilby troll has squeaked to insignificance since he cannot even deny that lie and manipulation that he pulled.
Maybe Wilbert can show that Roses circuit works as she says? :o ::)
Or is he defending the false claims on purpose? ;) :o :o
Why is that? ???
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on December 05, 2012, 08:23:22 PM
Maybe Wilbert can show that Roses circuit works as she says? :o ::)
Or is he defending the false claims on purpose? ;) :o :o
Why is that? ???
Mags
what has any of what you said got to do with me explaining what i meant with the "hold your pickle" comment? ::)
your logical fallacy emperor (who has no clothes) has taught you well magtard... ::)
and where EXACTLY have i 'defended her claims'? i'll wait... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 05, 2012, 09:19:27 AM
I hear a little buzzing noise... but I hear no disputing of the FACTS of the lying scam that Wilby pulled on me those years ago. As far as I can determine, the only thing that is OWED is one mosfet, by him, to me. Other than that, the Wilby troll has squeaked to insignificance since he cannot even deny that lie and manipulation that he pulled.
i hear the thrashing, flopping sound of a red dead herring... ::)
how pathetic. ::) grasping at red herrings do nothing but serve to demonstrate your stupidity jibguy... when will you figure out what a cogent response is? never.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 05, 2012, 08:28:16 PM
and where EXACTLY have i 'defended her claims'? i'll wait... ::)
Its here in this thread. You know, here. ;) Lets look before the latest battle of the pickles. ;)
Why dont you hammer Rose for her lies and false presentations? Hmmm? ::)
Did have to wait long did ya? ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on December 05, 2012, 08:52:44 PM
Its here in this thread. You know, here. ;) Lets look before the latest battle of the pickles. ;)
Why dont you hammer Rose for her lies and false presentations? Hmmm? ::)
Did have to wait long did ya? ;)
Mags
then post a quote of 'it' you mendacious little godtarded troll... ::)
thank you for ANOTHER tacit admission that you cannot and will not defend nor substantiate your asinine, fantastical claims... ::) i wouldn't expect anything more than a logically fallacious response from a godtard like you.
tu stultus es!
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 05, 2012, 08:57:15 PM
then post a quote of 'it' you mendacious little godtarded troll... ::)
thank you for ANOTHER tacit admission that you cannot and will not defend nor substantiate your asinine, fantastical claims... ::) i wouldn't expect anything more than a logically fallacious response from a godtard like you.
tu stultus es!
Thank you for ANOTHER tacit admission that you support someone who lies about their claims. :o ;)
Magzimus Leviticus ;D
Quote from: Magluvin on December 06, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
Thank you for ANOTHER tacit admission that you support someone who lies about their claims. :o ;)
Magzimus Leviticus ;D
I second demotion for ANOTHER tacit admission that cannot admit up to now ;D . lol hahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
by the way thank you!!!;D
Titus Anus Britanicus ;D
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on December 06, 2012, 09:11:00 PM
I second demotion for ANOTHER tacit admission that cannot admit up to now ;D . lol hahahahahhahahahahhahahaha
by the way thank you!!!;D
Titus Anus Britanicus ;D
lol
Yes, he is To stupidus onion dip
Quote from: webby1 on December 05, 2012, 09:32:16 PM
Hi TK,
If you don't mind I would find it very helpful if you could tell me how to build and calibrate an absolute DIY electronic pressure sensor.
If you do not want to post it here you have my email.
Again I would be very appreciative for this information.
Seriously? OK.
(But do you see what I have to put up with? You think my argument with Mister Wayne is rough, you should check out the history of Rosemary Ainslie.)
You do not say whether you want to measure gas or liquid pressure, but it doesn't really matter. If you look at my latest videos on my YT channel, you will see me developing a useful set of applications for an Arduino-based sensor-driven voltmeter. If you watch these from the first one on, and download the program sketches from the links, you will see that this might be the answer to your problem. I show the system reading and responding to several different kinds of sensors, like a thermistor, a photoresistor pair (in the TKtracker) and a photovoltaic cell. Using it with a pressure sensor would be a matter of plumbing it onto your apparatus, plugging it into the Arduino, and altering a few numbers in the program code.
Once you see the Arduino in action and see how easy it is to use and to program... even if you have no experience programming at all, it's easy because there are so many good tutorials..... then google "Arduino pressure sensor" and you will see that there are many other precise and accurate solutions for pressure measuring using the Arduino.
I don't have a pressure sensor available to me right now or I'd go ahead and make the video tutorial for it, but as you will find there are already plenty of them up.
My Arduino videos that apply start here, and go on for six or seven more and I'm working on some others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x05tCmDiLs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x05tCmDiLs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6AF4azWCeA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6AF4azWCeA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0Ddz2CDmEE
Pressure sensor Arduino links I liked:
http://www.practicalarduino.com/projects/water-tank-depth-sensor (http://www.practicalarduino.com/projects/water-tank-depth-sensor)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiv1eBAGVok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiv1eBAGVok)
Depending on where you shop, the basic Arduino costs 20-30 dollars, that 2-line LCD display another 30 or so (not really needed, you can display on your computer screen), and I don't know how much the pressure sensors cost but I'll bet they are cheap, and the programming IDE is free, of course, and runs on any computer system with USB port. You can set how often pressures are read and save them into a datafile for later analysis if you like.
A single Arduino should be able to handle 4 or five pressure sensors, you can switch the display between them or have the data all put into a file.
Thanks for asking. I'll be glad to help out if you decide to go this route. It's by far the easiest and most customizable way I can think of, and you'll be able to use the Arduino for tons of other stuff after.... well, after you know.
;)
Quote from: Magluvin on December 06, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
Thank you for ANOTHER tacit admission that you support someone who lies about their claims. :o ;)
Magzimus Leviticus ;D
::)
Quote from: Magluvin on December 06, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
Thank you for ANOTHER tacit admission that you support someone who lies about their claims. :o ;)
Magzimus Leviticus ;D
you mendacious godtarded troll... ::)
post a quote of me doing what you claim or shut your sodding face.god hates liars magtard... and yet you continue to lie thereby demonstrating you don't believe in nor fear your god.
Hi Mark Dansie
I see that Rosemary Ainslie has no compunctions at all about lying to you right out front. Whatever.... you will be sorry that you ever got involved with her, mark my words.
Meanwhile, here is Tar Baby running on CAPACITORS ONLY, making the same "negative mean power product" that the mendacious Ainslie thinks is evidence for something unusual happening.
Perhaps you, Mark, can tell me how a circuit that is wired according to the "approved schematic", uses the same transistors and makes the same output waveforms...... is "not" a replication of Ainslie's circuit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0)
And Altoid, the pocket OU demonstrator.... also runs COMPLETELY WITHOUT BATTERIES on a capacitor alone, making the same negative mean power product, by the same means as the full size version, on demand any time anywhere, and can be carried in a shirt pocket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf12g8HPnI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf12g8HPnI)
Mark..... Please examine ALL material available about Ainslie. You will find that the story she tells is far, far from the truth. And I am not the only one who will tell you that. Ask Ashtweth, Aaron, Harvey, FuzzyTomCat..... ask .99, MileHigh, PicoWatt...... there are a lot of people you can ask who I believe will tell you pretty much the same thing. Where are the people who agree with Ainslie? Who are they? What are their qualifications?
At any rate.... it will be extremely interesting to see what you discover when you ask Ainslie to reproduce these scopeshots with functioning mosfets.
You should INSIST that she run with all six batteries, making the over 72 volts input as shown in the scopeshots, and you should insist that she use the long runtimes and duty cycles shown on the scopeshots, especially the one that appears as "Figure 3" in her manuscript. Under those conditions, the Q1 mosfet should be carrying 5 amps or more... until it fails, then it will make the scopeshots just as shown.
I have support and proof for every one of my contentions in the matter of Rosemary Ainslie. All this and much more, most of it in Ainslie's own words from forum posts and blog posts, is available in my comprehensive Ainslie database, here, in zipfiles of under 200 MB each, for a total of over 5 GB and growing, as I continue to upload my cached files:
http://www.mediafire.com/?b43c5te5tq5xx
Can anyone tell me what the idiot Ainslie is on about now? What the devil is she talking about?
Quote from: webby1 on December 07, 2012, 08:26:43 AM
Thanks TK, I will be looking into all that later on today.
I kind of thought that you would help, you seem like that sort of person.
I thought I seemed like a Fucking Ignorant Moron sort of person to you. Or was that some other Webby?
How's the secret forum coming along? Got any self runners yet?
;)
@tk my interpretation is that her humiliating sock puppet YSW is now being moderated. At least we can hope.
Quote from: webby1 on December 07, 2012, 11:29:52 AM
With Electronics that would be me TK :)
Things are very interesting. ;)
"Things are very interesting. ;) "
So that's a "NO" then.... or maybe "I can't talk because of the NDA I had to sign". ::)
I've done a bit more research and I think you can set up a multi-channel liquid and gas pressure monitoring and logging system using Arduino, some cheap analog pressure transducers, including a Parallax 2-line LCD display and logging data to your computer, for something like 100 dollars US, depending on the sensors and how many you need.
I know how to make mechanical force-type pressure sensors easily and cheaply but these aren't going to be what you need, I think. You can get your mechanical forces from digital and spring scales easily enough.
My daily consulting fee for this kind of stuff is 350 dollars US per day plus expenses. But if I waive the charge to you.... and get a receipt.... I might be able to take it off my taxes, as a charitable donation to a religious institution.... the Church of Wayne.
;D
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 07, 2012, 06:28:37 AM
you mendacious godtarded troll... ::) post a quote of me doing what you claim or shut your sodding face.
god hates liars magtard... and yet you continue to lie thereby demonstrating you don't believe in nor fear your god.
Just the fact that you come here and hammer on TK, in this thread mostly, is proof enough. You are seen as defending Rose by posting issues that TK is falsifying claims against Rose, when he posts. You may not be mentioning Rose in your posts, but it doesnt mean you are just here to 'try' and point out that TK is wrong , every chance you get.
Or are you just being a dick and this is your favorite place to puke after that 18 pack?
Clearly you are wrong about most everything. A waste of page space. ;)
Mags
Quote from: mrsean2k on December 07, 2012, 05:04:30 PM
@tk my interpretation is that her humiliating sock puppet YSW is now being moderated. At least we can hope.
At least we can hope.
But of course I had nothing whatever to do with it, except perhaps by preserving the posts by imaging them in screenshots, as uneditable proof of the mendacity and prevarication of Ainslie and her sock puppet.
Therefore, when Ainslie implies that the "moderation" was due to any action of "Brian Little's" she again lies transparently and makes a fool of herself both at once, without even being asked to.
I reiterate once again: I have Tar Baby sitting here, with 5 good IRFPG50 mosfets, some spares, and another set of IRF830 mosfets, ready to go for side-by-side testing against Ainslie's NERD apparatus. I contend that it performs without significant difference from the Ainslie device, and it does so on demand without unnecessary (and not understood by Anslie) manipulations or kludges. It can operate _right now_ on the output of a 555 timer that is powered by its running batteries, not an external power supply, and/or it can be operated in "continuous oscillation mode" --- thus not using the Q1 mosfet at all -- or in the long duty cycle modes which heavily stress this mosfet, depending on which one Ainslie is currently favoring in her mendacious "explanations" of her circuit's behaviour.
Any Pope of Skeptics who is seriously considering evaluating the Ainslie claims would be remiss, I think, to avoid taking advantage of this offer of mine. It's a well-documented and tested replication of Ainslie's circuit, her claimed "negative mean power" data, and all other _VERIFIED_ effects that Ainslie claims to have produced. I can even _actually_ boil water with it, something that Ainslie herself has never _actually_ done.
Quote from: Magluvin on December 07, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
Just the fact that you come here and hammer on TK, in this thread mostly, is proof enough.
no it's not... ::) you fucking idiot. if your naked emperor is going to spam post an image of one of my posts and suggest that i meant something OTHER than what i meant, i WILL call him on it. i wouldn't even have to if he could shut his fucking mouth about me, but he can't because... he's upset that i ride him like a rented mule as he does to others (it's that holding up a mirror thing again) and... he's mental, he's obsessed.
Quote from: Magluvin on December 07, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
You are seen as defending Rose by posting issues that TK is falsifying claims against Rose, when he posts.
i haven't said anything that could even be remotely construed as what you suggest... ::) why don't you SHOW where i have done this with a quote you lying bitch... ::)
Quote from: Magluvin on December 07, 2012, 07:04:42 PM
Clearly you are wrong about most everything. A waste of page space. ;)
Mags
clearly you cannot substantiate ANY of your asinine, fantastical claims... ::)
Do the Math (tm Rosemary Ainslie). Well.... I did. Did you?
QuoteSo. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.
Actually.... 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 Joules. Period. There is no " Per Second" about it. By going further and just multiplying this by 90 minutes of the test period..... what happened to the factor of 60 seconds PER minute? If you have a figure of something "PER SECOND", even if it's wrong, you still need to multiply by 60 seconds PER minute, before you can multiply by 90 minutes PER test period.
Regardless of that..... by multiplying the number of JOULES that it took to raise the water to 82 degrees in the first place.... you are essentially saying that you raised it from 16 to 82 degrees... over and over, each minute. This is clearly ridiculous and wrong. The 248292 Joules is what it took to raise the water to 82 degrees and all that was required over and above that was to overcome its temperature losses to the air and surroundings.
But continue anyway.....
"Then ADD the last ten minutes where the water was "taken to a boil"" but wasn't actually boiling.... and remembering that Ainslie herself has told us over and over that she DID NOT EVEN MEASURE the actual temperature of the water but rather of a thermocouple "over" the load..... we find that she mendaciously starts at 16 degrees again! She uses the 88 degrees rise from 16 degrees to 104, not the "correct" figure.... still wrong.... of 22 degrees rise, from 82 degrees to 104 degrees. In other words she has here added the same quantity twice, into the "calculation", to obtain 331156 Joules... and she still calls it Joules Per Second, then proceeds once again to multiply that by 10 minutes ( but forgets to multiply by 60 seconds PER minute) ........ and then she adds up the whole shebang of bogus numbers and finds a figure of over 25 megaJoules. And she compares that to a FIVE battery stack instead of a six battery stack, when her scopeshots show a 72 or 73 volt input for this trial.
Her batteries, 6 x 12 V x 60 A-H each in capacity, hold (6 batteries) x (60 Amps) x (1 hour) x (60 minutes per hour) x ( 60 seconds per minute) x (12 volts per battery) == 15,552,000 watt-seconds or Joules at their nominal full charge. Note that the unit dimensions work out algebraically as well as the numbers.
Her input to raise the water to 82 degrees initially was 248292 Joules. Then to go from 82 degrees to 104 (sic) degrees in liquid water, no phase change..... means that the temperature measurement is wrong, for one thing... but let us proceed nevertheless. 22 degrees x 4.19 Joules per gram per degree x 900 grams of water == 82,962 Joules, and once again the unit dimensions work out just as do the numbers, a further check of correctness.
Adding these two correct figures together we have 331254 Joules used to raise the water to 104 degrees...even if it wasn't really. Since we do not know the heat leak rate nor the actual time it took to raise the water to this temperature, we can only guess. If the total experiment took 90 minutes, and if the leak rate was double or even triple the amount used to raise up the water temp in the first place..... well, perhaps we have 1 megaJoule expended in 90 minutes to give us the ACTUAL DATA, that is, the time temperature profile reported. This, against the 15 megaJoules or more in the battery pack.
And if Ainslie expended one million Joules in 90 minutes and a Joule is a Watt-second, that is 1,000,000 Watt-seconds /( (60 seconds/minute) x 90 minutes) == about 185 Watts average power. That's a high figure, based on the high leak rate guessed for the system. Lower... means even more than FIFTEEN such trials could have been done on the charge in the batteries.
But Ainslie claims that this single trial exceeded her battery capacity.... based on THIS CALCULATION SHE PERFORMS, RIGHT HERE, that I have shown is completely bogus. And her conclusions, and her papers, are based on THIS. They are based on this experiment, described by her in several places, and THIS is the calculation she uses to justify her claims of thermal overunity.
Yes, Ainslie.... DO THE MATH. Because anyone who does can see that your entire claim is based on this calculation and others like it. Bogus from start to finish, numbers multiplied haphazardly together willy nilly by someone who says "One Joule is One Watt Per Second" and that "PER never means divide" and believes that liquid water can exist at 104 degrees C in Cape Town SA in an unpressurized vessel, and who believes in adding the same numbers twice into a quantity.... and who has NEVER CORRECTED OR RETRACTED this bogus math or the conclusions based on it.
Not only that... but there were only 700 grams of water to begin with anyway, as she reveals in a later post.
Now... note that that blog post 117 says "NO measureable cost from the battery supply."
Yet look at the scopeshot posted along with that blogpost.... one taken before the mosfet failed.
When I first started working on the Ainslie COP>17 claim in 2009, I used the mosfets that were available to me, the 2sk1548 among them. The grand troll Wilby.... who I did not know about at that time... criticised me for this and OFFERED TO SEND ME THE CORRECT MOSFET , a IRFPG50. He convinced me he was sincere and promised to send the mosfet along to me. So I gave him a mailing address in a PM. Then he laughed at me, because HE NEVER ACTUALLY INTENDED TO SEND ME A MOSFET: he lied, ran a scam on me, tricked me into trusting him and revealing an address to him. He has mocked me for being so stupid as to BELIEVE HIM and to TRUST HIM, a well known internet troll, and he is right to do so. Nobody should trust or believe a single thing that Wilby says because he has committed the most egregious act of dishonesty and trolling against me in my entire experience on the internet. He promised, he lied, and he holds my private information over my head as a continual threat. And he has the temerity to criticise me! What an unmitigated ASSHOLE is Wilby Inebriated, the lying, mocking, false-promise-making Supreme Troll of them all.
i criticized you for raping the scientific method AND calling your HACK a replication... ::) the record demonstrates this you mendacious troll... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 08, 2012, 06:37:00 AM
He convinced me he was sincere and promised to send the mosfet along to me.
you're a liar... i NEVER convinced you,
you convinced yourself. and any SANE person reading the context of that conversation will find that obvious... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 08, 2012, 06:37:00 AM
Nobody should trust or believe a single thing that Wilby says because he has committed the most egregious act of dishonesty and trolling against me in my entire experience on the internet.
so then noone should trust or believe a single thing you say being you perpetrated that whipmag hoax on the OU community... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 08, 2012, 06:37:00 AM
and he holds my private information over my head as a continual threat.
more lies... i have done no such thing... but keep pushing little boy, and you may just get your wish. i'll post that address any and everywhere possible... along with other information i have about you. i know more than you think.
now, you shut your fucking mouth about me AND publicly post those two mea culpas you owe me and i MIGHT leave you alone... but if you insist on posting your snide little jibes and lies in EVERY thread you possibly can, i WILL ride you like the lying bitch you are.
Thank you, Wilby troll, for proving me completely right.
You are lying, threatening, using your characteristic foul mouth, and being generally off topic and obnoxious. You are the very prototype of the useless internet troll.
Preserved for posterity.
Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2012, 08:08:11 AM
You can be funny TK.
When you are trying to measure things while in motion it makes it hard to use standard scales and stuff.
I am playing with a different build right now than the rest, but the others are making nice things happen.
I am playing with something that is setup just as a water pump at the moment, and well I can not have my 12 foot tall manometer moving around with the pump very easily :)
Why don't you look up some likely analog (probably cheaper) or digital gas pressure sensors from the google search for "arduino pressure sensor" page, and tell me what it is. I'll write the code for you, you can buy your own Arduino, Parallax LCD display, a potentiometer and some little other parts, the pressure sensors, and we'll have it up and running before a drunken Jibguy can change his tack. I'll need a copy of the pressure sensor to write the code. Liquid pressures can also be measured with the same type of gas pressure sensor by including a little buffer chamber of gas for the sensor to read. I think it should be easy to do, it all depends on the sensor you choose.
I thought that I coined the term "virtual water" in my Travis Effect videos. Can you point me to an earlier use, in the context of the Zeds? I only ask because....well.... I see that Mister Wayne has been using the term freely on his new "explanations". I find this very amusing..
I deleted Rosemarie´s new account here after she tried to harrass me at 5:45 in the morning via a phonecall...
I told her last time, that she can read here , but no more have an account !
Also she runs her own forum, but why does she come back here ??
So she tried to circumvent the rules and got now booted again.
Regards, Stefan. (admin)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 08, 2012, 11:54:53 PM
Thank you, Wilby troll, for proving me completely right.
You are lying, threatening, using your characteristic foul mouth, and being generally off topic and obnoxious. You are the very prototype of the useless internet troll.
Preserved for posterity.
oh my god you are such a whining bitch of a hypocrite... and thank you for proving me right once again... ::) YOU brought up the pickle post. YOU spam posted that image how many times? YOU lied about what i meant when i originally posted it. YOU invited me to explain what i meant and then claim i am off-topic. AND YOU bitched and whined and lied like a 5 year old EVERY TIME i set you straight... ::)
it's obviously time for your medications.why don't you look in the mirror you pretentious, mendacious, self-righteous troll... on second thought maybe you shouldn't... you might start to understand why you failed out of school so many times, why you can't hold a job, why your dogs are your only friends, why anyone (including your mother) who spends even a short amount of time with you thinks you're a little prick, etc., etc.
Howdy All,
Just spent a few at Rosemary's personal forum/blog site (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php) and what a honeypot for her bonkers, brainsick, cracked, crazed, crazy, cuckoo, dellusional, demented, deranged, distraught, disturbed, fruity, insane, kooky, loco, loony, lunatic, mad, maniac, mentally ill, mindless, moonstruck, non compos mentis, nuts, nutsy, nutty, neurotic, paranoid, psycho, psychopathic, psychotic, sick, sick in the head, schizophrenic, stark raving mad, touched, unbalanced, unhinged, unsound, unstable, wacky commentary on that zipper head modified standard thesis model .... what ever the hell that is, no one but her understands it. :P
PLUS .... The demanding again of any available overunity prize money based on a fraudulent COP>INFINITY device Rosemary Ainslie invented ( hahahaha ) in that YouTube video called Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 March 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc) she directed will soon be two (2) years old ..... LOOK AT ALL THE EXCITEMENT !!!!! :o
If she stares at it any longer her mind will be burnt to a crisp ..... but I think it's waaaaaaay to late :-X
FTC
::)
You've heard of OU Crackpots, I'm sure..... but have you ever heard of an OU _Crockpot_?
The TK Sous Vide crockpot Arduino PID-based temperature control system, calibration testing:
(Yes, that is a mosfet, switching a resistive/inductive load, making "tiny bubbles" in a 1 liter crockpot....)
;D
8)
Looks like Ainslie is severely decompensating. It won't be long now before her brain dissolves and begins to run out of her ears.
She lies when she claims that I don't want Dansie to examine her material. In fact I've made all of my archived Ainslie material available to him, and I encourage him to examine her claims FULLY and to publish his findings. I've warned him though as to what will happen when he discovers and reveals-- yet again -- that she has nothing..... she will turn against him as she has turned against everyone else who has ever tried to examine her claims in earnest.
She also lies... blatantly.... when she claims that Tar Baby has not successfully replicated ALL of her CONFIRMED claims. Tar Baby has even gone beyond that: Tar Baby runs on capacitors, as does Altoid: two devices that make Ainslie's Magic Waveforms, complete with "negative mean power", and do it using no batteries at all, just capacitors of appropriate size. This is something that Ainslie denies is even possible.
And I can prove it, anywhere anytime. If Ainslie claims any "prizes" she will have to compete with Altoid: the Shirt Pocket demonstrator of Negative Mean Power that does not need a battery to do it. Ainslie's device doesn't even meet the size requirements ! But Altoid is the size of... a box of Altoid mints, and can be hooked up to anyone's oscilloscope at all, and will make its negative mean power.... until its charge is depleted, just exactly like Ainslie's NERD device does.
And further.... she lies whenever she refers to me as "Little", or Bryan (or Brian) Little, or any other of her ridiculous kindergarten appellations. Persons who are utterly ignorant of the truth must not simply "fill in the blanks" from their own mad delusions and paranoid belief systems.
And again.... she lies with every day that passes, not having corrected the calculations like that one above, and not having retracted the bogus conclusions based on them.
Every day, with every post, sometimes with every sentence even.... Ainslie tells yet more lies.
She cannot refute a single point I've made in this entire thread.
I'm shocked that Mark Dansie didn't mention Rose at all in his latest video update. ???
;) ;)
Oh, and he hasn't signed off on the whole MrWayne debacle yet either.
So.. I made a transcript of Dansie's segment on Mister Wayne Travis. In case Stefan chooses not to post it in the Hydro locked thread, I'm putting it here:
From the Hendershot Smart Scarecrow interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=uj8-7nOjRaQ
QuoteDansie: I was down there, there's a project which we've been following for nearly eighteen months now, it was a buoyancy-gravty device- ah.. Wayne Travis, and ah.. It was something I had found that I wasn't sure either way, ah whether they could achieve what they are claiming, and that is a mechanical device, if you like, that could self-run and produce excess energy. And as you know in the history of Mankind, nobody's ever achieved that. I saw enough evidence for me to be convinced that (shrug) yeah, it's worthwhile having a go at it. But it's dragged on a bit, but I have been impressed and encouraged by two things. It's TOTALLY (emphasis Dansie's) evolved into something else, there's no big tanks and all that now, it's nearly solid state, it's still moves but it's very simple, can (or can't? unsure here) be flat-packed, and they are very close.. to the point ... where (hesitates) we we can actually.. where we can actually ah... where I think within the next month or two clearly define and test whether it is going to produce excess energy and self-run. Ah .. (Hendershot cuts him off for a commercial break....)
after break:
Dansie: The Wayne Travis buoyancy device...
(Hendershot asks, laughing, "What's goin on in Oklahoma")
Dansie: Well... I'm still encouraged by what I've seen...ah However (emphasis) it's got down to the point now with the second device that... it's interesting he's got some very clever engineers and people, people flown from Greece and Switzerland and Canada to come and lend a hand, he's got some clever engineers, they've all predicted it will, ah, self-run and produce excess energy, but as you know the final proof (coughs) for me to see it self-run and produce excess energy. So they are very close for the latest prototype to be able to demonstrate that and that will bring it to conclusion one way or the other; I'm very encouraged, I still rank it highly, ah they are a very great group, a very honest group, ah However (emphasis) ah you know (come on? unclear) well half the scientists and engineers saying "hey this could really work", Half the scientists and engineers I know saying "pixie dust, this is a lot of BS" So, but they've done a great job, I can see why it had to evolve, I can see huge improvements where from manufacturing and logistics point, you could flat-pack this like an Ikea system, they've got a third one in the wings that would be the one you'd throw in the basement...But I expect within the next two months that this will be brought to a conclusion. I am speaking positively of it yet but I have NOT signed off on it. So that's about as far as I can take it at this stage.
(He next goes on to put down the Joule Thief OU claims totally. Presumably in reference to LTseung's recent plea.)
Please let me know if I've made any errors, so that I can fix them right away. It would simply be WRONG to allow errors to persist after they have been found and pointed out.
@Stefan: Thank you for putting that into the Hydro thread.
There are several points to note: the "self running" and "energy producing" is always in the future tense.... not the present tense.
Quotethey are very close.. to the point ... where (hesitates) we we can actually.. where we can actually ah... where I think within the next month or two clearly define and test whether it is going to produce excess energy and self-run.
Dansie's hesitation and body language here in this part are very revealing. But his words are even more so: He thinks.... that they are very close to the point..... where they can clearly define and test _whether_ (or not) it is going to produce excess energy and self run.
Which means that they have not yet defined "excess energy" or "self running" to his satisfaction, nor have they tested or demonstrated either one. They are only very close to that point.... he thinks.
But I "thought".... because Travis told me so ( Didn't he? Like fishing for eels with a coarse net trying to get a straight answer from that fellow.) ..... that they had passed that point long ago and could demonstrate a self running, energy producing machine at any time that was desired. Because they did so in the past, right?
Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow.... but sorry, no jam today. Down the rabbit hole it goes......
Quote from: poynt99 on December 11, 2012, 07:19:49 PM
I'm shocked that Mark Dansie didn't mention Rose at all in his latest video update. ???
;) ;)
Oh, and he hasn't signed off on the whole MrWayne debacle yet either.
It is more shocking (but not surprising) that she thinks correcting her current measurement errors due to CSR inductance while NOT correcting the voltage measurement errors due to lead/battery inductance somehow fully addresses the points you raised long ago in your lengthy analysis/write up regarding the negative mean power measurement.
Last I checked, it takes an accurate current measurement AND an accurate voltage measurement to calculate an accurate wattage.
But, at least, it seems she now believes that "such an animal" (inductance) does indeed exist. That is some progress.
I truly hope Mark Dansie is able to evaluate her set up. She doesn't seem to consider that his opinion is a double edged sword that can cut either way.
I also hope he has a chance to read your analysis pdf regarding the negative mean power measurement.
If Mark visits, maybe she will also demo a functioning N channel FET connected as per Q1 in her schematic with +12 Vgs that does not turn on. Now THAT would be something ...
PW
Indeed PW,
Rose has certainly overlooked the gist of my detailed analysis.
The erroneous measurement is the BATTERY VOLTAGE, and she has been informed as to how to mitigate this artifact (right at the battery itself) in order to make an accurate measurement.
As I mentioned before, Dansie won't be visiting Rose, especially if he did indeed pass on her silly thesis to some of his engineer colleagues.
Ainslie continues "writing a blue streak" :
QuoteDear Mark,
In as much as Tinsel Koala denies these claims of ours - one must assume that he is NOT able to replicate them. He also denies any enhanced efficiencies in his own replications. Therefore it is of paramount importance that you do NOT rely on his presentations of our circuit as his replications are - self-evidently - flawed. Thank you for your undertaking to evaluate our own experimental evidence related to this in preference to his own.
False again. Ainslie "ASSUMES" a lot, none of which she can support with facts and data. In
FACT, I have replicated ALL of Ainslie's claims
FOR WHICH THERE IS EVIDENCE. I have reproduced the faulty "negative mean power" measurements and understand why they are obtained and how to CORRECT them. Ainslie herself has not been able to show that her batteries do not discharge, as she previously claimed. So she lies still more, and in such a manner that is EASILY REFUTED, by anyone who wants to do side-by-side testing of Tar Baby and her NERD circuit. They will perform identically in every significant way. This challenge has stood for many months now and the ability of TB to reproduce Ainslie's claims is not in doubt by ANYONE WHO WATCHES (and understands) MY VIDEOS. "In as much" that excludes the ignorant mendacious AINSLIE herself, who is so arrogant and ignorant that she won't even look at real evidence.
Quote
Regarding your request that we duplicate this effect with the use of capacitors. We have referenced this in our paper. The point is that we identify the requirement for a continual imbalanced voltage supply. A capacitor is not able to retain this imbalance. Therefore it does not contribute to enhanced efficiencies. We do, however, have proposals that we believe would manage this more efficiently than a battery supply. But the thesis needs to be proven and the apparatus constructed. This is beyond our own expertise and we are rather hoping that you and your team will explore these principles further.
Another bunch of "spin" and misdirection and outright lies. She does not understand what capacitors are or how they work or how they are used, nor how to calculate the energy in a capacitor. She mocked my
ONE-THIRD FARAD (0.33 F) capacitor bank with which I tested Tar Baby, and couldn't even tell the difference between "one eighth" and "0.8" and even laughed about this ignorance.... not even realizing that SHE was talking about 800 microFarads and thinking that was nearly One Farad. Yes, it is true, Ainslie has no idea of powers of ten or their abbreviations. Perhaps she has learned something by now.... but I doubt it, she has not got the prerequisites for learning this material.
IN ADDITION, and much more importantly, Tar Baby performed IDENTICALLY using the big capacitor bank as it does on batteries... just for a shorter time. This is illustrated in my videos.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVEFORMS PRODUCED AT ALL until the voltage on the caps declines appreciably. With an appropriately sized bank.... something Ainslie neither appreciates, nor can calculate.... it will be IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE in the scope traces for many minutes after the switch to caps is made. In fact
I defy even AINSLIE HERSELF to discriminate between traces made with CAPS ONLY and traces made with batteries, ON HER OWN DEVICE, and I suggest that Mark Dansie...... should he somehow actually deign to descend to Cape Town to look at her kludge..... bring a capacitor bank of at least 2 Farads at 60 VDC, and test Ainslie's circuit using them. The same negative mean power calculations will result from her flawed measurements whether batteries or capacitors OF APPROPRIATE SIZE are used to power her circuit. Again, I offer Tar Baby, ready to travel wherever required, for a side-by-side comparison with Ainslie's device. There will be no differences found.
This nonsense of hers about running, or not running, on capacitors is another EASILY TESTED and easily refuted argument from her. She has never tested her device with a large capacitor bank, and in fact, at her level of "skill" she could easily damage equipment, just as she did at least once before, when two batteries "caught fire" due to her careless mishandling of connections.
She does make one true statement: "This is beyond our own expertise ."
Quote
I trust that covers the most of what we've discussed. I added a fuller account of the extent of our claim in my previous email to you to eliminate any ambiguities in our references. But this is NOT the full extent of our claim. It only relates the the claims that we have, thus far, put in the public domain.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Oh... there are still more claims, that Ainslie has not "put in the public domain".... Yet she intends to compete for a Free Energy OPEN SOURCE prize?
I laugh and laugh at this arrogant fool, who has nothing but her overweening personality disorder, and who thinks that her "nine hundred hits" per day are coming from people instead of spambots probing for victims.
Mark, if you are reading here, I remind you once again that I have all of Ainslie's publicly posted data, over several years, collected in one place, along with critical analyses by me and by several others like .99 (he has an entire folder for his material in my database). All her scopeshots which she has posted in various places are there, as well as all the conflicting versions of her daft manuscripts which are still extant, along with ample proof of her mendacity and prevarication. Even the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" video of her demonstration, which she posted to her YT account and announced publicly on this forum and in her blog... is included, along with analysis that shows the FIVE DIFFERENT SCHEMATICS claimed or used for the single circuit displayed in that video. Is the " official" approved final schematic the actual one used, even? No, it is not: the FG's Black Lead is clearly on the "wrong" side of the CVR in the video, and it has been moved to the "right" place in the "official" schematic..... which was drawn AFTER the earlier, incorrect location in the video was "poynted" out.
Shame on you, Poynty Poynt. You are talking about Ainslie on a forum where she cannot respond. What an absolute SIN that is. How NAUGHTY.
QuoteAnd Poynty Point - it's rather bad form to talk about me disparagingly - on a forum where I am not able to defend myself. I thought you were capable of better. I am that WRONG? Are you actually lacking decency and decorum - like those other trolls? TUT TUT Poynty. That's naughty.
Of course..... Ainslie herself is above such naughtiness, isn't she.
We can add "utter hypocrite" to the PROVEN TRUE descriptions of ROSEMARY AINSLIE.
The utter hypocrite Ainslie is still very confused about the nature of reality and the identity of the person whom she tries to insult so much. But her venom is weakening, she must be tired of beating her silly old head against a wall of TRUTH and now she's just flailing about, grasping at straws. I laugh at the miserable old woman she is.
Her silly blog/forum is a perfect Idiot Filter.... it lets only the idiots through, and they can have their own little insular society without fear of any contradictions from reality.
She continues to lie and to defame, with every post she makes. Someday she will be held to account for her prevarication and mendacity. Meanwhile she still cannot:
-refute any of the points we have made here concerning her daft experiments and the manuscripts full of lies and misrepresentations;
-reproduce those particular scopeshots... which she does not even understand --- with functioning mosfets wired as claimed;
-demonstrate any unusual effects at all from her circuit;
-perform proper measurements with understanding and truth;
-provide ANY evidence at all that I am someone named "Brian" or "Bryan", or "Little" or any of it;
-correct her many egregious calculation errors AND THE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THEM;
-ever qualify for any of the various overunity prizes and awards that are offered in various places on the internet.
All she can do is sweat and swelter. She can't even boil water !!
my favorite 'blast from the past'...
top comment @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8
Quote from: TinselKoalaRosemary, I strongly recommend that you drop this silly story and move on with your life. I have.
has he now? it's over THREE YEARS LATER... ::)
preserved for posterity... ::) i love the gratuitous plug for his crappy little tesla coil too. he tries to pimp that little kludge wherever and whenever he can.
I see you are a great student of my work, sailor. Why have I retaken up the cause against Ainslie's perpetual lie machine? Because AINSLIE TRIED TO GAIN THREE MONETARY AWARDS at the start of the current nonsense, and spoke disparagingly of me and my work.... In other words, she lied and libelled me. When I was given a stack of her correspondence to review by a person whose name you would recognize.... yes, it began again for me. What is it to you, troll? I'll spend my time as I like, and if I choose to come back onto some project, or leave it, I will do so at my own pleasure and nothing TROLLS can do will stop me.
Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier, you are all wet already.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 07:55:20 AM
I see you are a great student of my work, sailor. Why have I retaken up the cause against Ainslie's perpetual lie machine? Because AINSLIE TRIED TO GAIN THREE MONETARY AWARDS at the start of the current nonsense, and spoke disparagingly of me and my work.... In other words, she lied and libelled me. When I was given a stack of her correspondence to review by a person whose name you would recognize.... yes, it began again for me. What is it to you, troll? I'll spend my time as I like, and if I choose to come back onto some project, or leave it, I will do so at my own pleasure and nothing TROLLS can do will stop me.
Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier, you are all wet already.
keep demonstrating your AMAZING lack of integrity... ::) and by the way, nice "tiny bubbles" in that video... hypocrite. ::) that's almost as rich as the condensation on the glass lid of your 'sous vide'.
as an aside, i'm not a "student of your work", i just have a good memory... and you've given so much ammo over the years with your monstrous hypocrisy. how DID you get be such a big hypocrite brian lyttle?
Kind of gets to you, doesn't it Steve, when people call you by some name that you don't want them to think is your own.
Don't forget, because I won't: YOU LIED TO ME, deliberately tricked me, by saying you would send me a mosfet when you had no intention of doing so. And in my naivete, I actually believed and trusted you. But you were only trolling, and you caught me that time, like a hapless billfish on your hook. You have no credibility here, you aren't helpful and you are exceedingly obnoxious. You probably wear socks with sandals, you are so soggy. Dogs want to sniff your fingers!
So go troll in some other waters, where your colors aren't quite so well known. Maybe you'll catch some other sucker to try to torture with your extra special halitosis-laden logorrhea. I'm surprised you can even type, since you are all thumbs.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 08:33:27 AM
Kind of gets to you, doesn't it Steve, when people call you by some name that you don't want them to think is your own.
Don't forget, because I won't: YOU LIED TO ME, deliberately tricked me, by saying you would send me a mosfet when you had no intention of doing so. And in my naivete, I actually believed and trusted you. But you were only trolling, and you caught me that time, like a hapless billfish on your hook. You have no credibility here, you aren't helpful and you are exceedingly obnoxious. You probably wear socks with sandals, you are so soggy. Dogs want to sniff your fingers!
So go troll in some other waters, where your colors aren't quite so well known. Maybe you'll catch some other sucker to try to torture with your extra special halitosis-laden logorrhea. I'm surprised you can even type, since you are all thumbs.
brian, brian, brian... ::) you're so asinine... ::) i'm not steve. and you're still responding with red herrings... ::) CHANGING THE SUBJECT IS HARDLY A COGENT RESPONSE YOU GODTARD...
meanwhile you still cannot:
-refute any of the points i have made here concerning his logical fallacies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations;
-demonstrate how you were "tricked";
-respond cogently;
-provide ANY evidence at all that I am someone named steve or jibguy or any of it;
your hypocrisy nourishes me... ::)
oh by the way... speaking of dogs, i'll be in your vicinity in texas later this winter hog hunting. mind if i borrow your mutts? and that's not a threat of any kind even though your pathetic ass will try and paint it as one, it's just a simple question.
@tk
I see his responses in your quotes and when I'm not logged in occasionally.
I understand he's been a very unpleasant annoyance in the past, but as his posts are devoid of any substantial points that are worth refuting, I'm genuinely baffled as to why you give the c u n t the time of day.
Your time of course.
Quote from: mrsean2k on December 14, 2012, 01:42:29 PM
@tk
I see his responses in your quotes and when I'm not logged in occasionally.
I understand he's been a very unpleasant annoyance in the past, but as his posts are devoid of any substantial points that are worth refuting, I'm genuinely baffled as to why you give the c u n t the time of day.
Your time of course.
It occasionally gives me the opportunity to bump this thread and keep it from falling off of the front page, and of course every post he makes against ME.... .while not making the same kinds of attacks against actual inanities and disinformation and outright lies like Ainslie and her sock puppets commit.... that just shows that he is a very discriminating troll and in fact is a stalker, lurking and waiting for me to post something that he thinks he can attack.
He follows me from thread to thread, and even seems to have a subscription to my YT channel in some username he's not going to reveal, as he combs through my videos, not daring to make a comment, but leaving his little droppings behind him in the form of thumbs-down votes. I find this very amusing, since I now have nearly four hundred videos showing my works in various contexts and areas..... while his actual contributions and actual exposure are essentially nil. He must be wasting more and more of his time, every day, looking for something of mine to attack.
In short, the person to whom we refer is a paper tiger, a stack of straw, with no real substance and a profound lack of anything resembling personal dignity or respect for others. He's got an agenda, and I'm it. He pretends to be a logician but he fails to perceive the beam in his own eye, while he attempts to criticize the motes in the eyes of others.... mostly me.
People have been banned and/or blocked from this forum for much less than what he's done and continues to do .... Mile High comes to mind, for example.... but for some reason Stefan tolerates this consummate troll and allows him safe harbour to sail about and attack at will. The "future drunkard" seems to be a permanent fixture of this forum, like a water hazard that's really a stinking swamp on what otherwise might be a pleasant golf course. His actually helpful contributions to _anyone_ can be counted on one hand, without even using the thumb, in all the years I've been a member of this forum.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 03:15:33 PM
People have been banned and/or blocked from this forum for much less than what he's done and continues to do .... Mile High comes to mind, for example.... but for some reason Stefan tolerates this consummate troll and allows him safe harbour to sail about and attack at will.
I have wondered about this myself makes no sense at all. There is a modus operandi in play... but what is it ?
Quote from: evolvingape on December 14, 2012, 05:18:14 PM
I have wondered about this myself makes no sense at all. There is a modus operandi in play... but what is it ?
you trolls ever stop to think it MIGHT just be because... i speak the truth. your hero, the dancing bear knows it, and that's why he ALWAYS responds with a red herring or a strawman or his other favorite fallacy, ad hominem... because he can't refute anything i have said. all one has to do is look at the record to see this fact.
which is what stephan does... and being the fair and impartial host that he is, he knows all i have ever done is to present the truth.meanwhile sean and ape... you still cannot:-refute any of the points i have made here concerning his logical fallacies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations;
-demonstrate how your hero was "tricked";
-respond cogently;
-provide ANY evidence at all that I am someone named 'steve' or 'jibguy' or 'windisch' or any of it...
while i on the other hand, back up what i say with quotes and images that demonstrate what i say to be true and factual.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 14, 2012, 05:34:53 PM
you trolls ever stop to think it MIGHT just be because... i speak the truth. your hero, the dancing bear knows it, and that's why he ALWAYS responds with a red herring or a strawman or his other favorite fallacy, ad hominem... because he can't refute anything i have said. all one has to do is look at the record to see this fact. which is what stephan does... and being the fair and impartial host that he is, he knows all i have ever done is to present the truth.
meanwhile sean and ape... you still cannot:
-refute any of the points i have made here concerning his logical fallacies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations;
-demonstrate how your hero was "tricked";
-respond cogently;
-provide ANY evidence at all that I am someone named 'steve' or 'jibguy' or 'windisch' or any of it...
while i on the other hand, back up what i say with quotes and images that demonstrate what i say to be true and factual.
Can't you choose another forum to have temper tantrums and waste bandwidth
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 14, 2012, 05:34:53 PM
you trolls ever stop to think it MIGHT just be because... i speak the truth. your hero, the dancing bear knows it, and that's why he ALWAYS responds with a red herring or a strawman or his other favorite fallacy, ad hominem... because he can't refute anything i have said. all one has to do is look at the record to see this fact. which is what stephan does... and being the fair and impartial host that he is, he knows all i have ever done is to present the truth.
I encourage everyone to log in and view all of Wilbyinebriated's 3,000+ posts to date and decide for yourself if they are "speaking the truth", also ask yourself what content is of scientific value to the community. I have never seen Wilbyinebriated present "truth" in respect to Rosemary Ainslie and her claims, only harass those that have.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 14, 2012, 05:34:53 PM
meanwhile sean and ape... you still cannot:
-refute any of the points i have made here concerning his logical fallacies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations;
-demonstrate how your hero was "tricked";
-respond cogently;
-provide ANY evidence at all that I am someone named 'steve' or 'jibguy' or 'windisch' or any of it...
I check TK's facts myself, I certainly am not guided by your opinions!
You did not trick him ? Sure ?:
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg323797/#msg323797
Remember this Steve ?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ad-Hominem-Attacks-by-Rady-Ananda-090106-173.html?show=votes#allcomments
The new debating paradign
You are so right in this Rady, kudos for bringing up this subject.
What we see now is that ad hominem's usually dominate debate. We see it on TV, and we especially hear it on talk radio. On neocon forum sites, that is virtually THE ONLY kind of arguments you can see (my God, go to one some time and be prepared to be angry for at least a week, lol) .
What is so disgusting about this, is that young people see this and believe that it is the proper way to debate.
I believe that ad hominem's should be addressed directly whenever they appear; as well as the other forms of sophistic manipulation such as straw men and red herrings. This constant calling-out will strip the user of their "favorite" tactics, and help the audience to see the manipulations.
Debate arguments should always be made with facts, ideas, and reason.... Not sputim, acid, and smoke.
Another problem i often see with forum debate is that the participants tend to take the replies personally. This is of course "natural"; however a serious debater should always understand that both the replies and their own comments MUST be aimed at the audience at large.... Not the opponent specifically.
Understand that every well-made debate point is a challenge.. And another opportunity to give your own. This is how you win debates... It is often a battle of attrition.
And oddly enough it is also the way to silence trolls and shills: Once they realize that every vitrolic comment just brings back more calm, logical, well-crafted points in return... They will cut their losses and quit (the smarter ones, anyway lol).Sure sounds like you doesn't it Wilby... err... Steve... err... RAT...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 14, 2012, 05:34:53 PM
while i on the other hand, back up what i say with quotes and images that demonstrate what i say to be true and factual.
I do not remember a single incidence of you backing up with quotes, images or facts, the continual lies and obvious deceptions of Rosemary Ainslie forced upon this community for many years. I do however remember you attacking the people that have presented truth and facts in respect of Rosemary Ainslie.
I once again urge every member to log in and read all of Wilbyinebriated's posts and decide for yourself if they are of value to this forum community, backed up with quotes and images.
I also urge you to consider what possible motive Stephan could have for none intervention in this well documented and particular case of perpetual assault on the community.
Maybe she really IS his grandmother.
That would explain a lot..... certain kinds of psychopathology have a strong genetic component, and after all.... blood is thicker than water.
Quote from: evolvingape on December 14, 2012, 08:34:36 PM
You did not trick him ? Sure ?:
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg323797/#msg323797
and exactly HOW is that me tricking him? ::)
Quote from: evolvingape on December 14, 2012, 08:34:36 PM
Remember this Steve ?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ad-Hominem-Attacks-by-Rady-Ananda-090106-173.html?show=votes#allcomments
The new debating paradign
You are so right in this Rady, kudos for bringing up this subject.
What we see now is that ad hominem's usually dominate debate. We see it on TV, and we especially hear it on talk radio. On neocon forum sites, that is virtually THE ONLY kind of arguments you can see (my God, go to one some time and be prepared to be angry for at least a week, lol) .
What is so disgusting about this, is that young people see this and believe that it is the proper way to debate.
I believe that ad hominem's should be addressed directly whenever they appear; as well as the other forms of sophistic manipulation such as straw men and red herrings. This constant calling-out will strip the user of their "favorite" tactics, and help the audience to see the manipulations.
Debate arguments should always be made with facts, ideas, and reason.... Not sputim, acid, and smoke.
Another problem i often see with forum debate is that the participants tend to take the replies personally. This is of course "natural"; however a serious debater should always understand that both the replies and their own comments MUST be aimed at the audience at large.... Not the opponent specifically.
Understand that every well-made debate point is a challenge.. And another opportunity to give your own. This is how you win debates... It is often a battle of attrition.
And oddly enough it is also the way to silence trolls and shills: Once they realize that every vitrolic comment just brings back more calm, logical, well-crafted points in return... They will cut their losses and quit (the smarter ones, anyway lol).
Sure sounds like you doesn't it Wilby... err... Steve... err... RAT...
so... by your logic (and i'm using that word VERY loosely here) i am also any and everyone on the internet who has spoken of logical fallacies... i'm wikipedia, i'm nizkor.org, i'm theskepticsguide.com, etc., etc... do you have any idea how asinine that sounds? probably not... ::)
Quote from: evolvingape on December 14, 2012, 08:34:36 PM
I do not remember a single incidence of you backing up with quotes, images or facts, the continual lies and obvious deceptions of Rosemary Ainslie forced upon this community for many years. I do however remember you attacking the people that have presented truth and facts in respect of Rosemary Ainslie.
monkeyboy... why are you changing the subject?
we are talking about the dancing bear's youtube video FROM THREE YEARS AGO WHERE HE CLAIMS:Quote from: TinselKoalaRosemary, I strongly recommend that you drop this silly story and move on with your life. I have.
to which i asked: HAS HE? come on monkey... do you think i won't call you on such a fallacy? again, don't be so asinine. ::)
now then... looking at the dancing bear's last 500 posts i ask you AGAIN... HAS HE?Quote from: evolvingape on December 14, 2012, 08:34:36 PM
I once again urge every member to log in and read all of Wilbyinebriated's posts and decide for yourself if they are of value to this forum community, backed up with quotes and images.
I also urge you to consider what possible motive Stephan could have for none intervention in this well documented and particular case of perpetual assault on the community.
did you read ALL of them? ::) your hero the dancing bear is simply getting what he gives... i'm his mirror, and if he is going to harass people OBSESSIVELY for what he believes to be a personal insult, then i am going to return the favor...
since he did the same things (insults, libel, etc.) to me that he accuses rose of doing to him. and if it's 'personal' between him and rose, then it is 'personal' between he and i.
and finally, i haven't "assaulted the community"... ::) again... stop being so asinine, and stop vomiting such hyperbole. ::)
i think the real question is why has tinselkoala been allowed to continue his "assault"? rosemary is banned and most likely will continue to be banned. the dancing bear has made his point OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN... is there really a need to continue?
meanwhile monkeyboy... you still cannot:
-refute any of the points i have made here concerning his logical fallacies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations;
-demonstrate how your hero was "tricked";
-respond cogently;
-provide ANY evidence at all that I am someone named 'steve' or 'jibguy' or 'windisch' or any of it...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 15, 2012, 03:15:07 AM
meanwhile monkeyboy... you still cannot:
-refute any of the points i have made here concerning his logical fallacies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations;
-demonstrate how your hero was "tricked";
-respond cogently;
-provide ANY evidence at all that I am someone named 'steve' or 'jibguy' or 'windisch' or any of it...
Give me your name and address, I promise to send you some mosfets.
If they never arrive please don't accuse me of tricking you into turning over your personal information.
No sane person could ever reach that conclusion.
Why
OVER AND OVER......? Here's why:
QuoteFOR BRYAN LITTLE
My sweet little pickle... Whatever next? I read pages and pages of rather frantic reference to the fact that Wayne's work is not yet a closed system. But I see nothing in there about your acknowledgement of having 'chased' him off OU.com with the persistent badgering that you seem to manage. Wayne, thankfully, is showing you what happens when a technology is taken out of your firing line. Other reputable scientists get involved. They visit. They contribute. Everything is pro-active. Hope abounds. Science progresses.
Now. It seems that you're still anxious to forward that ridiculous compendium of my work - as interpreted by 'ickle pickle'. I would, myself, take the trouble to answer your multiple allegations and provide the necessary qualifications to all that nonsense. But frankly it would take me way too much time. And effort. And it would lend to - rather than detract from - your absurd nonsense. So. Best left ignored - is the advices that I've been given and am following. You also refer to our hit rate at '900'? Not actually my sweet little pickle. The actual average is FAR FAR higher.
But I am - nonetheless - still as anxious as ever to re-assure you about your lack of height - substance - size. That thing that keeps you up and awake at nights. You really should NOT worry. While everyone can still read your fabrications and insinuations and 'mendacity' ...? I think is your preferred term? ... then they'll probably think that you're at least 72 GRE squared. Which is something. Or, it is better than nothing. I'm not sure though that anyone can buy into that 1560 number. Were you referring to your foot size? The length of your moustache? Something else? Not at all sure. You need to learn to be precise when you're referencing numbers. Otherwise everyone is left as confused as you probably intended.
With an extensive lack of love and respect
Rosie Pose
QuoteGuys - just a little correspondence on a very LITTLE subject...
Dear *******,
We've been hit with a heat wave from hell. I spent the most of yesterday trying and failing to keep cool. And it took all my best efforts. Else I'd have replied sooner. Thankfully it's now early enough for the sun to be relatively tame. Would that this cool could last. But I see another day of clear sky likely to followed by more of those furnace blasts. More's the pity. I suffer from low blood pressure and this - combined with heat - is a lethargic if not lethal, cocktail.
Regarding our Nikola Tesla 'wannabe'. Yes. It's known that this is an anagram. His earlier version of this was alsetalokin. Sadly, our 'ickle pickle' lacks any social efficacy and relies on the internet to bolster his sense of purpose in life. It's also the ONLY way he can earn a living. For corporate efficacy one needs some level of charisma. The poor sod has none and therefore any such reach would have been doomed to failure. Compounded with which he's no longer young. Frankly I feel rather sorry for him. He's obliged to fight a losing battle with all this good news about over unity. And in about 4 years from now he'll be past his best - due to retire - and will be one of the single most despised internet personalities that have ever disgraced our forums. Him and Stefan Hartman - both. They try to advance the ruse that they're anxious to promote clean green. And they're both guilty of delaying the inevitable - which is PRECISELY how they earn their living. Stefan has probably been the most pro-active in trying to silence me while retaining the full weight of TK's calumny - used to kill interest in our technology and our claims. But they've not yet managed it. On the contrary. As mentioned - our readership is exploding. And that would hardly be the result of a flagging interest which they were clearly hoping to advance.
I'll be in touch again ...
Kindest and best as ever,
Rosie
Note that in that last one, she is talking to someone outside this forum or her own. If she knew and used my real name, which is not Bryan or Brian Little, this would indeed be an "actionable" libel.
The poor slapper just can't keep her delusions to herself. Meanwhile she cannot and will not ever be able to refute our points here, and most especially she will not be making those videos she promised us many months ago showing her duplication of the scopeshot shown in her mendacious manuscript... because she cannot.
Quote
Etymology 2 From sodomize (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sodomize), by shortening
Noun sod (plural sods (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sods#English))
- (UK (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/British_English), vulgar (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#vulgar)) Sodomite (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sodomite); bugger (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bugger).
- (UK (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/British_English), slang (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#slang), mildly pejorative, formerly considered vulgar) A person, usually male; often qualified with an adjective. You mean old sod!poor sodunlucky sod
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 07:55:20 AM
I see you are a great student of my work, sailor. Why have I retaken up the cause against Ainslie's perpetual lie machine? Because AINSLIE TRIED TO GAIN THREE MONETARY AWARDS at the start of the current nonsense, and spoke disparagingly of me and my work.... In other words, she lied and libelled me. When I was given a stack of her correspondence to review by a person whose name you would recognize.... yes, it began again for me. What is it to you, troll? I'll spend my time as I like, and if I choose to come back onto some project, or leave it, I will do so at my own pleasure and nothing TROLLS can do will stop me.
Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier, you are all wet already.
TK has already answered you moron.
You have been around a long time haven't you Steve, never checked a word of that article before publishing it did you Steve, your scientific credibility is in the toilet isn't it Steve, you can be found in all the old Ainslie threads supporting her bogus claims can't you Steve, you sure sound like Steve to me... Steve.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Strange-Case-of-the-Ro-by-Steve-Windisch-ji-091219-425.html
I have watched you hunt down people for years, stalking them thread to thread, using your logical fallacy weapon to wear them down until they lose it and quit, a war of attrition waged on this community, by you. I have had enough of it, so, I have sent Stephan a PM formally requesting that you be permanently banned from this forum for your behaviour and level of scientific contribution to this community. If Stephan has not banned you by 25th December 2012, 10 days time, I will formally request that he ban me permanently instead. Either way a decision must be made, he is going to lose one of us, it will be up to the community to decide if Stephan's choice is the correct one, or not.
Quote from: happyfunball on December 15, 2012, 04:43:37 AM
Give me your name and address, I promise to send you some mosfets.
If they never arrive please don't accuse me of tricking you into turning over your personal information.
No sane person could ever reach that conclusion.
that's not what i said at all... ::) you LIAR. what i said was:
Quote from: TinselKoala
Well, clearly you have the ability to order your own parts and build your own circuit, since you can use a web catalog. Oh, wait--using the catalog only requires a single finger for typing. Actually building something requires opposable thumbs.
If you want to buy that from ebay and send it to me, I'll deduct the cost from the bill I send you for the consulting work.
And the batteries cost "somebody" seventy-six dollars each. But I just had to walk around the building to get them.
Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue? And why do you care so much anyway? Why don't you go attack her, there are a LOT more holes in her story than you will ever find in mine.
Zipons! Hah!
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedwell, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?
send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.
building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
now
it's rather clear from that post AND FROM THE ONES PRECEDING IT WHERE I DEMONSTRATE TK's DEEP POCKETS (i show where he flashes 10 $100 dollar bills and makes a challenge to a certain someone) AND THE ONES WHERE I SHOW THAT A IRFPG50 IS A RATHER CHEAP PART AND HIS ASININE EXCUSES FOR NOT HAVING ONE ARE... WELL, ASININE...
that i never intended to send him ANYTHING. to intimate that i did is simply delusional on your part and tk's... AND NO SANE PERSON COULD EVER REACH THAT CONCLUSION... ::)
i'll fetch those posts (they are in the first 11 pages of the original ainslie thread here on this forum:
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/
and rub your face in them when i have a bit more time, but right now i don't have the time for yours and tinsel's ASININE, CHILDISH OBSESSIONS... monkey boy.
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg186469/#msg186469
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedany plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?
i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg188301/#msg188301
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedtk
i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly
did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg188398/#msg188398
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedi don't care what you did or said on who... it's not really EXACT or EXACTLY until you get the right fet, REGARDLESS OF THE SPECS SHEET OR KNOWN FET BEHAVIOR. why would you even leave it open for discussion or debate by 'believers' unless you're nothing but an internet 'tick' that feeds on such juvenile drama? why not get the right fet and put it all to rest. why use words like EXACTLY when IT'S NOT EXACT? i would expect better, even from you...
why do you always avoid the explicit point being made with some bullshit excuse? i've asked you this before, are you mental?
once again, it seems one of our members here who thinks he runs in more 'erudite' circles, is making ee101 mistakes and bitching and crying about others not building, all the while talking about how his non-exact build is exact...
you're missing the point. i agree with you on the fet issue. THE POINT IS, (read slow and careful here so you can comprehend this) you can tell me whatever you want, just don't tell me it's exact until it is...
so at this point i would love to hear your explanation of how your circuit is exact.
stiffler isn't my hero. which is one of the reason i asked you to do one of your 'debunkings' on his circuit. if i recall, when i did ask you that, you went off on some tirade about stalkers and trolls, etc.
then you made up some bullshit about how he was scared of you and so you couldn't put up a youtube video on your own channel 'debunking' him for some asinine reason...
i can find the posts if you need me to. i know you're really busy being a pompous ass that makes EE 101 mistakes like forgetting about the invert switch. ::)
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg188400/#msg188400
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedif you're referring to the correct fet, about time... ::)
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes. ;)
if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189007/#msg189007
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedso i take it that is a no then. you still don't have the "exact" fet.
rosemarie did. then you did also.
as i said before, i agree with you about the duty cycle (only because you failed to get the fet into self oscillation...) and i don't care what you do on who, just don't tell me it's "exact", or you replicated it "exactly" here or on any other forum until it is "exact".
why are you bringing stiffler into it? did he help you pick out the wrong fet? did he put the words "exact" or "exactly" in your posts? misdirection and ad hominem...
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189013/#msg189013
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedi dont care what stiffler did or didn't do, it's irrelevant.
no, nothing can be exact. obviously semiconductor components have a inherent variation even from the same batch, but for the love of zeus get the right fet before one calls it "exact". i should hope you can see this self evident truth and not have issue with that.
i asked TK a simple question at the beginning of this thread and all he has done is beat around the bush. if it's not exact don't use the word exact... and furthermore, if it's not exact don't be a pompous ass while using the word exact and expect not to get called on it, especially after someone asked you on page 1 of the thread if you planned on doing it "exactly".
PS i think TK does great work, he just never quite does it exactly ;)
PPS i agree with stiffler, stuffed animals are for children...
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189014/#msg189014
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedit's not TK's madness that i have issue with, it's his method.
if TK is not willing to retract/correct his erroneous statement about his circuit being "exact" why should rosemary retract/correct her paper?
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189030/#msg189030
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedthanks. as i said before, a couple times i think, that's really the only thing i had issue with. nice that you tried 4 others though ;)
damn, it's like pulling teeth...
i meant the "jack of all trades" as a compliment tk... ie:polymath
"jack of all trades, master of none, though oft times better than master of one."
i thought you ran in erudite circles? ;) all that jumping must keep you in good shape?
edit: offering bets? after i twice said i agree with you (mostly) about the duty cycle? i have to again ask, are you mental? what's with your reading comprehension?
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189695/#msg189695
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedyou get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?
@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189702/#msg189702
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedre: your first paragraph. ie:more tk BS
http://cgi.ebay.com/IRFPG50_W0QQitemZ370108354282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item562c2d4eea&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C293%3A10%7C294%3A30
look, $4! gasp! and if you would learn to use the web for something other than being a tick, you might be able to find a single IRFPG50 fet for half of what you claim they cost.
re: your second paragraph. it was a rhetorical question, more of another poke at you to get the right one. obviously...
edit: i'm curious though, and feel free to jump to the conclusion that ainslie is my new hero. how much did you spend on those "brand new" 20ah batteries?
http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg189752/#msg189752
Quote from: WilbyInebriatedwell, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?
send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.
building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
NOW... back to question you keep avoiding with your damned red herring logical fallacies...top comment @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8
Quote from: TinselKoalaRosemary, I strongly recommend that you drop this silly story and move on with your life. I have.
has he now? has he 'dropped this story and moved on with his life'?
A SIMPLE YES OR NO IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED MONKEYBOY... SO WHICH IS IT? YES? or NO?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 15, 2012, 06:05:42 AM
that's not what i said at all... ::) you LIAR.
True, that's not what you said. It's what you did.
You know the old fable about the boy and wolf, yours could be called the boy who cried 'logical fallacy.'
Quote from: happyfunball on December 15, 2012, 06:32:08 AM
True, that's not what you said. It's what you did.
You know that old fable about the boy and wolf, yours could be called the boy who cried 'logical fallacy.'
except, the boy who cried wolf didn't see any wolves... and
yet when i cry logical fallacy there ALWAYS IS ONE...AND THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THIS... just because you have no clue what a red herring is doesn't mean others don't... idiot.
so... tk has been on this forum for a YEAR prior the start of the ainslie thread and yet he claims he was "new" to the forum. LIES.
he claims to 'research' the things and people he 'gets involved with' and yet when someone on the internet who he don't know. someone who has called him a worthless bum says quite facetiously... "send me your address and i'll send you the part you worthless bum" he sends them his address? and then claims naivete? DAMNED LIES. how stupid are you? and how stupid is he?
AS I HAVE MAINTAINED NUMEROUS TIMES... AND AS I HAVE SHOWN WITH EVIDENCES FROM THE RECORD... IT WAS, AND STILL IS, CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ANY SANE PERSON, THAT I NEVER INTENDED TO SEND HIM ANYTHING.NOW... back to question you keep avoiding with your damned red herring logical fallacies...top comment @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8
Quote from: TinselKoalaRosemary, I strongly recommend that you drop this silly story and move on with your life. I have.
has he now? has he 'dropped this story and moved on with his life'?
A SIMPLE YES OR NO IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED... SO WHICH IS IT? YES? or NO?
Quote from: evolvingape on December 15, 2012, 05:28:39 AM
TK has already answered you moron.
You have been around a long time haven't you Steve, never checked a word of that article before publishing it did you Steve, your scientific credibility is in the toilet isn't it Steve, you can be found in all the old Ainslie threads supporting her bogus claims can't you Steve, you sure sound like Steve to me... Steve.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Strange-Case-of-the-Ro-by-Steve-Windisch-ji-091219-425.html
I have watched you hunt down people for years, stalking them thread to thread, using your logical fallacy weapon to wear them down until they lose it and quit, a war of attrition waged on this community, by you. I have had enough of it, so, I have sent Stephan a PM formally requesting that you be permanently banned from this forum for your behaviour and level of scientific contribution to this community. If Stephan has not banned you by 25th December 2012, 10 days time, I will formally request that he ban me permanently instead. Either way a decision must be made, he is going to lose one of us, it will be up to the community to decide if Stephan's choice is the correct one, or not.
hey chickenhawk... i see you're still holding a grudge because i called out your logical fallacies and gross hyperbole in the "How do you make Money from an overunity device that can not be patented?" thread... ::)
get over, move on with your life... i have. ;)
NOW... back to question you keep avoiding with your damned red herring and ad hominem logical fallacies...top comment @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8
Quote from: TinselKoalaRosemary, I strongly recommend that you drop this silly story and move on with your life. I have.
has he now? has he 'dropped this story and moved on with his life'?
A SIMPLE YES OR NO IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED... SO WHICH IS IT? YES? or NO?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 15, 2012, 06:39:58 AM
except, the boy who cried wolf didn't see any wolves... and yet when i cry logical fallacy there ALWAYS IS ONE...AND THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THIS
The record demonstrates you constantly use the phrase 'logical fallacy,' and others, when there is none. It's quite absurd and you should stop.
The Thread is now closed, cause it has only gone into flamewars with no real content anymore.